This case involves a petition filed by Romielyn P. Macalinao challenging the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308 which established a National Computerized Identification Reference System. The petitioner argued that the order was an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative and appropriation powers. While respondents contended the order was validly issued under executive powers. The Supreme Court ruled that the case was justiciable and that the order was unconstitutional as it did not adequately protect individual privacy rights and was susceptible to various abuses.
This case involves a petition filed by Romielyn P. Macalinao challenging the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308 which established a National Computerized Identification Reference System. The petitioner argued that the order was an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative and appropriation powers. While respondents contended the order was validly issued under executive powers. The Supreme Court ruled that the case was justiciable and that the order was unconstitutional as it did not adequately protect individual privacy rights and was susceptible to various abuses.
This case involves a petition filed by Romielyn P. Macalinao challenging the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308 which established a National Computerized Identification Reference System. The petitioner argued that the order was an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative and appropriation powers. While respondents contended the order was validly issued under executive powers. The Supreme Court ruled that the case was justiciable and that the order was unconstitutional as it did not adequately protect individual privacy rights and was susceptible to various abuses.
This case involves a petition filed by Romielyn P. Macalinao challenging the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308 which established a National Computerized Identification Reference System. The petitioner argued that the order was an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative and appropriation powers. While respondents contended the order was validly issued under executive powers. The Supreme Court ruled that the case was justiciable and that the order was unconstitutional as it did not adequately protect individual privacy rights and was susceptible to various abuses.
Petitioner Ople prays the invalidation of Administrative Order
No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" on two important constitutional grounds, one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy. Administrative
Order
No.
308
was
published
in
four
newspapers of general circulation on January 22, 1997 and January
23, 1997. 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. Accordingly, the court issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining its implementation. Petitioner contends: A. The
establishment
of
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.
B. 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. C. 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. Respondents counter-argues that: A. The instant petition is not a justiciable case as would warrant a judicial review; B. A.O. No. 308 [1996] was issued within the executive and administrative powers of the president without encroaching on the legislative powers of congress; C. The funds necessary for the implementation of the identification reference system may be sourced from the budgets of the concerned agencies; D. A.O. No. 308 [1996] protects an individual's interest in privacy. ISSUES: Whether or not the instant petition is a justiciable case as would warrant a judicial review? RULINGS:
Yes, because it is a well-settled rule that before a court may
resolve the question of constitutionality of a statute, there should be the presence of (1) an appropriate case, (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party rasising the constitutional question, (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest possible opportunity, and the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case. In the case at bar, respondents aver that petitioner has no legal interest to uphold and that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. These submissions do not deserve our sympathetic ear. 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. Further, 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. Petitioner Ople assails A.O. No. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. 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. Respondent Executive Secretary Torres has publicly announced that representatives from the GSIS and the SSS have completed the guidelines for the national identification system. 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. It cannot be aruged that facially A.O. No. 308 violates the right to privacy. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper
safeguards
and
well-defined
standards
to
prevent
unconstitutional invasions. We reiterate that any law or order that
invades individual privacy will be subjected by this Court to strict scrutiny. It is plain and we hold that A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal information which will be gathered about our people will only be processed for unequivocally specified purposes. The lack of proper safeguards in this regard of A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the individual's liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities to track down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous
persons
to
access
confidential
information
and
circumvent the right against self-incrimination; it may pave the way
for "fishing expeditions" by government authorities and evade the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 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.
