Facts: Petitioner Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman Ato produce several bank documents

for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank where
petitioner was the branch manager. The accounts to be inspected were involved in a case pending with
the Ombudsman entitled. The Order was grounded on Section 15 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)
which modifies the law on the Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405) and places the office of the
Ombudsman in the same footing as the courts of law in this regard.”

The basis of the Ombudsman in ordering an in camera inspection of the accounts was a trail of managers
checks (MCs) purchased by one Trivinio, a respondent in the case pending with the office of the
Ombudsman. It appeared that Trivinio purchased MCs at Traders Royal Bank (TRB) and 11 of MCs in
were deposited and credited to an account maintained at Union Bank.

Petitioner agreed to an in camera inspection. However, later on, Marquez wrote the Ombudsman that the
accounts in question could not readily be identified since the checks were issued in cash or bearer, and
asked for time to respond to the order. Marquez surmised that these accounts had long been dormant,
hence were not covered by the new account number generated by the UB system, thus sought to verify
from the Interbank records archives for the whereabouts of these accounts.

The Ombudsman, responding to the request of Marquez for time to comply with the order, stated that
UBP-Julia Vargas, not Interbank, was the depositary bank of the subject TRB MCs as shown at its dorsal
portion and as cleared by the Philippine Clearing House. Notwithstanding the fact that the checks were
payable to cash or bearer, the name of the depositor(s) could easily be identified since the account
numbers where said checks were deposited were identified in the order. Even assuming that the accounts
were already classified as dormant accounts, the bank was still required to preserve the records
pertaining to the accounts within a certain period of time as required by existing banking rules and
regulations.

The Ombudsman issued an order directing Marquez to produce the bank documents relative to the
accounts in issue, stating that her persistent refusal to comply with the order is unjustified and is
punishable as Indirect Contempt.

Marquez together with UBP filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and injunction with the RTC
against the Ombudsman allegedly because the Ombudsman and other persons acting under his authority
were continuously harassing her to produce the bank documents relative to the accounts in question.
Moreover, , the Ombudsman issued another order stating that unless she appeared before the FFIB with
the documents requested, Marquez would be charged with indirect contempt and obstruction of justice.

The lower court denied petitioner’s prayer for a temporary restraining order stating that since petitioner
failed to show prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of
the Office of the Ombudsman, no writ of injunction may be issued by the RTC to delay the investigation
pursuant to Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.

Petitioner received a copy of the motion to cite her for contempt. Petitioner then filed with the
Ombudsman an opposition to the motion to cite her in contempt on the ground that the filing thereof was
premature due to the petition pending in the lower court. Petitioner likewise reiterated that she had no
intention to disobey the orders of the Ombudsman. However, she wanted to be clarified as to how she
would comply with the orders without her breaking any law, particularly RA 1405.

ISSUE: WON the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is
allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (RA 1405).

Held: NO. The requisites in order for an In camera inspection to be allowd are: there must be a pending
case before a court of competent jurisdiction; the account must be clearly identified; the inspection limited
to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction; the bank personnel
and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection;and such inspection may
cover only the account identified in the pending case.

In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before any court of competent authority. What is
existing is an investigation by the office of the Ombudsman. Clearly, there was no pending case in court
which would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection.

Petitioner Ople prays that the Court invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 entitled “Adoption
of a National Computerized Identification Reference System” on two important constitutional
grounds, viz: 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.

WON AO No. 308 is violative of the right to privacy

Yes. The court prescinds 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.

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 potential for misuse of the data to be gathered under A.O. No. 308 cannot be underplayed
as the dissenters do. Pursuant to said administrative order, an individual must present his PRN
every time he deals with a government agency to avail of basic services and security. His
transactions with the government agency will necessarily be recorded– whether it be in the
computer or in the documentary file of the agency.

The individual’s file may include his transactions for loan application, income tax returns,
statement of assets and liabilities, reimbursements for medication, hospitalization, etc. The
more frequent the use of the PRN, the better the chance of building a huge and formidable
information base through the electronic linkage of the files. The data may be gathered for
gainful and useful government purposes; but the existence of this vast reservoir of personal
information constitutes a covert invitation to misuse, a temptation that may be too great for
some of our authorities to resist.
The right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man living in a mass society. The
threats emanate from various sources– governments, journalists, employers, social scientists,
etc. In the case at bar, the threat comes from the executive branch of government which by
issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the people to surrender their privacy by giving information about
themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of basic services. Given the record-
keeping power of the computer, only the indifferent will fail to perceive the danger that A.O.
No. 308 gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting
citizens.