G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998.
BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner, vs. RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, HECTOR VILLANUEVA, CIELITO HABITO, ROBERT BARBERS, CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO, RENATO VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA, HEAD OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER and CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.

FACTS

On December 12, 1996, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 308, entitled “Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System.” The A.O. aimed to establish a decentralized identification reference system using a Population Reference Number (PRN) generated by the National Statistics Office (NSO) as a common reference number to link various government agencies providing basic services and social security. It created an Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (IACC) chaired by the Executive Secretary to implement the system. The A.O. was published in newspapers on January 22 and 23, 1997. On January 24, 1997, Senator Blas F. Ople filed a petition seeking to invalidate A.O. No. 308, arguing it constitutes a usurpation of legislative power and violates the right to privacy. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on April 8, 1997, enjoining its implementation.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition presents a justiciable controversy and whether petitioner has standing to sue.
2. Whether Administrative Order No. 308 is a usurpation of the legislative power of Congress.
3. Whether Administrative Order No. 308 violates the right to privacy.

RULING

1. On Justiciability and Standing: The petition is justiciable, and petitioner has standing. As a Senator, petitioner has standing to challenge the issuance as a usurpation of legislative power. As a taxpayer and member of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), he can also impugn the misalignment of public funds. The case is ripe for adjudication even without the implementing rules, as the A.O. is challenged as invalid on its face, and respondents had already begun implementation (e.g., the SSS published a notice to bid for ID card manufacture).
2. On Usurpation of Legislative Power: Administrative Order No. 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law, and its issuance by the President is an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power. Legislative power, the authority to make, alter, and repeal laws, is vested exclusively in Congress. While the President has executive power to enforce and administer laws, including issuing administrative orders to fix standards of administrative efficiency, A.O. No. 308 establishes a system of identification that is all-encompassing, affecting the life and liberty of every citizen and resident. It “does not simply implement an existing law” but “lays down a general rule of conduct” and “establishes for the first time a National Computerized Identification Reference System.” Such a system, which can “trigger future encroachments on the right to privacy,” requires legislative action. The funding provision (Section 6) also constitutes an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s exclusive power of appropriation, as it allows the implementation to be sourced from the budgets of concerned agencies without congressional authorization.
3. On Violation of the Right to Privacy: Administrative Order No. 308 impermissibly intrudes on the citizenry’s protected zone of privacy. The right to privacy is recognized as an independent constitutional right under Section 3, Article III of the Constitution. The A.O. creates a system that will gather and consolidate sensitive personal information into a single database, accessible through a common reference number. This “computerized system” creates a “vast profile of an individual’s personal history” that “lies open to possible misuse by unauthorized persons.” The threat to privacy comes not from the initial data collection alone but from “the interconnection of the files,” which increases the risk of “fishing expeditions” by government agencies. The A.O. lacks proper safeguards against such misuse, such as a control mechanism to limit access and prevent unnecessary leakage of information. It therefore “presses the buttons” of the Court’s “alarm” against potential state intrusion into privacy.
The petition is GRANTED. Administrative Order No. 308 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.