OPLE V.

TORRES
G.R. No. 127685
23 July 1998
Puno, J.

SUBJECT MATTER:
Judicial Review: Requisites of Judicial Review

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

Sec 3, Ch 2, Title I, Book III, Administrative Code of 1987
“Administrative Orders. - Acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental operation in pursuance of
his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.”

Griswold v. Connecticut
“Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras formed by emanations from these guarantees that help give them
life and substance … various guarantees create zones of privacy...”

Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution

“Sec 1 - No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws.
Sec 2 - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Sec 3(1) - The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Sec 6 - The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Sec 8 - The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Sec 17 - No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

PETITION to review a decision of the Executive Secretary and the Members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee.

Petitioner(s): Blas F. Ople

Parties
Respondent(s): Ruben D. Torres, Alexander Aguirre, Hector Villanueva, Cielito Habito, Robert Barbers, Carmencita
Reodica, Cesar Sarino, Renato Valencia, Tomas P. Africa, Head of the National Computer Center, and
Chairman of the Commission on Audit

SUMMARY:
Administrative Order No. 308 was issued by the President to establish a National Computerized Identification Reference
System. It aims to make transactions with basic services and social security providers more efficient by having a single reference ID
number to be used in the concerned agencies. Petitioner claimed that by issuing the AO, the President usurps that power of the
Congress to legislate and violates the citizen’s right to privacy. Respondents counter-argued that the case is not justiciable that
warrants a judicial review, the AO was issued within the powers of the President, and the AO protects the individual’s interest in
privacy.
C2023(ABENIDO) - LAW 121, GATMAYTAN
 The Court ruled that the petitioner has legal standing to raise the case and that the case was ripe for adjudication even
though the rules have yet been promulgated since the fatal defects cannot be remedied by these rules. On the substantive issues of
the case, the Court ruled that the AO did overstep on the legislative power of the congress since its subject is not appropriate to be
covered by an AO. By showing that the right to privacy is recognized and enshrined in the different provisions of the Constitution and
in the different laws, the AO violates this right on the grounds that the issuance was not drawn narrowly enough to avoid the abuse
and misuse of information. Thus, the AO is declared null and void for being unconstitutional.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● AO 308: Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System
○ Issued by President Ramos on 12 Dec 1996
○ In essence, the AO is the establishment of a computerized ID reference system with the objective of convenient
transaction business with basic services and social security providers.
○ An inter-agency coordinating council was also formed among the concerned government agencies to implement
the system: NEDA, DILG, DOH, GSIS, SSS, NSO, NCC
○ How they will do this: NSO will create a Population Reference Number (PRN). NCC will develop a biometrics system
applying the PRN and appropriating it to the database of the different agencies.
○ An Information Dissemination Campaign, led by the Office of the Press Sec, NSO, SSS, and GSIS, will be conducted
to educate and raise public awareness.
○ Funds necessary shall be sourced from the respective budgets of the concerned agencies.
● Petitioner contends the following points:
○ Issuance of AO 308 usurps the legislative powers of the Congress.
○ Appropriation of funds to implement AO 308 usurps Congress’ exclusive right to appropriate public funds.
○ Implementation of AO 308 lays the groundwork for a system that will violate the Bill of Rights.
● Respondents counter-argue:
○ The instant petition is not a justiciable case warranting a judicial review.
○ AO 308 was issued within the executive and administrative powers of the president.
○ The funds necessary may be sourced from the budgets of the concerned agencies.
○ AO 308 protects an individual’s interest in privacy.

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

1. WON the instant petition is a justiciable case warranting a judicial review -- YES
2. WON AO 308 is not an administrative order but a law, which is beyond the power of the President --YES
3. WON AO 308 violates the right to privacy -- YES

RATIO:
1. Ople has legal standing to petition the case and the case is ripe for adjudication even if the implementing rules of AO 308
have yet to be promulgated.
○ Standing: As Senator, petitioner can claim that the issuance AO 308 infringes on his prerogatives as legislator. As
taxpayer and member of GSIS, he can argue that there is misalignment and misuse of GSIS funds to implement AO
308.
○ Ripeness: Even though the rules have not been promulgated, it cannot cure the fatal defects of AO 308. Also, the
respondents have already started the implementation without waiting for the rules.
i. SSS published a notice to bid for the manufacture of the National ID card.
ii. Exec Sec Torres have announced that GSIS and SSS have completed the guidelines for the National ID
system.
2. AO 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order.
○ Administrative Order - ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative
operation of the government.

C2023(ABENIDO) - LAW 121, GATMAYTAN

 ○ AO 308 does not merely implement the Administrative Code of 1987, which is a general code that contains the
major structural, functional and procedural principles in governance and embodies changes in administrative
structures and procedures designed to serve the people.
○ The establishment of the National Computerized ID Reference System requires a delicate adjustment of various
contending state policies and redefines the parameters of some basic rights of our citizenry vis-a-vis the State.
○ However, it is not correct to argue that AO 308 is not a law because it confers no right and imposes no duty.
Without the National ID card, it disallows a person to exercise their right to transact business with government
agencies delivering basic services.
3. AO 308 violates the right to privacy therefore it is unconstitutional.
○ Right to Privacy was first manifested in Griswold v. Connecticut, ruling that the Right can be found within the
penumbras of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments.
○ Morfe v. Mutuc adopted the Griswold ruling, saying that the right to privacy is recognized and enshrined in several
provisions of the Constitution and our laws.
i. Sec 1, 2, 3(1), 6, 8, 17 of Bill of Rights
ii. Art 26, 32, 723 of the Civil Code
iii. Art 229, 280, 290-292 of the Revised Penal Code
iv. Special Laws - Anti-Wiretapping Law, Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, Intellectual Property Law
○ AO 308 falls short of assuring that personal information will be gathered will only be processed for unequivocally
specified purposes.
i. Does not state which specific biological characteristics and what biometrics technology will be used.
ii. Does not state whether encoding of data is limited to biological information alone for identification
purposes.
iii. Does not state how who shall control and access the data, under what circumstances and for what
purpose.
iv. No controls to guard against leakage of information, which makes it susceptible to abuse and misuse.
○ AO 308 is fatal on its face given that the IACC has unlimited discretion to determine the metes and bounds of the
ID system.
○ Regardless of how worthy the purpose of the law is, it does not preclude the fact that it is not drawn narrowly
enough to avoid abuse.

DISPOSITIVE:
Petition GRANTED and AO 308 declared NULL and VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

MAIN DISSENTING OPINION:

● Kapunan, J.
○ A.O. No. 308 was promulgated by the President pursuant to the quasi-legislative powers expressly granted to him
by law and in accordance with his duty as administrative head.
■ It is unquestionably the responsibility of the President to find ways and means to improve the
government bureaucracy, and make it more professional, efficient and reliable.
○ It is premature for the Court to determine the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the National Computerized
ID Reference System.
■ No guidelines have been issued yet. SSS’s invitation to bid cannot be considered as the implementation of
the ID system itself.
○ No need to fear advanced Biometrics technology because it will be used only for basic services and to reduce
fraudulent transactions
○ SSS and GSIS are already self-sustaining expenses-wise
● Mendoza, J.
○ AO involves the all-important freedom of thought
○ Redefines parameters of basic rights of our citizenry
○ AO is not a law because it confers no right, imposes no duty, affords no protection and creates no office

C2023(ABENIDO) - LAW 121, GATMAYTAN

SEPARATE OPINIONS:
● Romero, J.
○ The concept of privacy cannot be found in Philippine Culture. Filipinos think it is perfectly natural and in good taste
to inquire into each other’s intimate affairs.
○ AO 308 may lead into a totalitarian rule, with “Big Brother” looking over our shoulders.
● Vitug, J.
○ Cannot give the discretion to enforcers if the provisions are unclear.
● Panganiban, J.
○ AO 308 is beyond the powers of the President to regulate without legislative enactment.
○ Judgement on the issue of whether a national ID system infringes upon the constitutional right to privacy must be
done after Congress passes a law to this effect.

C2023(ABENIDO) - LAW 121, GATMAYTAN