Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ople Vs Torres
Ople Vs Torres
G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 AO 308 seeks to create a unified ID system are from the budgets of the
Justice Puno for all basic services of the government. concerned agencies
The respondents in this case are members (4) AO 308 protects the individual’s
PETITIONER: Blas Ople of the Inter-Agency Coordinating right to privacy
RESPONDENTS: Ruben Torres, Alexander Committee charged with the
Aguirre, Hector Villanueva, Cielito Habito, implementation of AO 308. ISSUES:
Robert Barbers, Carmencita Reodica, Cesar (1) W/N Ople has legal standing
Sarino, Renato Valencia, Tomas Africa, CONTENTIONS: (2) W/N the case is justiciable or ripe
Head of the National Computer Center Petitioner: (3) W/N the issuance of AO 308 is a
and Chairman of the Commission on Audit (1) The establishment of a national ID usurpation of the powers of Congress
system requires a legislative act, (4) W/N the AO violates the right to
TOPIC: Legislative Standing and therefore a usurpation of privacy
LAWS INVOLVED: Legislative powers
∙ AO 308 (2) The appropriation of public funds HOLDING:
for the implementation of AO 308 On legal standing of Ople – Yes, Ople has
∙ Sec. 3, Title I, Book III, of the Administrative is a usurpation of Congress’ standing to sue as a Senator and as a
Code exclusive right to appropriate taxpayer.
∙ Sec. 3(1), Art III, 1987 Constitution public funds
(3) The implementation of AO 308 As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the
FACTS: Petitioner Ople questions the violates the Bill of Rights, requisite standing to bring suit raising the
validity of Administrative Order No. 308 particularly on the rights to issue that the issuance of AO 308 is a
(Adoption of a National Computerized privacy usurpation of legislative power.
Identification Reference System) issued by
President Ramos on the following Respondents: As taxpayer and member of the
grounds: (1) The case is not justiciable Government Service Insurance System
(1) it is a usurpation of the power of (2) The issuance of AO 308 was within (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the
Congress to legislate the executive powers of the legality of the misuse of GSIS and public
(2) it intrudes on the protected zone President funds to implement AO 308.
On the ripeness/justiciability of the case – administrative head shall be agencies delivering basic services without
Yes, the petition at bar is not affected by promulgated in administrative orders. the ID. The ID would grant a citizen the
the fact that the IRR of AO 308 have yet exercise of his rights and enjoyment of his
to be promulgated. AOs are ordinances issued by the privileges.
President relating to specific aspects in the
Petitioner Ople assails AO 308 as invalid administrative operation of government. It On the alleged violation of right to
on its face. His action is not premature must for the sole purpose of privacy – Yes, AO 308 violates the Right
because the subsequent promulgation of implementing the law and carrying out to Privacy under the Constitution.
the IRR will not cure the defects of the AO the legislative policy.
itself. Moreover, the respondents have The right of privacy is recognized in
started the implementation of AO 308 AO 308 does not implement the section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights:
without waiting for the rules. legislative policy of the Administrative Sec. 3(1): The privacy of communication
Code as argued by the respondents. It and correspondence shall be inviolable
establishes a National Computerized ID except upon lawful order of the court,
The dissenters’ insistence that the Court
Reference System that requires or when public safety or order requires
tighten the rule on standing would otherwise as prescribed by law.
prejudice an important constitutional adjustments on two contending state
principle and a fundamental right. policies — the primacy of national
The right to privacy is a fundamental right
security, and the extent of privacy
and government should show that AO 308
On whether the issuance of AO 308 interest. Even Justice Mendoza’s dissent
is justified by some compelling state
encroaches on Legislative powers – Yes, states that the AO involves the all
interest and that it is narrowly drawn in
AO 308 involves a subject should not be important freedom of thought. This
order for it to be valid. Neither of the
covered by an administrative order but subject matter should be embodied in a
requirements are present.
by a law. law and not on an AO.
DISSENTS:
Kapunan, J – the Admin Code has
unequivocally vested the President with
quasi-legislative powers in the form of Eos,
AOs, etc. The order will enable citizens to
conveniently transact with government
agencies, a power that is vested in the
President as the administrative head. It is
his/her duty to improve government
bureaucracy.