Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    Ople Vs Torres

    Uploaded by

    Ian
    The document is a summary of a court case regarding the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308, which established a national computerized identification system. The court ruled that the order violated citizens' right to privacy as guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution. Specifically, the court found that while the government's stated interests were compelling, the order was too broad and vague, and posed serious risks of abuse by giving individuals little control over their personal data. Therefore, the court declared Administrative Order No. 308 to be unconstitutional and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ople Vs Torres

    Uploaded by

    Ian
    62 views1 page
    The document is a summary of a court case regarding the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308, which established a national computerized identification system. The court ruled that the order violated citizens' right to privacy as guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution. Specifically, the court found that while the government's stated interests were compelling, the order was too broad and vague, and posed serious risks of abuse by giving individuals little control over their personal data. Therefore, the court declared Administrative Order No. 308 to be unconstitutional and void.

    Original Description:

    Statutory Construction

    Original Title

    Ople vs Torres

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is a summary of a court case regarding the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308, which established a national computerized identification system. The court ruled that the order violated citizens' right to privacy as guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution. Specifically, the court found that while the government's stated interests were compelling, the order was too broad and vague, and posed serious risks of abuse by giving individuals little control over their personal data. Therefore, the court declared Administrative Order No. 308 to be unconstitutional and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views1 page

    Ople Vs Torres

    Uploaded by

    Ian
    The document is a summary of a court case regarding the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308, which established a national computerized identification system. The court ruled that the order violated citizens' right to privacy as guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution. Specifically, the court found that while the government's stated interests were compelling, the order was too broad and vague, and posed serious risks of abuse by giving individuals little control over their personal data. Therefore, the court declared Administrative Order No. 308 to be unconstitutional and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    PRESIDENTIAL ISSUANCES

    GR No. 127685. July 23, 1998

    FACTS:

    This is a petition raised by Senator Blas Ople to invalidate the Administrative Order No. 308 or the Adoption
    of a National Computerized Identification Reference System issued by President Fidel V. Ramos. 

    The petitioner contends that the implementation of the said A.O. will violate the rights of the citizens of
    privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not A.O. No. 308 violates the right of privacy.

    HELD:

    Yes.

    The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it
    is fully deserving of constitutional protection.

    The right of privacy is guaranteed in several provisions of the Constitution:

    "Sections 3 (1), 1, 2, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights


    "Sec. 3. 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. 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. 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."


    The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, 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. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two considerations: (1) the need to provide our citizens and foreigners
    with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic service and social security providers and other
    government instrumentalities and (2) the need to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and
    misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. It is debatable whether these interests are compelling
    enough to warrant the issuance of A.O. No. 308. 

    But what is not arguable is the broadness, the vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if
    implemented will put our people's right to privacy in clear and present danger. The possibilities of abuse and
    misuse of the PRN, biometrics and computer technology are accentuated when we consider that the
    individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of the data
    encoded. They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.

    The petition is granted and declared the Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National
    Computerized Identification Reference System" null and void for being unconstitutional.

    You might also like