Ople v.

Torres

Summary of the case: A petition praying to invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 or the Adpotion of
a National Computerized Identification Reference System on two grounds: (1) it is an usurpation of the
power of the Congress to legislate and (2) intrudes a citizens protected zone of privacy.

FACTS:

Fidel V. Ramos issued on Dec. 12, 1996, A.O 308 Adpotion of a National Computerized
Identification Reference System
o A.O. 308 published in different newspapers of general circulation
Petitioner filed instant petition against the Executive Sec. Torres and heads of the different
government agencies that are part of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (committee in
charge of the A.O. 308s implementation) SC issued TRO enjoining the A.O.s implementation.
Petitioners Arguments and Repondents Counter-argument
o
Issuance of A.O. 308 is an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative powers of
the Congress
A.O. 308 was issued within the executive and administrative powers of the
president

o
Appropriation of public funds by the President for the implementation of A.O.
308 is an unconstitutional usurpation of the power of Congress to appropriate
public funds
Funds necessary for the implementation will come from the budgets of the
difference government agencies involved in A.O. 308
o
Implementation of A.O. 308 lays the groundwork for a system which will violate
the bill of rights in our constitution.
A.O. 308 protects an individuals interest in privacy.

Issue/s:

W/N Petition is a justiciable case

W/ N A.O. 308 is an administrative order but a law which is beyond the power of the President
W/N AO 308 violates a persons right to privacy
Held/Ratio:

1. W/N the petition is a justiciable case?

Petitioner has standing as a legislator and a taxpayer specifically as a member of the
GSIS.
o Petitioner suit as a senator - issue regarding the issuance of A.O. 308 as a
usurpation of legislative powers.
o As a taxpayer and a member of the GSIS he can question the legality of the
misappropriation of public funds and the misuse of the GSIS funds for the
implementation of A.O. 308.
Respondents argument re: ripeness of adjudication (premature bc no implementing
rules yet)
o Action is not premature, implementing rules yet to be promulgated will not cure
the fatal defects of the act.
o Respondents started the implementation of A.O. 308
SSS published notice to bud for the manufacturing of the National
Identification card.
Executive Sec. Announced reps from the GSIS and the SSS completed
the guidelines for the national indentification system.
2. W/N A.O. 308 is an administrative order but a law which is beyond the power of the President.

YES AO 308 is a law and not an administrative order

A.O 308 not an administrative order.

o Administrative Order an ordinance issued by President which relates to specific
aspects in the administrative operation in the government. Sole purpose is
implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.
o The administrative order redefines the parameters of some basic rights as well as
the line that separates administrative power of the President and the legislative
power of the congress.
Respondents argue that it implements the Administrative Code of 1987
o Court does not agree. AO 308 implements for the first time a National Identification
Reference system which requires delicate adjustments to the contending state
policies.
AO 308 is not a law because if confers no right
o AO 308 is a law
o Under A0 308, a citizen cannot transact business with government agencies without
the identification card. Shows that without the ID citizens will have a hard time in
exercising their rights and privileges.
3. W/N AO 308 violates a persons right to privacy.
Yes, AO 308 is broad and vague and if implemented will put the peoples right to privacy in
danger
 Right to privacy is a fundamental right
o Burden is on the government to show that AO 308 does not violate a persons right
to privacy.
o Right to privacy expressly recognized in our Constitution through various provisions
in the Bill of Rights.
AO 308 VAGUE AND NOT NARROWLY DRAWN
o SECTION 4 use of biometrics
AO 308 does not state what specific biometrics technology shall be used to
identify people who will seek its coverage.
o Order does not state clearly who the information gathered shall be handled, does
not provide who shall control and access data.
o Lacks proper safeguard and not narrowly drawn.
o fatal on its face in a sense that it gives the IACC (implementing body) unlimited
discretion to determine the metes and bounds of the ID System.
Reasonableness of a persons expectation of privacy 2 part test:
o Whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy
o Whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable

AO 308, so widely drawn there is no minimum standard for a reasonable expectation of

privacy.

DISSENTS:

KAPUNAN

Not an usurpation of legislative powers. The Administrative Code of 1987 unequivocally vested
the President with quasi-legislative powers
o As an administrative head it is the responsibility of the President to find ways to
improve the government bureaucracy. National Computerized Identification Reference
System purpose is to provide convenience for people in various government
transactions and streamline the bureaucracy system to achieve administrative
efficiency.
o Strict adherence to the doctrine of SOP is neither desirable nor feasible.
o Modern view to SOP pragmatic, flexible, functional and giving recognition tht there
may be a certain degree of blending of the powers.
Petition is premature because the IACC is still in the process of creating the rules which would
codify and formalize the details of the new system.
Right of privacy of the citizens is protected through the Bill of Rights, the Penal code and certain
special laws.
MENDOZA

Under AO 308, nothing that is not already being required by the agencies is required in the
questioned Order. Order simply organizes the agencies of the government into a system.
Ao 308 not a statute. It confers no right; it imposes no duty; affords not protection and creates
no office.
Case is premature because IRR has yet to be promulgated.
Petitioner cannot bring suit as a taxpayer because SSS and GSIS do not receive budgetary
support from the government, they are considered self-supporting.
Petitioner cannot have standing as Senator becayse no power of Congress has been impaired.