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

The petitioner, Blas F. Ople, challenges Administrative Order No. 308 issued by the President of the Philippines, entitled “Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System.” The Order establishes an Identification Reference System linking several government service agencies, creates a committee to draft its rules, directs the use of the Population Reference Number (PRN) as a common reference, and provides for its funding from agency budgets. Petitioner argues that the implementation of the Order will lead to the government maintaining comprehensive personal information dossiers on every Filipino and resident, containing at least their PRN and physiological biometrics, thereby violating the right to privacy. In his separate opinion, Justice Mendoza votes to dismiss the petition.

ISSUE

Whether Administrative Order No. 308 violates the constitutional right to privacy.

RULING

Justice Mendoza, in his separate opinion, votes to DISMISS the petition. He finds no basis in the text of A.O. No. 308 to declare it violative of the right to privacy. He reasons that the Order merely organizes existing government agencies into a system to facilitate identification for basic services and prevent fraud, using data already required by those agencies under existing statutes. He contends the Order does not establish the comprehensive personal dossiers feared by the petitioner and the majority. He further argues that A.O. No. 308 is a mere administrative order issued by the President in his capacity as administrative head, which confers no rights, imposes no duties, and creates no office; it is simply a command to subordinate officials for efficient administration. He also questions the characterization of privacy as the “most valued right,” noting other equally important constitutional rights, and asserts that the intrusion here is reasonable given the system’s purpose. Finally, he finds that the petitioner, as a Senator, lacks the requisite personal and substantial interest to maintain the suit, as he alleges no specific injury different from that of the general public.