& Members of the As taxpayer and member of GSIS, he can
G.R. No. 127685 | July 23, 1998 Inter-agency coordinating question the legality of the use of public Supreme Court committee funds ● A TRO was issued to enjoin the Action not premature because the PETITIONER: Blas Ople implementation of AO No. 308 committee has begun the AO’s RESPONDENTS: Ruben D. Torres, Alex implementation already without waiting for Habito, Robert Barbers, Carmencita the rules Reodica, Cesar Sarino Renato Valencia, Petitioner’s Arguments: SSS already issued a notice to bid for the Tomas Africa, Head of the Natl Computer (1) Establishment of Nat’l Computerized National ID card Center and Chairman of the Commision on Identification Ref. System requires a Audit legislative act SolGen argues that the Court should ● Unconstitutional since president validate the A.O. because of the rational TOPIC was the one who issued this relationship test on the ff. Grounds Legislative Standing (2) Appropriation of public funds by the (1) Streamline and speed up the president implementation of basic gov’t LAWS ● unconstitutitonal services Administrative Order (A.O.) 308 ● Infringed on Congress’ right to (2) Eradicate fraud by avoiding Adoption of a National Computerized appropriate funds duplication of services Identification Reference System (3) AO 308 will violate the bill of rights (3) Generate population data for dev’t Sec 4 Population Reference Number planning PRN will serve as a common reference # Respondents counter-argue: The ff. Cases are not on point with the to establish a linkage among concerned (1) instant petition is not a justiciable case case at bar agencies + Biometrics technology and (2) AO 308 was issued within exec. And ● Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices computer application designs administrative powers of the president (Act RA3019) → but court said 1. Usurpation (encroachment) of the w/o encroaching on the leg. Powers of this is different because the law power of the Congress to legislate Congress was enacted for morality in public 2. Impermissibly intrudes on (3) funds for the implementation of the administration citizenry’s protected zone of reference system may be sourced from → RA 3019 is clearly stated and is statute privacy concerned agencies’ budget NOT an admin order (4) AO 308 protects an individual’s interest ● Controlled Substances Act 1972 in privacy Record of the names of persons who obtained certain drugs with possibility of FACTS Court said: abuse → statute did not pose a grievous ● Sen. Blas Ople filed a PETITION Petitioner Ople has standing as a Senator threat to establish a consti violation to the SC to review a decision of can question issuance of the AO → orderly and rational legislative decision: Specified who can access data > acts of the president which relate to > cannot give the discretion to enforcers if Procedure and reqs for retrieval of particular aspects of gov’t operation the provisions are unclear information was clear in the provisions > should be in harmony with the law → as compared to A.O. 308 these were Panganiban: not laid out Legislative power is the authority under the > Concur with AO 308 going beyond exec. Constitution to make laws, and to alter Powers and repeal them. > dissent with the issue of privacy: ISSUE Topic is still unripe / speculative because it ● W/N the A.O. 308 is not a mere President has the power to execute the is until after the Congress passes it into a administrative order but a law. laws. law when they can scrutinize the provisions Did the president exercise a legislative Duty to supervise enforcement of laws through a proper petition power belonging to the Congress? ● W/N A.O. 308 establishes a HOLDING (RATIO) DISSENTING OPINION system of identification that is all- ● Petition granted. encompassing in scope and will ● A.O. 308 declared null and void Kapunan: violate the citizen’s right to privacy. for being unconstitutional > ID will aid in facilitation of public transactions; speed up JUDGMENT The court does not discredit the value of > Primer given by SSS mentions that the ● Yes. A.O. 308 resembles a law technology, however, the A.O. should be ID is voluntary, will just standardize ID because it establishes a Nat’l backed with proper safeguards and well- cards for SSS and GSIS Computerized ID Reference defined standards to prevent mishaps and > quasi-legislative power of President System for the first time; as such, abuse of privacy. comes in will require a delicate adjustment > issue is still unripe, Inter-Agency of various contending state DICTA Coordinating Committee is not yet fully policies. (primacy of national established security, extent of privacy interest) SEPARATE OPINION > essential guidelines not yet laid out, no ● Yes. A.O. 308 violates the Romero (concur) need to fear advanced Biometrics constitutional right to privacy. (cites No to “Big Brother” / authoritarian rule technology because it will be used only for penumbra of the bill of rights from > however, the word privacy is not in the basic services and to reduce fraudulent Griswold v. Connecticut) lexicon of Filipinos transactions > cites that SolGen says that the SSS and GSIS are already self-sustaining; expenses-wise Administrative Orders: Vitug: > President has administrative powers to make sure laws are enforced On the issue of illegal transfer of appropriations: Member agencies are the ones implementing this > supplies and materials system for the improved ID card
Mendoza: > A.O. involves the all-important freedom of thought > redefines parameters of basic rights of our citizenry
> A.O. 308 is not law because it
confers no right, imposes no duty, affords no protection and creates no office
Majority argues that → a citizen cannot
transact business with gov’t without the ID card > citizen will have difficulty exercising rights and enjoying his privileges
Grant Huscroft, Bradley W. Miller, Grégoire Webber - Proportionality and The Rule of Law - Rights, Justification, Reasoning (2016, Cambridge University Press)