Blas F.

Ople
vs.
Ruben Torres, et al.

354 Phil. 948

July 23, 1998
G.R. No. 127685.

Presented by Marc Gabriel Abella

 Facts of the Case

A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on December 12,
1996 and reads as follows:
"ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION
REFERENCE SYSTEM.”
A.O. No. 308 was published in four newspapers of general circulation on
January 22, 1997 and January 23, 1997.
 Facts of the Case

"ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM

WHEREAS, there is a need to provide Filipino citizens and foreign
residents with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic
service and social security providers and other government
instrumentalities;

WHEREAS, this will require a computerized system to properly and

efficiently identify persons seeking basic services on social security and
reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and
misrepresentations;

WHEREAS, a concerted and collaborative effort among the various basic

services and social security providing agencies and other government
instrumentalities is required to achieve such a system;
 Facts of the Case

"ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby direct
the following:

SECTION 1. Establishment of a National Computerized Identification

Reference System. A decentralized Identification Reference System
among the key basic services and social security providers is hereby
established.

SEC. 2 Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee. An Inter-Agency

Coordinating Committee (IACC) to draw-up the implementing guidelines
and oversee the implementation of the System is hereby created,
chaired by the Executive Secretary, with the following as members:
 Facts of the Case

"ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM

SEC. 3. Secretariat. The National Computer Center (NCC) is hereby
designated as secretariat to the IACC and as such shall provide
administrative and technical support to the IACC.

SEC. 4. Linkage Among Agencies. The Population Reference Number

(PRN) generated by the NSO shall serve as the common reference
number to establish a linkage among concerned agencies. The IACC
Secretariat shall coordinate with the different Social Security and
Services Agencies to establish the standards in the use of Biometrics
Technology and in computer application designs of their respective
systems.
 Facts of the Case

"ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM

SEC. 5. Conduct of Information Dissemination Campaign. The Office of

the Press Secretary, in coordination with the National Statistics Office,
the GSIS and SSS as lead agencies and other concerned agencies shall
undertake a massive tri-media information dissemination campaign to
educate and raise public awareness on the importance and use of the
PRN and the Social Security Identification Reference.

SEC. 6. Funding. The funds necessary for the implementation of the

system shall be sourced from the respective budgets of the concerned
agencies.
 Facts of the Case

"ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM

SEC. 7. Submission of Regular Reports. The NSO, GSIS and SSS shall
submit regular reports to the Office of the President, through the IACC,
on the status of implementation of this undertaking.

SEC. 8. Effectivity. This Administrative Order shall take effect

immediately.
 Facts of the Case

On January 24, 1997, petitioner filed the instant petition against

respondents, then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and the
heads of the government agencies, who as members of the
Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee, are charged with the
implementation of A.O. No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining its implementation.
 Arguments of the Petitioner

1. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION

REFERENCE SYSTEM REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE ACT. THE ISSUANCE OF A.O. NO.
308 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS, THEREFORE, AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.
2. THE APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY THE PRESIDENT FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. NO. 308 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION OF THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC FUNDS FOR
EXPENDITURE.
3. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. NO. 308 INSIDIOUSLY LAYS THE GROUNDWORK
FOR A SYSTEM WHICH WILL VIOLATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
 Arguments of the Respondent

1. THE INSTANT PETITION IS NOT A JUSTICIABLE CASE AS WOULD WARRANT A

JUDICIAL REVIEW;
2. A.O. NO. 308 WAS ISSUED WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON THE LEGISLATIVE
POWERS OF CONGRESS;
3. THE FUNDS NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IDENTIFICATION
REFERENCE SYSTEM MAY BE SOURCED FROM THE BUDGETS OF THE
CONCERNED AGENCIES;
4. A.O. NO. 308 PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST IN PRIVACY.
 Clashing Points of Arguments

Petitioner Respondent
the petition is not a justiciable
controversy
A.O. 308 should be passed through A.O. 308 was within the administrative
congress powers of the president
A.O. No. 308 is an unconstitutional
usurpation of the exclusive right of the funds is sourced from the budgets of
congress to appropriate public funds for the concerned agencies
expenditure

A.O. No. 308 insidiously lays the groundwork for

A.O. No. 308 protects an individual's
a system which will violate the bill of rights
enshrined in the constitution. interest in privacy.
1. Whether or not the petition reached the
threshold required in judicial review.

2. Whether or not the scope and effect of A.O.

No. 308 is within the power of the president
to issue.

3. Whether or not A.O. 308 violates the

enshrined right to privacy.
 1. Yes, the petition reached the threshold required in judicial review.
Particularly: (1) legal standing, (2) actual case and controversy

Legal Standing

Petitioner Ople is a distinguished member of our Senate. As a

Senator, petitioner is possessed of the requisite standing to bring suit
raising the issue that the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation of
legislative power. As taxpayer and member of the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the legality of the
misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement
A.O. No. 308.
 1. Yes, the petition reached the threshold required in judicial review.
Particularly: (1) legal standing, (2) actual case and controversy

Actual Case and Controversy

The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected by
the fact that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be
promulgated. His action is not premature for the rules yet to be
promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects. Moreover, the respondents
themselves have started the implementation of A.O. No. 308 without
waiting for the rules. As early as January 19, 1997, respondent Social
Security System (SSS) caused the publication of a notice to bid for the
manufacture of the National Identification (ID) card. All signals from the
respondents show their unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308 and we
need not wait for the formality of the rules to pass judgment on its
constitutionality.
 2. NO, The promulgation is not within the powers of the president to issue

Basis
Legislative power is "the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws,
and to alter and repeal them." The Constitution, as the will of the people in
their original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in
the Congress of the Philippines. In fine, except as limited by the
Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, legislative power embraces all
subjects and extends to matters of general concern or common interest.
 2. NO, The promulgation is not within the powers of the president to issue

Basis
The President executes the laws. The executive power is vested in
the President. It is generally defined as the power to enforce and
administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical
operation and enforcing their due observance. He has control over the
executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the
authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department,
bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Thus, he
is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his
control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.
 2. NO, The promulgation is not within the powers of the president to issue

How does the President exercise administrative power?

An administrative order is:
"Sec. 3. 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.“

An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to

specific aspects in the 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.
 2. NO, The promulgation is not within the powers of the president to issue

Resolution of the Supreme Court:

We reject the argument that A.O. No. 308 implements the legislative policy of the
Administrative Code of 1987. The Code is a general law and "incorporates in a
unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles of
governance" and "embodies changes in administrative structures and procedures
designed to serve the people.“

It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely implements the
Administrative Code of 1987. It establishes for the first time a National
Computerized Identification Reference System. Such a System requires a delicate
adjustment of various contending state policies-- the primacy of national security,
the extent of privacy interest against dossier-gathering by government, the choice
of policies, etc.
 2. NO, The promulgation is not within the powers of the president to issue

Resolution of the Supreme Court:

Nor is it correct to argue as the dissenters do that A.O. No. 308 is not a law because
it confers no right, imposes no duty, affords no protection, and creates no office.
Under A.O. No. 308, a citizen cannot transact business with government agencies
delivering basic services to the people without the contemplated identification card.
No citizen will refuse to get this identification card for no one can avoid dealing with
government. It is thus clear as daylight that without the ID, a citizen will have
difficulty exercising his rights and enjoying his privileges. Given this reality, the
contention that A.O. No. 308 gives no right and imposes no duty cannot stand.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Basis:
American Jurisprudence
(1) Griswold v Connecticut
(2) Morfe v. Mutuc
Philippine Constitution
(1) Sec 3 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
(2) Sec 1 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
(3) Sec 2 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
(4) Sec 6 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
(5) Sec 8 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
(6) Sec 17 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Basis:
Griswold vs. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court held that the right to privacy has
constitutional foundation. It states:
“Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras formed by emanations
from these guarantees that help give them life and substance. x x x. Various
guarantees create zones of privacy.
First Amendment = right to assosiaction
Third Ammendement = the prohibition against the quartering of solideirs ‘in anay
house in time of peace without the consent of the owner
Fourth Amendement = the right of the people against unreasonable searches and
seizures
Fifth Amendement= right to self incrimination
Ninth Amendement = rights that shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Basis:
Morfe vs. Mutuc

The Griswold case invalidated a Connecticut statue which made the use of
contraceptives a criminal offense on the ground of its amounting to an
unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy of married persons; rightfully it
stressed ‘ a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created several fundamental
constitution guarantees.; it has wider implications though the constitutional right to
privacy has come into its own.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Basis:
Sec 3 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution states:
"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 1 Article 3 states:
“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.”
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Basis:
Sec 2 Article 3 states:
“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.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Basis:
Sec 6 Article 3 states:
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 Article 3 states:
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 Article 3 states:
Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Other Basis Aside from the Constitution:

The Civil Code provides that "[e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons" and punishes as
actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy of
another.
The Revised Penal Code makes a crime the violation of secrets by an officer, the
revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and trespass to dwelling. Invasion of
privacy is an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law, the Secrecy of
Bank Deposit Act

The Rules of Court on privileged communication likewise recognize the privacy of

certain information.[44]
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Resolution of the Supreme Court:

we prescind from the premise that 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.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Resolution of the Supreme Court:

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.

Questions:
Which parts are vague?
How will it put the people’s right to privacy in clear and present danger?
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

The Parts that are vague:

The heart of A.O. No. 308 lies in its Section 4 which provides for a Population
Reference Number (PRN) as a "common reference number to establish a linkage
among concerned agencies" through the use of "Biometrics Technology" and
"computer application designs.“
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.
Biometrics
A most common form of biological encoding is finger-scanning where technology
scans a fingertip and turns the unique pattern therein into an individual number
xxx
Another method is the retinal scan. Retinal scan technology employs optical
technology to map the capillary pattern of the retina of the eye. This technology
produces a unique print similar to a finger print.
xxx

Another biometric method is known as the "artificial nose." This device chemically
analyzes the unique combination of substances excreted from the skin of people.
xxx
The latest on the list of biometric achievements is the thermogram. Scientists have
found that by taking pictures of a face using infra-red cameras, a unique heat
distribution pattern is seen. The different densities of bone, skin, fat and blood
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Supreme Court Resolution:

It is noteworthy that A.O. No. 308 does not state what specific biological
characteristics and what particular biometrics technology shall be used
to identify people who will seek its coverage. Considering the banquet of
options available to the implementors of A.O. No. 308, the fear that it
threatens the right to privacy of our people is not groundless.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

So what? It could violate the citizen’s privacy based on where will It be used.
A.O. No. 308 should also raise our antennas for a further look will show that it does
not state whether encoding of data is limited to biological information alone for
identification purposes.

In fact, the Solicitor General claims that the adoption of the Identification
Reference System will contribute to the "generation of population data for
development planning." This is an admission that the PRN will not be used solely
for identification but for the generation of other data with remote relation to the
avowed purposes of A.O. No. 308.

Clearly, the indefiniteness of A.O. No. 308 can give the government the roving
authority to store and retrieve information for a purpose other than the identification
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.
Supreme Court Resolution:
We can even grant, arguendo, that the computer data file will be limited to the name,
address and other basic personal information about the individual. Even that
hospitable assumption will not save A.O. No. 308 from constitutional infirmity for
again said order does not tell us in clear and categorical terms how these information
gathered shall be handled.

It does not provide who shall control and access the data, under what circumstances
and for what purpose. These factors are essential to safeguard the privacy and
guaranty the integrity of the information. Well to note, the computer linkage gives
other government agencies access to the information. Yet, there are no controls to
guard against leakage of information
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

OSG’s Argument:

Solicitor General that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy with

regard to the National ID and the use of biometrics technology as it stands on
quicksand. The reasonableness of a person's expectation of privacy depends on a
two-part test:

(1) whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy;
(2) whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Responses to OSG’s Arguments:

The rules and regulations to be drawn by the IACC cannot remedy this fatal defect.
Rules and regulations merely implement the policy of the law or order. On its face, A.O.
No. 308 gives the IACC virtually unfettered discretion to determine the metes and
bounds of the ID System.

Nor do our present laws provide adequate safeguards for a reasonable expectation of
privacy. Commonwealth Act No. 591 penalizes the disclosure by any person of data
furnished by the individual to the NSO with imprisonment and fine. Republic Act No.
1161 prohibits public disclosure of SSS employment records and reports. These laws,
however, apply to records and data with the NSO and the SSS. It is not clear whether
they may be applied to data with the other government agencies forming part of the
National ID System. The need to clarify the penal aspect of A.O. No. 308 is another
reason why its enactment should be given to Congress.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

OSG arguments:

the Solicitor General urges us to validate A.O. No. 308's abridgment of the right of
privacy by using the rational relationship test. He stressed that the purposes of A.O. No.
308 are:

(1) to streamline and speed up the implementation of basic government services,

(2) eradicate fraud by avoiding duplication of services,
(3) generate population data for development planning. He concludes that these
purposes justify the incursions into the right to privacy for the means are rationally
related to the end.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Supreme Court’s Response:

We are not impressed by the argument. In Morfe v. Mutuc, we upheld the

constitutionality of R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as a valid
police power measure. We declared that the law, in compelling a public officer to make
an annual report disclosing his assets and liabilities, his sources of income and
expenses, did not infringe on the individual's right to privacy.

The law was enacted to promote morality in public administration by curtailing and
minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of
honesty in the public service
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Supreme Court’s Response:

The same circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. For one, R.A. 3019 is a
statute, not an administrative order. Secondly, R.A. 3019 itself is sufficiently detailed.
The law is clear on what practices were prohibited and penalized, and it was narrowly
drawn to avoid abuses.

In the case at bar, A.O. No. 308 may have been impelled by a worthy purpose, but, it
cannot pass constitutional scrutiny for it is not narrowly drawn. And we now hold that
when the integrity of a fundamental right is at stake, this court will give the challenged
law, administrative order, rule or regulation a stricter scrutiny.
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Supreme Court’s Response:

The case of Whalen v. Roe cited by the Solicitor General is also off-line. In Whalen, the
United States Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether the State of
New York could keep a centralized computer record of the names and addresses of all
persons who obtained certain drugs pursuant to a doctor's prescription. The New York
State Controlled Substances Act of 1972 required physicians to identify patients
obtaining prescription drugs enumerated in the statute, i.e., drugs with a recognized
medical use but with a potential for abuse, so that the names and addresses of the
patients can be recorded in a centralized computer file of the State Department of
Health
 3.Yes, Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law,
still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy.

Supreme Court’s Response:

The Court found that the statute was necessary to aid in the enforcement of laws
designed to minimize the misuse of dangerous drugs. The patient-identification
requirement was a product of an orderly and rational legislative decision made upon
recommendation by a specially appointed commission which held extensive hearings
on the matter. Moreover, the statute was narrowly drawn and contained numerous
safeguards against indiscriminate disclosure. The statute laid down the procedure and
requirements for the gathering, storage and retrieval of the information. It enumerated
who were authorized to access the data. It also prohibited public disclosure of the data
by imposing penalties for its violation. In view of these safeguards, the infringement of
the patients' right to privacy was justified by a valid exercise of police power. As we
discussed above, A.O. No. 308 lacks these vital safeguards.
Summary and Conclusion
1. The Petition of Blas Ople reached the threshold required
for a judicial review
2. A.O. No. 308 is outside the power of the president to
issue
3. A.O. No. 308 establishes the groundwork for the violation
of the enshrined right to privacy
 Final Points
Even while we strike down A.O. No. 308, we spell out in neon that
the Court is not per se against the use of computers to
accumulate, store, process, retrieve and transmit data to improve
our bureaucracy. Computers work wonders to achieve the
efficiency which both government and private industry seek.
Many information systems in different countries make use of the
computer to facilitate important social objectives, such as better
law enforcement, faster delivery of public services, more
efficient management of credit and insurance programs,
improvement of telecommunications and streamlining of
financial activities.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Kapunan Justice Mendoza

Arguments: Arguments:
1. It is a justified exercise of presidential 1. The issue is whether or not it violates
powers freedom of thought and of conscience
2. It does not reached the threshold for guaranteed in the provisions of the Bill of
judicial review because of prematurity rights (Sec 4 and 5)
3. It does not violate the right to privacy 2.1. A.O 308 cannot facilitate control
4. The harms are speculative 2.2. It simply organizes service agencies
5. The pooling of funds is constitutional of the government int oa system for the
purpose of facilitating the identification of
persons seeking basic services and social
security.
3. There is no basis for believing that the
system will be used for illegal purposes.
 Separate Opinions
Justice Panganiban Justice Romero Jutice Vitug
I concur only in the result and
only on the ground that an
executive issuance is not legally So terrifying are the
I find it hard, nevertheless, to
sufficient to establish an all possibilities of a law such as
peremptorily assume at this
encompassing computerized Administrative Order No. 308
time that the administrative
system of identification in the in making inroads into the
country. order will be misused and to
private lives of the citizens, a
thereby ignore the possible
I reserve judgment on the issue of virtual Big Brother looking
whether a national ID system is an benefits that can be derived
over our shoulder, that it must,
infringement of the constitutional from, or the merits of, a
without delay, be "slain upon
right to privacy or the freedom of nationwide computerized
thought until after Congress passes, if sight" before our society turns identification reference system.
ever, a law to this effect. Until such totalitarian with each of us, a
time, the issue is premature; and any mindless robot.
decision thereon, speculative and
academic.
Separate Opinion of Justice Vitug
People vs Nazario, the court ruled:

As a rule, a statute or [an] act may be said to be vague when it lacks

comprehensible standards that men "of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application."

It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:

(1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and

(2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions
and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
Separate Opinion of Justice Vitug
Administrative Order No. 308 appears to be so extensively drawn
that could, indeed, allow unbridled options to become available to
its implementors beyond the reasonable comfort of the citizens and
of residents alike.