7/29/2019 Ople vs Torres Et Now

1/2

Ople vs Torres et.al.; G.R. No. 127685, July23, 1998

FACTS: Administrative Order No. 308 entitled Adoption ot a NationalComputerized Identification Reference System was issued byPresident Fidel V. Ramos and was published in four newspapers of

general circulation. It aims to establish a decentralized IdentificationReference System among the key basic services and social securityproviders. There shall be a Population Reference Number (PRN) foreach individual and all basic and social security transactions shall beregulated by the PRN with the use of Biometrics Technology. Thefunding shall be sourced from the respective budgets of the concernedagencies like GSIS, SSS, NSO and others.

Petitioner Bias Ople assailed the Administrative Order and prayed forits nullification on two important constitutional grounds: one, it is ausurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it

impermissibly intrudes on our citizens protected zone of privacy. Thepetitioner claims that AO No. 308 is not a mere administrative orderbut a law and hence, beyond the power of the President to issue. Onthe other hand, the respondents maintain that the President hasmerely exercised his administrative power in implementing thelegislative policy of the Administrative Code of 1987 and that A.O. No.308 is not a law for it confers no right,imposes no duty, affords noprotection and creates no office.

On the right of privacy, claims that A.O. No. 308 will infringe on thepeoples right to be let alone while respondents deny such allegation.

ISSUES: Whether or not A.O. No. 308 encroaches on the law-makingpower of the legislative department; whether or not A.O. No. 308infringes the peoples right of privacy.

HELD:A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to becovered by an administrative order. An administrative order is anordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects inthe administrative operation of government, It must be in harmony

with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the

law and carrying out the legislative policy. It cannot besimplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely implements the

Administrative Code of 1987 for the former establishes for the firsttime a National Computerized Identification Reference System. Nor isit correct to argue that A.O. 308 is not a law for it confers no right,imposes no.duty, affords no protection, and creates no office. Underthe assailed administrative order, a citizen cannot transact business

with government agencies delivering basic services to the people

7/29/2019 Ople vs Torres Et Now

2/2

without the contemplated identification card. Thus, without the ID, acitizen will have difficulty exercising his rights and enjoying hisprivileges. Given this reality, the contention that A.O. No. 308 givesno right and imposes no duty cannot stand.

Regarding the right of privacy, it is a right recognized and enshrinedin the several provisions of our Constitution, and in our laws. Hence,it is the burden of government to show, that A.O. No. 308 is justified

by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. Tonote, what is not arguable is the broadness, the vagueness, theoverbreadth of A.O. No 308 which if implemented will put ourpeoples right to privacy in clear and present danger.

It is noteworthy that A.O. No. 308 does riot state what specificbiological characteristics and what particular biometrics technologyshall be used to identify people who will seek its coverage; it does notstate whether encoding of data is limited to biological informationalone for identification purposes; and it does not state in clear andcategorical terms how theses information gathered shall be handled.The A. 0. speaks of computer linkage which will give othergovernmental agencies access to the information. Yet, there are nocontrols to guard against leakage of information. The possibilities ofabuse and misuse of the PRN, biometric and computer technologycannot be downplayed.