1. Ople vs Torres

7/24/2019 1. Ople vs Torres

1/46

G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998

BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner,

vs.

RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGURRE, !E"TOR #LLANUE#A, "ELTO !ABTO,ROBERT BARBERS, "AR$EN"TA REOD"A, "ESAR SARNO, RENATO #ALEN"A, TO$ASP. AFR"A, !EAD OF T!E NATONAL "O$PUTER "ENTER %&' "!AR$AN OF T!E"O$$SSON ON AUDT, respondents.

PUNO, J.:

The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of Senator Blas F. Ople to prevent theshrinking of the right to privacy, which the revered Mr. Jstice Brandeis considered as !the mostcomprehensive of rights and the right most valed by civili"ed men.! 1#etitioner Ople prays that weinvalidate $dministrative Order %o. &'( entitled !$doption of a %ational )ompteri"ed *dentification+eference System! on two important constittional gronds, viz one, it is a srpation of the power of)ongress to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrdes on or citi"enry-s protected "one of privacy. egrant the petition for the rights soght to be vindicated by the petitioner need stronger barriers againstfrther erosion.

$.O. %o. &'( was issed by #resident Fidel /. +amos On 0ecember 12, 1334 and reads as follows

$0O#T*O% OF $ %$T*O%$5 )OM#6T7+*870

*07%T*F*)$T*O% +7F7+7%)7 S9ST7M

:7+7$S, there is a need to provide Filipino citi"ens and foreign residents with thefacility to conveniently transact bsiness with basic service and social secrityproviders and other government instrmentalities;

:7+7$S, this will re


2/46

Sec. 2. Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee. $n *nter=$gency )oordinating)ommittee >*$))? to draw=p the implementing gidelines and oversee theimplementation of the System is hereby created, chaired by the 7@ective Secretary,with the following as members

:ead, #residential Management Staff

Secretary, %ational 7conomic 0evelopment $thority

Secretary, 0epartment of the *nterior and 5ocal Aovernment

Secretary, 0epartment of :ealth

$dministrator, Aovernment Service *nsrance System,

$dministrator, Social Secrity System,

$dministrator, %ational Statistics Office

Managing 0irector, %ational )ompter )enter.

Sec. &. Secretariat. The %ational )ompter )enter >%))? is hereby designated assecretariat to the *$)) and as sch shall provide administrative and technicalspport to the *$)).

Sec. . Linkage Among Agencies. The #oplation +eference %mber >#+%?generated by the %SO shall serve as the common reference nmber to establish alinkage among concerned agencies. The *$)) Secretariat shall coordinate with thedifferent Social Secrity and Services $gencies to establish the standards in the seof Biometrics Technology and in compter application designs of their respective

systems.

Sec. C. Condct of Information !issemination Campaign. The Office of the #ressSecretary, in coordination with the %ational Statistics Office, the AS*S and SSS aslead agencies and other concerned agencies shall ndertake a massive tri=mediainformation dissemination campaign to edcate and raise pblic awareness on theimportance and se of the #+% and the Social Secrity *dentification +eference.

Sec. 4. "nding. The fnds necessary for the implementation of the system shall besorced from the respective bdgets of the concerned agencies.

Sec. D. Sbmission of Reglar Reports. The %SO, AS*S and SSS shall sbmit

reglar reports to the Office of the #resident throgh the *$)), on the stats ofimplementation of this ndertaking.

Sec. (. Effectivity. This $dministrative Order shall take effect immediately.

0O%7 in the )ity of Manila, this 12th day of 0ecember in the year of Or 5ord,%ineteen :ndred and %inety=Si@.

>SA0.? F*075 /. +$MOS


3/46

$.O. %o. &'( was pblished in for newspapers of general circlation on Janary 22, 133D andJanary 2&, 133D. On Janary 2, 133D, petitioner filed the instant petition against respondents,then 7@ective Secretary +ben Torres and the heads of the government agencies, who asmembers of the *nter=$gency )oordinating )ommittee, are charged with the implementation of $.O.%o. &'(. On $pril (, 133D, we issed a temporary restraining order enEoining its implementation.

#etitioner contends

$. T:7 7ST$B5*S%M7%T OF $ %$T*O%$5 )OM#6T7+*870 *07%T*F*)$T*O%+7F7+7%)7 S9ST7M +76*+7S $ 57A*S5$T*/7 $)T. T:7 *SS6$%)7 OF $.O.%O. &'( B9 T:7 #+7S*07%T OF T:7 +7#6B5*) OF T:7 #:*5*##*%7S *S,T:7+7FO+7, $% 6%)O%ST*T6T*O%$5 6S6+#$T*O% OF T:7 57A*S5$T*/7#O7+S OF T:7 )O%A+7SS OF T:7 +7#6B5*) OF T:7 #:*5*##*%7S.

B. T:7 $##+O#+*$T*O% OF #6B5*) F6%0S B9 T:7 #+7S*07%T FO+ T:7*M#57M7%T$T*O% OF $.O. %O. &'( *S $% 6%)O%ST*T6T*O%$5 6S6+#$T*O%OF T:7 7G)56S*/7 +*A:T OF )O%A+7SS TO $##+O#+*$T7 #6B5*) F6%0SFO+ 7G#7%0*T6+7.

). T:7 *M#57M7%T$T*O% OF $.O. %O. &'( *%S*0*O6S59 5$9S T:7A+O6%0O+H FO+ $ S9ST7M :*): *55 /*O5$T7 T:7 B*55 OF +*A:TS7%S:+*%70 *% T:7 )O%ST*T6T*O%. 2

+espondents conter=arge

$. T:7 *%ST$%T #7T*T*O% *S %OT $ J6ST*)*$B57 )$S7 $S O650 $++$%T$ J60*)*$5 +7/*7;

B. $.O. %O. &'( I1334 $S *SS670 *T:*% T:7 7G7)6T*/7 $%0$0M*%*ST+$T*/7 #O7+S OF T:7 #+7S*07%T *T:O6T 7%)+O$):*%A O%

T:7 57A*S5$T*/7 #O7+S OF )O%A+7SS;

). T:7 F6%0S %7)7SS$+9 FO+ T:7 *M#57M7%T$T*O% OF T:7*07%T*F*)$T*O% +7F7+7%)7 S9ST7M M$9 B7 SO6+)70 F+OM T:7B60A7TS OF T:7 )O%)7+%70 $A7%)*7S;

0. $.O. %O. &'( I1334 #+OT7)TS $% *%0*/*06$5-S *%T7+7ST *% #+*/$)9. 3

e now resolve.

*

$s is sal in constittional litigation, respondents raise the threshold isses relating to the standingto se of the petitioner and the Esticiability of the case at bar. More specifically, respondents averthat petitioner has no legal interest to phold and that the implementing rles of $.O. %o. &'( haveyet to be promlgated.

These sbmissions do not deserve or sympathetic ear. #etitioner Ople is a distingished memberof or Senate. $s a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the re


4/46

of the Aovernment Service *nsrance System >AS*S?, petitioner can also impgn the legality of themisalignment of pblic fnds and the misse of AS*S fnds to implement $.O. %o. &'(. 5

The ripeness for adEdication of the #etition at bar is not affected by the fact that the implementingrles of $.O. %o. &'( have yet to be promlgated. #etitioner Ople assails $.O. %o. &'( as invalidperseand as infirmed on its face. :is action is not prematre for the rles yet to be promlgated cannot

cre its fatal defects. Moreover, the respondents themselves have started the implementation of $.O.%o. &'( withot waiting for the rles. $s early as Janary 13, 133D, respondent Social SecritySystem >SSS? cased the pblication of a notice to bid for the manfactre of the %ational*dentification >*0? card. 6+espondent 7@ective Secretary Torres has pblicly annonced thatrepresentatives from the AS*S and the SSS have completed the gidelines for the national identificationsystem. 7$ll signals from the respondents show their nswerving will to implement $.O. %o. &'( and weneed not wait for the formality of the rles to pass Edgment on its constittionality. *n this light, thedissenters insistence that we tighten the rle on standing is not a commendable stance as its reslt woldbe to throttle an important constittional principle and a fndamental right.

**

e now come to the core isses. #etitioner claims that $.O. %o. &'( is not a mere administrativeorder bt a law and hence, beyond the power of the #resident to isse. :e alleges that $.O. %o. &'(establishes a system of identification that is all=encompassing in scope, affects the life and liberty ofevery Filipino citi"en and foreign resident, and more particlarly, violates their right to privacy.

#etitioner-s sedlos concern for the 7@ective not to trespass on the lawmaking domain of)ongress is nderstandable. The blrring of the demarcation line between the power of the5egislatre to make laws and the power of the 7@ective to e@ecte laws will distrb their delicatebalance of power and cannot be allowed. :ence, the e@ercise by one branch of government ofpower belonging to another will be given a stricter scrtiny by this )ort.

The line that delineates 5egislative and 7@ective power is not indistinct. 5egislative power is !theathority, nder the )onstittion, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them.! 8The )onstittion, as

the will of the people in their original, sovereign and nlimited capacity, has vested this power in the)ongress of the #hilippines. 9The grant of legislative power to )ongress is broad, general andcomprehensive. 1)The legislative body possesses plenary power for all prposes of civilgovernment. 11$ny power, deemed to be legislative by sage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by)ongress, nless the )onstittion has lodged it elsewhere. 12*n fine, e@cept as limited by the )onstittion,either e@pressly or impliedly, legislative power embraces all sbEects and e@tends to matters of generalconcern or common interest. 13

hile )ongress is vested with the power to enact laws, the #resident e@ectes the laws. 1(Thee@ective power is vested in the #residents. 15*t is generally defined as the power to enforce andadminister the laws. 16*t is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their deobservance. 17

$s head of the 7@ective 0epartment, the #resident is the )hief 7@ective. :e represents thegovernment as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of hisdepartment. 18:e has control over the e@ective department, breas and offices. This means that hehas the athority to assme directly the fnctions of the e@ective department, brea and office orinterfere with the discretion of its officials.19)orollary to the power of control, the #resident also has thedty of spervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and pblic order. Ths,he is granted administrative power over breas and offices nder his control to enable him to dischargehis dties effectively. 2)


5/46

$dministrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders asdetermined by proper governmental organs. 21*t enables the #resident to fi@ a niform standard ofadministrative efficiency and check the official condct of his agents. 22To this end, he can isseadministrative orders, rles and reglations.

#rescinding from these precepts, we hold that $.O. %o. &'( involves a sbEect that is not appropriate

to be covered by an administrative order. $n administrative order is

Sec. &.Administrative #rders. K $cts of the #resident which relate to particlaraspects of governmental operation in prsance of his dties as administrative headshall be promlgated in administrative orders. 23

$n administrative order is an ordinance issed by the #resident which relates to specificaspects in the administrative operation of government. *t mst be in harmony with the lawand shold be for the sole prpose of implementing the law and carrying ot the legislativepolicy. 2(e reEect the argment that $.O. %o. &'( implements the legislative policy of the

$dministrative )ode of 13(D. The )ode is a general law and !incorporates in a nified docmentthe maEor strctral, fnctional and procedral principles of governance.! 25and !embodieschanges in administrative strctre and procedres designed to serve thepeople.! 26The )ode is divided into seven >D? Books Book * deals with Sovereignty and Aeneral

$dministration, Book ** with the 0istribtion of #owers of the three branches of Aovernment, Book*** on the Office of the #resident, Book */ on the 7@ective Branch, Book / on )onstittional)ommissions, Book /* on %ational Aovernment Bdgeting, and Book /** on $dministrative#rocedre. These Books contain provisions on the organi"ation, powers and generaladministration of the e@ective, legislative and Edicial branches of government, the organi"ationand administration of departments, breas and offices nder the e@ective branch, theorgani"ation and fnctions of the )onstittional )ommissions and other constittional bodies, therles on the national government bdget, as well as gideline for the e@ercise by administrativeagencies of


6/46


7/46

protection, in other words, of the dignity and integrity of the individal K has becomeincreasingly important as modern society has developed. $ll the forces of atechnological age K indstriali"ation, rbani"ation, and organi"ation K operate tonarrow the area of privacy and facilitate intrsion into it. *n modern terms, thecapacity to maintain and spport this enclave of private life marks the differencebetween a democratic and a totalitarian society.!

*ndeed, if we e@tend or Edicial ga"e we will find that the right of privacy is recogni"ed andenshrined in several provisions of or )onstittion. 33*t is e@pressly recogni"ed in section & >1? of theBill of +ights

Sec. &. >1? The privacy of commnication and correspondence shall be inviolablee@cept pon lawfl order of the cort, or when pblic safety or order re


8/46

$ct (2and the *ntellectal #roperty )ode. (3The +les of )ort on privileged commnication likewiserecogni"e the privacy of certain information. ((

6nlike the dissenters, we prescind from the premise that the right to privacy is a fndamental rightgaranteed by the )onstittion, hence, it is the brden of government to show that $.O. %o. &'( is

Estified by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. $.O. %o. &'( is predicated

on two considerations >1? the need to provides or citi"ens and foreigners with the facility toconveniently transact bsiness with basic service and social secrity providers and othergovernment instrmentalities and >2? the need to redce, if not totally eradicate, fradlenttransactions and misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. *t is debatable whetherthese interests are compelling enogh to warrant the issance of $.O. %o. &'(. Bt what is notargable is the broadness, the vageness, the overbreadth of $.O. %o. &'( which if implemented willpt or people-s right to privacy in clear and present danger.

The heart of $.O. %o. &'( lies in its Section which provides for a #oplation +eference %mber>#+%? as a !common reference nmber to establish a linkage among concerned agencies! throghthe se of !Biometrics Technology! and !compter application designs.!

Biometry or biometrics is !the science of the applicatin of statistical methods to biological facts; amathematical analysis of biological data.! (5The term !biometrics! has evolved into a broad category oftechnologies which provide precise confirmation of an individal-s identity throgh the se of theindividal-s own physiological and behavioral characteristics. (6$ physiological characteristic is a relativelystable physical characteristic sch as a f ingerprint, retinal scan, hand geometry or facial featres. $behavioral characteristic is inflenced by the individal-s personality and incldes voice print, signatreand keystroke. (7Most biometric idenfication systems se a card or personal identificatin nmber >#*%? forinitial identification. The biometric measrement is sed to verify that the individal holding the card orentering the #*% is the legitimate owner of the card or #*%. (8

$ most common form of biological encoding is finger=scanning where technology scans a fingertipand trns the ni


9/46

not be sed solely for identification bt the generation of other data with remote relation to the avowedprposes of $.O. %o. &'(. )learly, the indefiniteness of $.O. %o. &'( can give the government the rovingathority to store and retrieve information for a prpose other than the identification of the individalthrogh his #+%.

The potential for misse of the data to be gathered nder $.O. %o. &'( cannot be ndarplayed as

the dissenters do. #rsant to said administrative order, an individal mst present his #+%everytime he deals with a government agency to avail of basic services and secrity. :istransactions with the government agency will necessarily be recorded K whether it be in thecompter or in the docmentary file of the agency. The individal-s file may inclde his transactionsfor loan availments, income ta@ retrns, statement of assets and liabilities, reimbrsements formedication, hospitali"ation, etc. The more fre


10/46

e reEect the argment of the Solicitor Aeneral that an individal has a reasonable e@pectation ofprivacy with regard to the %atioal *0 and the se of biometrics technology as it stands on 1? whether byhis condct, the individal has e@hibited an e@pectation of privacy; and >2? whether this e@pectationis one that society recogni"es as reasonable.67The factal circmstances of the case determines thereasonableness of the e@pectation. 68:owever, other factors, sch as cstoms, physical srrondings

and practices of a particlar activity, may serve to create or diminish this [email protected]

The se ofbiometrics and compter technology in $.O. %o. &'( does not assre the individal of a reasonablee@pectation of privacy. 7)$s technology advances, the level of reasonably e@pected privacydecreases. 71The measre of protection granted by the reasonable e@pectation diminishes as relevanttechnology becomes more widely accepted. 72The secrity of the compter data file depends not only onthe physical inaccessibility of the file bt also on the advances in hardware and software comptertechnology. $.O. %o. &'( is so widely drawn that a minimm standard for a reasonable e@pectation ofprivacy, regardless of technology sed, cannot be inferred from its provisions.

The rles and reglations to be by the *$)) cannot remedy this fatal defect. +les and reglationsmerely implement the policy of the law or order. On its face, $.O. %o. gives the *$)) virtallyinfettered discretion to determine the metes and bonds of the *0 System.

%or do yor present laws prvide ade


11/46

*n case of dobt, the least we can do is to lean towards the stance that will not pt in danger therights protected by the )onstittions.

The case of 'halen v& Roe79citedby the Solicitor Aeneral is also off=line. *n halen, the 6nited StatesSpreme )ort was presented with the


12/46

from the pblic sector, which the state can control. #rotection of this private sector Kprotection, in other words, of the dignity and integrity of the individal K has becomeincreasingly important as modern society has developed. $ll the forces of atechnological age K indstriali"ation, rbani"ation, and organi"ation K operate tonarrow the area of privacy and facilitate intrsion into it. *n modern terms, thecapacity to maintain and spport this enclave of private life marks the difference

between a democratic and a totalitarian society.87

*/

The right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man living in a mass society. The threatsemanate from varios sorces K governments, Eornalists, employers, social scientists, etc. 88*n thcase at bar, the threat comes from the e@ective branch of government which by issing $.O. %o. &'(pressres the people to srrender their privacy by giving information abot themselves on the prete@t thatit will facilitate delivery of basic services. Aiven the record=keeping power of the compter, only theindifferent fail to perceive the danger that $.O. %o. &'( gives the government the power to compile adevastating dossier against nsspecting citi"ens. *t is timely to take note of the well=worded warning ofHalvin, Jr., !the distrbing reslt cold be that everyone will live brdened by an nerasable record of hispast and his limitations. *n a way, the threat is that becase of its record=keeping, the society will have lost

its benign capacity to forget.! 89Oblivios to this consel, the dissents still say we shold not be too


13/46

,risima$ )&$ I *oin in )stice %endoza/s dissenting&

S*+%%-* O+&o&/

RO$ERO, J., separate opinion;

hat marks offs man from a beastL

$side from the distingishing physical characteristics, man is a rational being, one who is endowedwith intellect which allows him to apply reasoned Edgment to problems at hand; he has the innatespirital faclty which can tell, not only what is right bt, as well, what is moral and ethical. Becaseof his sensibilities, emotions and feelings, he likewise possesses a sense of shame. *n varyingdegrees as dictated by diverse cltres, he erects a wall between himself and the otside worldwherein he can retreat in solitde, protecting himself from prying eyes and ears and their e@tensions,whether form individals, or mch later, from athoritarian intrsions.

#iercing throgh the mists of time, we find the original Man and oman defying the inEnction of Aodby eating of the forbidden frit in the Aarden. $nd when their eyes were !opened! forthwith !theysewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.! 10own the corridors of time, we find manfashioning !fig leaves! of sorts or setting p figrative walls, the better to inslate themselves from the restof hmanity.

Sch vage stirrings of the desire !to be left alone,! considered !anti=social! by some, led to thedevelopment of the concept of !privacy,! nheard of among beasts. 0ifferent branches of science,have made their own stdies of this craving of the hman spirit K psychological, anthropologicalsociological and philosophical, with the legal finally giving its imprimatr by elevating it to the statsofa right, specifically a private right.

*nitially recogni"ed as an aspect of tort law, it created giant waves in legal circles with the pblicationin the :arvard 5aw +eview 2of the trail=bla"ing article, !The +ight to #rivacy,! by Samel 0. arren and5ois 0. Brandeis.

hether viewed as a personal or a property right, it fond its way in #hilippine )onstittions andstattes; this, in spite of the fact that #hilippine cltre can hardly be said to provide a fertile field for

the brgeoning of said right. *n fact, or le@icographers have yet to coin a word for it in the Filipinolangage. )stoms and practices, being what they have always been, Filipinos think it perfectlynatral and in good taste to in


14/46

ith the overarching inflence of common law and the recent advent of the *nformation $ge with itshigh=tech devices, the right to privacy has e@panded to embrace its pblic law aspect. The Bill of+ights of or evolving )harters, a direct transplant from that of the 6nited States, contains inessence facets of the right to privacy which constitte limitations on the far=reaching powers ofgovernment.

So terrifying are the possibilities of a law sch as $dministrative Order %o. &'( in making inroadsinto the private lives of the citi"ens, a virtal Big Brother looking over or sholder, that it mst,withot delay, be !slain pon sight! before or society trns totalitarian with each of s, a mindlessrobot.

*, therefore, /OT7 for the nllification of $.O. %o. &'(.

#TUG, J., separate opinion;

One can appreciate the concern e@pressed by my esteemed colleage, Mr. Jstice +eynato S.

#no, echoing that of the petitioner, the :onorable Blas F. Ople, on the issance of $dministrativeOrder %o. &'( by the #resident of the #hilippines and the dangers its implementation cold bring. *find it hard, nevertheless, to peremptorily assme at this time that the administrative order will bemissed and to thereby ignore the possible benefits that can be derived from, or the merits of, anationwide compteri"ed identification reference system. The great strides and swift advances intechnology render it inescapable that one day we will, at all events, have to face p with the reality ofseeing e@tremely sophisticated methods of personal identification and any attempt to stop theinevitable may either be short=lived or even ftile. The imperatives, * believe, wold instead be tonow install specific safegards and control measres that may be calclated best to ward=offprobable ill effects of any sch device. :ere, it may be apropos to recall the prononcement of this)ort in ,eople vs& Nazario1that K

$s a rle, a statte or Ian act may be said to be vage when it lacks comprehensiblestandards that men !of common intelligence mst necessarily gess at its meaningand differ as to its application.! *t is repgnant to the )onstittion in two respects >1?it violates de process for failre to accord persons, especially the parties targetedby it, fair notice of the condct to avoid; and >2? it leaves law enforcers nbridleddiscretion in carrying ot its provisions and becomes an arbitrary fle@ing of theAovernment mscle. 2

$dministrative Order %o. &'( appears to be so e@tensively drawn that cold, indeed, allownbridled options to become available to its implementors beyond the reasonable comfort ofthe citi"ens and of residents alike.

#rescinding from the foregoing, and most importantly to this instance, the sbEect covered by the


15/46

PANGANBAN, J., separate opinion;

* concr only in the reslt and only on the grond that an e@ective issance is not legally sfficientto establish an all=encompassing compteri"ed system of identification in the contry. The sbEect

matter contained in $O &'( is beyond the powers of the #resident to reglate withot a legislativeenactment.

* reserve Edgmeht on the isse of wherher a national *0 system is an infringement of theconstittional right to privacy or the freedom of thoght ntil after )ongress passes, if ever, a law tothis effect. Only then, and pon the filing of a proper petition, may the provisions of the statte bescrtini"ed by the Ediciary to determine their constittional fondation. 6ntil sch time, the isse isprematre; and any decision thereon, speclative and academic. 1

Be that as it may, the scholarly discssions of Jstices +omero, #no, Hapnan and Mendo"a onthe constittional right to privacy and freedom of thoght may stil become sefl gides to orlawmakers, when and if )ongress shold deliberate on a bill establishing a national identification

system.

5et it be noted that this )ort, as shown by the voting of the Estices, has not definitively rled onthese points. The voting is decisive only on the need for the appropriate legislation, and it is only onthis grond that the petition is granted by this )ort.

0APUNAN, J., dissenting opinion;

The pioneering efforts of the e@ective to adopt a national compteri"ed identification referencesystem has met fierce opposition. *t has spn dark predictions of sinister government ploys to

tamper with the citi"en-s right to privacy and ominos forecasts of a retrn to athoritarianism. 5ostin the proar, however, is the simple fact that there is nothing in the whole breadth and lenght of

$dministrative Order %o. &'( that sggests a taint constittional infirmity.

$.O. %o. &'( issed by #resident Fidel /. +amos on 12 0ecember 1334 reads

$0MT%*ST+$T*/7 O+07+ %O. &'(

$0O#T*O% OF $ %$T*O%$5 )OM#6T7+*870

*07%T*F*)$T*O% +7F7+7%)7 S9ST7M

:7+7$S, there is a need to provide Filipino citi"ens and foreign residents with thefacility to conveniently transact bsiness with basic services and social secrityproviders and other government instrmentalities;

:7+7$S, this will re


16/46

:7+7$S, a concerted and collaborative effort among the varios basic servicesand social secrity providing agencies and other government instrmentalities isre


17/46


Sec. D. Sbmission of Reglar Reports. The %SO, AS*S and SSS shall sbmitreglar reports to the Office of the #resident, throgh the *$)), on the stats ofimplementation of this ndertaking.

Sec. ( Effectivity. This $dministartive Order shall take effect immediately.


*n seeking to strike down $.O. %o. &'( as nconstittional, petitioner arges

$. T:7 7ST$B5*S:M7%T OF %$T*O%$5 )OM#6T7+*870 *07%T*F*)$T*O%+7F7+7%)7 S9ST7M +76*+7S $ 57A*S5$T*/7 $)T. T:7 *SS6$)7 OF $.O.%O. &'( B9 T:7 #+7S*07%T OF T:7 +7#6B5*) OF T:7 #:*5*##*%7S *S,T:7+7FO+7, $% 6%)O%ST*T6T*O%$5 6S6+#$T*O% OF T:7 57A*S5$T*/7

#O7+S OF T:7 )O%A+7SS OF T:7 +7#6B5*) OF T:7 #:*5*##*%7S.


). T:7 *M#57M7%T$T*O% OF $.O. %O. &'( *%S*0*O6S59 5$9S T:7A+O6%0O+H FO+ $ S9ST7M :*): *55 /*O5$T7 T:7 B*55 OF +*A:TS7%S:+*%70 *% T:7 )O%ST*T6T*O%.

The %ational )ompteri"ed *dentification +eference system to which the %SO, AS*S and SSS are

linked as lead members of the *$)) is intended to establish niform standards for *0 cards isssedby key government agencies >like the SSS? 1for the !efficient identification of persons.! 26nder the newsystem, only one reliable and tamper=proof *.0. need be presented by the cardholder instead of severalidentification papers sch as passports and driver-s license, 3to able to transact with governmentagencies. The improved *0 can be sed to facilitate pblic transactions sch as

1. #ayment of SSS and AS*S benefits

2. $pplications for driver-s license, B*+ T*%, passport, marriagelicense, death certificate, %B* and police clearances, and bsinesspermits

&. $vailment of Medicare services in hospitals

. $vailment of welfare services

C. $pplication for workemployment

4. #re=re


18/46

1. Opening of bank acconts

2. 7ncashment of checks

&. $pplications for loans, credit cards, water, power, telephones,pagers, etc.

. #rchase of stocks


4. *nsrance claims

D. +eceipt of payments, checks, letters, valables, etc. 5

The new identification system wold tremendosly improve and plift pblic service in or contry tothe benefit of Filipino citi"ens and resident aliens. *t wold promote, facilitate and speed plegitimate transactions with government offices as well as with private and bsiness entities.7@perience tells s of the constant delays and inconveniences the pblic has to sffer in availing ofbasic pblic services and social secrity benefits becase of inefficient and not too reliable means ofidentification of the beneficiaries.

Ths, in the !#rimer on the Social Secrity )ard and $dministrative Order %o. &'(! issed by theSSS, a lead agency in the implementation of the said order, the following salient featres arementioned

1. $.O. &'( merely establishes the standards for *.0. cards issed by keygovernment agencies sch as SSS and AS*S.

2. *t does not establish a national *.0. system neither does it re


19/46

The $dministrative )ode of 13(D has neSSS? and %ationalStatistics Office >%SO?. The national compteri"ed *0 system is one sch advancement. Toemphasi"e, the new identification reference system is created to streamline the breacracy, ct thered tape and ltimately achieve administrative efficiency. The proEect, therefore, relates to, is anappropriate sbEect and falls s


20/46

separation wold be impracticable if not impossible; there may be=and frea?

Estifiable controversy is ths distingished from a difference or dispte of a hypothetical or abstractcharacter or from one that is academic or moot. The controversy mst be definite and concrete, tochingthe legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. *t mst be a real and sbstantial controversyadmitting of special relief throgh a decree that is conclsive in character, as distingished from anopinion advising what the law wold be pon a hypothetical state of facts. . . .! 12$.O. %o. &'( does notcreate any concrete or sbstantial controversy. *t provides the general framework of the %ational)ompteri"ed *dentification +eference System and lays down the basic standards >efficiency,convenience and prevention of fradlent transactions? for its cretion. Bt as manifestly indicated in thesbEect order, it is the *nter=$gency )oordinating )ommittee >*$))? which is tasked to research, stdyand formlate the gidelines and parameters for the se of Biometrics Technology and in compterapplication designs that will and define give sbstance to the new system. 13This petition is, ths,


21/46

prematre considering that the *$)) is still in the process of doing the leg work and has yet to codify andformali"e the details of the new system.

The maEority opines that the petition is ripe for adEdication even withot the promlgation of thenecessary gidelines in view of the fact that respondents have begn implementation of $.O. %o.&'(. The SSS, in particlar, has started advertising in newspapers the invitation to bid for the

prodction of the *.0. cards.1(

* beg to disagree. *t is not the new system itself that is intended to be implemented in the invitation tobid bt only the manfactre of the *.0. cards. Biometrics Technology is not and cannot be sed inthe *.0. cards as no gidelines therefor have yet been laid down by the *$)). Before the assailedsystem can be set p, it is imperative that the gidelines be issed first.

***

ithot the essential gidelines, the principal contention for invalidating the new identificationreference system K that it is an impermissible encroachment on the constittionally recogni"ed rightto privacy K is plainly grondless. There is nothing in $.O. %o. &'( to serve as sfficient basis for a

conclsion that the new system to be evolved violates the right to privacy. Said order simply providesthe system-s general framework. ithot the concomitant gidelines, which wold spell ot in detailhow this new identification system wold work, the perceived violation of the right to privacy amontsto nothing more than mere srmise and speclation.

hat has cased mch of the hysteria over the %ational )ompteri"ed *dentification +eferenceSystem is the possible tili"ation of Biometrics Technology which refers to the se of atnomatedmatching of physiological or behavioral characteristics to identify a person that wold violated theciti"en-s constittionally protected right to privacy.

The maEority opinion has enmerated varios forms and methods of Biometrics Technology which ifadopted in the %ational )omptai"ed *dentification +eference System wold seriosly threaten theright to privacy. $mong which are biocrypt retinal scan, artificial nose and thermogram. The maEorityalso points to certain alleged deficiencies of $ O. %o. &'(. Ths

1? $.O. %o. &'( does not specify the particlar Biometrics Technology that shall besed for the new identification system.

2? The order dots not state whether encoding of data is limited to biologicalinformation alone for identification prposes;

&? There is no provision as to who shall control and access the data, nder whatcircmstances and for what prpose; and

? There are no controls to gard against leakage of information, ths heighteningthe potential for misse and abse.

e shold not be overwhelmed by the mere mention of the Biometrics Technology and its alleged,yet nfonded !far=reaching effects.!

There is nothing in $.O. %o. &'(, as it is worded, to sggest that the advanced methods of theBiometrics Technology that may pose danger to the right of privacy will be adopted.


22/46

The standards set in $.O. %o. &'( for the adoption of the new system are clear=ct andne


23/46

The maEority laments that as technology advances, the level of reasonably e@pected privacydecreases. That may be tre. :owever, cort shold tread daintily on the field of social andeconomic e@perimentation lest they impede or obstrct the march of technology to improve pblicservices Est on the basis of an nfonded fear that the e@perimentation violates one-sconstittionally protected rights. *n the sobering words of Mr. Jstice Brandeis

To stay e@perimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility.0enial of the right to e@periment may be fraght with serios conse


24/46

"irst. * cannot find anything in the te@t of $dministrative Order %o. &'( of the #resident of the#hilippines that wold warrant a declaration that it is violative of the right of privacy. So far as * cansee, all the $dministrative Orders does is

N establish an *dentification +eference System involving the following serviceagencies of the government

#residential Management Staff

%ational 7conomic 0evelopemnt $thority

0epartment of the *nterior and 5ocal Aovernment

0epartment of :ealth

Aovernment Service *srance System

Social Secrity Office

%ational )ompter )enter

N create a committee, composed of the heads of the agencies concerned, todraft rles for the System;

N direct the se of the #oplation +eference %mber >#+%? generated by the%ational )enss and Statistics Office as the common reference nmber tolink the participating agencies into an *dentification +eference System, andthe adoption by the agencies of standards in the se of biometrics technologyand compter designs; and

N provide for the fnding of the System from the bdgets of the agenciesconcerned.

#etitioner arges, however, that !the implementation of $.O. %o. &'( will mean that each and everyFilipino and resident will have a file with the government containing, at the very least, his ,RNandphysiological biometrics sch as, bt not limited to, his facial featres, hand geometry, retinal or irispattern, 0%$ pattern, fingerprints, voice characteristics, and signatre analysis.!

*n spport of his contention, petitioner


25/46

the government agencies involved have already been rea? the %ational Statistics Office collects !by enmeration,sampling or other methods, statistics and other information concerning poplation . . . social andeconomic instittions, and sch other statistics as the #resident may direct.! *n addition, it is in

charge of the administration of the )ivil +egister, 2which means that it keeps records of informationconcerning the civil stats of persons, i.e., >a? births, >b? deaths, >c? marriages and their annlments; >d?legitimations, >e? adoptions, >f? acknowledgments of natral children, >g? natrali"ations, and >h? changesof name. 3

Other stattes giving government agencies the power to re


26/46

*ndeed, the maEority concedes that !the right of privacy does not bar all incrsions into individalprivacy . . . Ionly that sch incrsions into the right mst be accompanied by proper safegards andwell=defined standards to prevent nconstittional invasions.! 11*n the case of the *dentification+eference System, the prpose is to facilitate the transaction of bsiness with service agencies of thegovernment and to prevent frad and misrepresentation. The personal identification of an individal canfacilitate his treatment in any government hospital in case of emergency. On the other hand, the delivery

of material assistance, sch as free medicines, can be protected from frad or misrepresentation as theabsence of a data base makes it possible for nscrplos individals to obtain assistance from morethan one government agency.

Second. Ths, the isse in this case is not really whether $.O. %o. &'( violates the right of privacyformed by emanations from the several constittional rights cited by the maEority. 12The $rt. ***?

Sec. . %o law Shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of e@pression, or ofthe press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition thegovernment for redress of grievances.

Sec. C. %o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitingthe free e@ercise thereof. The free e@ercise enEoyment of religios profession andworship, withot discrimination or preference, shall be forever be allowed. %oreligios test shall be re


27/46

administrative order, the prescise natre of which is given in the following e@cerpt from the decision in theearly case of #lsen 3 Co& v& 4erstein 15

I*t is nothing more or less than a command from a sperior to an inferior. It createsno relation e5cept bet1een the official 1ho isses it and the official 1ho receives it.Sch orders, whether e@ective or departmental, have for their obEect simply the

efficient and economical administration of the affairs of the department to which or inwhich they are issed in accordance with the law governing the sbEect=matter. Theyare administrative in their natre and do not pass beyond the limits of the departmentto which they are directed or in which they are pblished, and, therefore, create norights in third persons. 0hey are based on$ and are the prodct of a relationship in1hich po1er is their sorce and obedience their ob*ect. 0isobedience to or deviationfrom sch an order can be pnished only by the power which issed it and, if thatpower fails to administer the corrective, then the disobedience goes npnished. Inthat relationship no third person or official may intervene$ not even the cort. Schorders may be very temporary, they being sbEect to instant revocation ormodification by the power which pblished them. Their very natre, as determined bythe relationship which prodeced them, demonstrates clearly the impossibility of anyother person enforcing them e@cept the one who created them. $n attempt on the

part of the corts to enforce sch orders wold reslt not only in confsion bt,sbstantially, in departmental anarchy also. 16

0hird. There is no basis for believing that, beyond the identification of individals, the System will besed for illegal prposes. %or are sanctions lacking for the nathori"ed se or disclosre ofinformation gathered by the varios agencies constitting the System. For e@ample, as the SolicitorAeneral points ot. ).$. %o. C31. P penali"es the nathori"ed se or disclosre of data frnishedthe %SO with a fine of not more than #4''.'' or imprisonment for not more than si@ months or both.

$t all events, at this stage, it is prematre to pass on the claim that the *dentification +eferenceSystem can be sed for the prpose of compiling massive dossiers on individals that can be sedto crtail basic civil and political rights since, if at all, this can only be provided in the implementing

rles and reglations which have yet to be promlgated. e have already stated that $.O. %o. &'( isnot a statte. 7ven in the case of stattes, however, where implementing rles are necessary to ptthem into effect, it has been held that an attack on their constittionality wold be prematre. 17$s7dgar in +ing Learpts it, !+ipeness is all.! 18For, to borrow some more Shakespearean lines,

The canker galls the infants of the spring

Too oft before their bttons be disclos-d. 19

That, more than any doctrine of constittional law * can think of, sccinctly e@presses the rleon ripeness, prematrity, and hypothetical, speclative, or conEectral claims.

Of special relevance to this case is Laird v& 0atm.2)

There, a class sit was broght seekingdeclaratory and inEnctive relief on the claim that a 6.S. $rmy intelligence srveillance of civilian politicalactivity having !a potential for civil disorder! e@ercised !a present inhibiting effect on Irespondents- flle@pression and tili"ation of their First $mendment rights.! *n holding the case nonEsticiable, the 6.S.Spreme )ort, in an opinion by )hief Jstice Brger. said 21

*n recent years this )ort has fond in a nmber of cases that constittionalviolations may arise from the deterrent or --chilling,! effect of governmentalreglations that fall short of a direct prohibition against the e@ercise of First


28/46

$mendment rights. I)itation of cases omitted *n none of these cases, however, didthe chilling effect arise merely from the individal-s knowledge that a governmentalagency was engaged in certain activities or from the individal-s concomitant fearthat, armed with the frits of those activities, the agency might in the ftre takesome otherand additional action detrimental to that individal. +ather, in each ofthese cases, the challenged e@ercise of governmental power was reglatory,

proscriptive, or complsory in natre, and the complainant was either presently orprospectively sbEect to the reglations, proscriptions, or complsions that he waschallenging. . . .

IThese decisions have in no way eroded the !established principle that to entitle aprivate individal to invoke the Edicial power to determine the validity of e@ective orlegislative action he mst show that he was sstained or is immediately in danger ofsstaining a direct inEry as the reslt of that action. . . .

The respondents do not meet this test; Ithe alleged !chilling! effect may perhaps beseen as arising from respondents- perception of the system as inappropriate to the

$rmy-s role nder or form of government, or as arising from respondents- beliefs

that it is inherently dangeros for the military to be concerned with activities in thecivilian sector, or as arising from respondents- less generali"ed yet speclativeapprehensiveness that the $rmy may at some ftre date misse the information insome way that wold case direct harm to respondents. $llegations of a sbEective!chill! are not an ade13D?.

"orth. Aiven the fact that no right of privacy is involved in this case and that any obEection to theidentification +eference System on the grond that it violates freedom of thoght is prematre,speclative, or conEectral pending the issance of the implementing rles, it is clear that petitionerBlas F. Ople has no case of action and, therefore, no standing to bring this action. *ndeed, althogh

he assails $.O. %o. &'( on the grond that it violates the right of privacy, he claims no personalinEry sffered as a reslt of the Order in C? which. provides

%o law shall be passed athori"ing any transfer of appropriations; however, the#resident, the #resident of the Senate, the Speaker of the :ose of +epresentatives,the )hief Jstice of the Spreme )ort, and the heads of )onstittional)ommissions may, by law, be athori"ed to agment any item in the generalappropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of theirrespective appropriations.

Bt, as the Solicitor Aeneral states


29/46

#etitioner-s argment is anchored on two erroneos assmptions one, that all theconcerned agencies, inclding the SSS and the AS*S, receive bdgetary spportfrom the national government; and two, that the A$$ is the only law whereby pblicfnds are appropriated. Both assmptions are wrong.

The SSS and AS*S do not presently receive bdgetary spport from the %ational

Aovernment. They have achieved self=spporting stats sch that the contribtionsof their members are sfficient to finance their e@penses. One wold be hard pressedto find in the A$$ an appropriation of fnds to the SSS and the AS*S.

Frthermore, their respective charters athori"e the SSS and the AS*S to disbrsetheir fnds >+ep. $ct %o. 1141 I13C, as amended, Sec. 2C; #res. 0ecree %o. 114I13DD, as amended, Sec. 23? withot the need for a separate appropriation from the)ongress.

%or as Senator can petitioner claim standing since no power of )ongress is alleged to have beenimpaired by the $dministrative Order in


30/46

$side from the distingishing physical characteristics, man is a rational being, one who is endowedwith intellect which allows him to apply reasoned Edgment to problems at hand; he has the innatespirital faclty which can tell, not only what is right bt, as well, what is moral and ethical. Becaseof his sensibilities, emotions and feelings, he likewise possesses a sense of shame. *n varyingdegrees as dictated by diverse cltres, he erects a wall between himself and the otside worldwherein he can retreat in solitde, protecting himself from prying eyes and ears and their e@tensions,

whether form individals, or mch later, from athoritarian intrsions.

#iercing throgh the mists of time, we find the original Man and oman defying the inEnction of Aodby eating of the forbidden frit in the Aarden. $nd when their eyes were !opened! forthwith !theysewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.! 10own the corridors of time, we find manfashioning !fig leaves! of sorts or setting p figrative walls, the better to inslate themselves from the restof hmanity.

Sch vage stirrings of the desire !to be left alone,! considered !anti=social! by some, led to thedevelopment of the concept of !privacy,! nheard of among beasts. 0ifferent branches of science,have made their own stdies of this craving of the hman spirit K psychological, anthropologicalsociological and philosophical, with the legal finally giving its imprimatr by elevating it to the statsofa right, specifically a private right.

*nitially recogni"ed as an aspect of tort law, it created giant waves in legal circles with the pblicationin the :arvard 5aw +eview 2of the trail=bla"ing article, !The +ight to #rivacy,! by Samel 0. arren and5ois 0. Brandeis.

hether viewed as a personal or a property right, it fond its way in #hilippine )onstittions andstattes; this, in spite of the fact that #hilippine cltre can hardly be said to provide a fertile field forthe brgeoning of said right. *n fact, or le@icographers have yet to coin a word for it in the Filipinolangage. )stoms and practices, being what they have always been, Filipinos think it perfectlynatral and in good taste to in


31/46

One can appreciate the concern e@pressed by my esteemed colleage, Mr. Jstice +eynato S.#no, echoing that of the petitioner, the :onorable Blas F. Ople, on the issance of $dministrativeOrder %o. &'( by the #resident of the #hilippines and the dangers its implementation cold bring. *find it hard, nevertheless, to peremptorily assme at this time that the administrative order will bemissed and to thereby ignore the possible benefits that can be derived from, or the merits of, anationwide compteri"ed identification reference system. The great strides and swift advances in

technology render it inescapable that one day we will, at all events, have to face p with the reality ofseeing e@tremely sophisticated methods of personal identification and any attempt to stop theinevitable may either be short=lived or even ftile. The imperatives, * believe, wold instead be tonow install specific safegards and control measres that may be calclated best to ward=offprobable ill effects of any sch device. :ere, it may be apropos to recall the prononcement of this)ort in ,eople vs& Nazario1that K

$s a rle, a statte or Ian act may be said to be vage when it lacks comprehensiblestandards that men !of common intelligence mst necessarily gess at its meaningand differ as to its application.! *t is repgnant to the )onstittion in two respects >1?it violates de process for failre to accord persons, especially the parties targetedby it, fair notice of the condct to avoid; and >2? it leaves law enforcers nbridleddiscretion in carrying ot its provisions and becomes an arbitrary fle@ing of theAovernment mscle. 2

$dministrative Order %o. &'( appears to be so e@tensively drawn that cold, indeed, allownbridled options to become available to its implementors beyond the reasonable comfort ofthe citi"ens and of residents alike.

#rescinding from the foregoing, and most importantly to this instance, the sbEect covered by the


32/46

lawmakers, when and if )ongress shold deliberate on a bill establishing a national identificationsystem.

5et it be noted that this )ort, as shown by the voting of the Estices, has not definitively rled onthese points. The voting is decisive only on the need for the appropriate legislation, and it is only onthis grond that the petition is granted by this )ort.

0APUNAN, J., dissenting opinion;

The pioneering efforts of the e@ective to adopt a national compteri"ed identification referencesystem has met fierce opposition. *t has spn dark predictions of sinister government ploys totamper with the citi"en-s right to privacy and ominos forecasts of a retrn to athoritarianism. 5ostin the proar, however, is the simple fact that there is nothing in the whole breadth and lenght of

$dministrative Order %o. &'( that sggests a taint constittional infirmity.

$.O. %o. &'( issed by #resident Fidel /. +amos on 12 0ecember 1334 reads

$0MT%*ST+$T*/7 O+07+ %O. &'(

$0O#T*O% OF $ %$T*O%$5 )OM#6T7+*870

*07%T*F*)$T*O% +7F7+7%)7 S9ST7M

:7+7$S, there is a need to provide Filipino citi"ens and foreign residents with thefacility to conveniently transact bsiness with basic services and social secrityproviders and other government instrmentalities;

:7+7$S, this will re*$))? to draw=p the implementing gidelines and oversee theimplementation of the System is hereby created, chaired by the 7@ective Secretary,with the following as members

:ead #residential Management Staff


33/46

Secretary, %ational 7conomic 0evelopment $thority

Secretary, 0epartment of the *nterior and 5ocal Aovernment

Secretary, 0epartment of :ealth

$dministrator, Aovernment Service *nsrance System

$dministrator, Social Secrity System

$dministrator, %ational Statistics Office

Managing 0irector, %ational )ompter )enter

Sec. &. Secretariat. The %ational )ompter )enter >%))? is hereby designated assecretariat to the *$)) and as sch shall provide administrative and technicalspport to the *$)).

Sec. . Linkage Among Agencies. The #oplation +eference %mber >#+%?generated by the %SO shall serve as the common reference nmber to establish alinkage among concerned agencies. The *$)) Secretariat shall coordinate with thedifferent Social Secrity and Services $gencies to establish the standards in the seof Biometrics Technology and in compter application designs of their respectivesystems.

Sec. C. Condct of Information !issemination Campaign. The Office of the #ressSecretary, in coordination with the %ational Statistics Offices, the AS*S and SSS aslead agencies and other concerned agencies shall ndertake a massive tri=mediainformation dissemination campaign to edcate and raise pblic awareness on theimportance and se of the #+% and the Social Secrity *dentification +eference.


Sec. D. Sbmission of Reglar Reports. The %SO, AS*S and SSS shall sbmitreglar reports to the Office of the #resident, throgh the *$)), on the stats ofimplementation of this ndertaking.

Sec. ( Effectivity. This $dministartive Order shall take effect immediately.


*n seeking to strike down $.O. %o. &'( as nconstittional, petitioner arges

$. T:7 7ST$B5*S:M7%T OF %$T*O%$5 )OM#6T7+*870 *07%T*F*)$T*O%+7F7+7%)7 S9ST7M +76*+7S $ 57A*S5$T*/7 $)T. T:7 *SS6$)7 OF $.O.%O. &'( B9 T:7 #+7S*07%T OF T:7 +7#6B5*) OF T:7 #:*5*##*%7S *S,T:7+7FO+7, $% 6%)O%ST*T6T*O%$5 6S6+#$T*O% OF T:7 57A*S5$T*/7#O7+S OF T:7 )O%A+7SS OF T:7 +7#6B5*) OF T:7 #:*5*##*%7S.


34/46


). T:7 *M#57M7%T$T*O% OF $.O. %O. &'( *%S*0*O6S59 5$9S T:7

A+O6%0O+H FO+ $ S9ST7M :*): *55 /*O5$T7 T:7 B*55 OF +*A:TS7%S:+*%70 *% T:7 )O%ST*T6T*O%.

The %ational )ompteri"ed *dentification +eference system to which the %SO, AS*S and SSS arelinked as lead members of the *$)) is intended to establish niform standards for *0 cards isssedby key government agencies >like the SSS? 1for the !efficient identification of persons.! 26nder the newsystem, only one reliable and tamper=proof *.0. need be presented by the cardholder instead of severalidentification papers sch as passports and driver-s license, 3to able to transact with governmentagencies. The improved *0 can be sed to facilitate pblic transactions sch as

1. #ayment of SSS and AS*S benefits

2. $pplications for driver-s license, B*+ T*%, passport, marriagelicense, death certificate, %B* and police clearances, and bsinesspermits

&. $vailment of Medicare services in hospitals

. $vailment of welfare services


4. #re=re


35/46

basic pblic services and social secrity benefits becase of inefficient and not too reliable means ofidentification of the beneficiaries.

Ths, in the !#rimer on the Social Secrity )ard and $dministrative Order %o. &'(! issed by theSSS, a lead agency in the implementation of the said order, the following salient featres arementioned

1. $.O. &'( merely establishes the standards for *.0. cards issed by keygovernment agencies sch as SSS and AS*S.

2. *t does not establish a national *.0. system neither does it re


36/46

appropriate sbEect and falls s


37/46

:aving resolved that the #resident has the athority and prerogative to isse $.O. %o. &'(, * sbmitthat it is prematre for the )ort to determine the constittionality or nconstittionality of the%ational )ompteri"ed *dentification +eference System.

Basic in constittional law is the rle that before the cort assmes Erisdiction over and decideconstittional isses, the following re


38/46

hat has cased mch of the hysteria over the %ational )ompteri"ed *dentification +eferenceSystem is the possible tili"ation of Biometrics Technology which refers to the se of atnomatedmatching of physiological or behavioral characteristics to identify a person that wold violated theciti"en-s constittionally protected right to privacy.

The maEority opinion has enmerated varios forms and methods of Biometrics Technology which if

adopted in the %ational )omptai"ed *dentification +eference System wold seriosly threaten theright to privacy. $mong which are biocrypt retinal scan, artificial nose and thermogram. The maEorityalso points to certain alleged deficiencies of $ O. %o. &'(. Ths

1? $.O. %o. &'( does not specify the particlar Biometrics Technology that shall besed for the new identification system.

2? The order dots not state whether encoding of data is limited to biologicalinformation alone for identification prposes;

&? There is no provision as to who shall control and access the data, nder whatcircmstances and for what prpose; and

? There are no controls to gard against leakage of information, ths heighteningthe potential for misse and abse.

e shold not be overwhelmed by the mere mention of the Biometrics Technology and its alleged,yet nfonded !far=reaching effects.!

There is nothing in $.O. %o. &'(, as it is worded, to sggest that the advanced methods of theBiometrics Technology that may pose danger to the right of privacy will be adopted.

The standards set in $.O. %o. &'( for the adoption of the new system are clear=ct andne


39/46

compter file maintained by the %ew 9ork State 0epartment of :ealth. Some patients reglarly receivingprescription for !Schedle **! drgs and doctors who prescribed sch drgs broght an action


40/46

method that wold be sed and the specific personal data that wold be collected provide thesafegard, >if any? and spply the details on how this new system in spposed to work. The )ortshold not Emp the gn on the 7@ective.

***

On the isse of fnding, the maEority sbmits that Section 4 of $.O. %o. &'(, which allows thegovernment agencies inclded in the new system to obtain fnding form their respective bdgets, isnconstittional for being an illegal transfer of appropriations.

*t is not so. The bdget for the national identification system cannot be deemed a transfer of fndssince the same is composed of and will be implemented by the member government agancies.Morever, thses agencies particlarly the AS*S and SSS have been issing some form ofidentification or membership card. The improved *0 cards that will be issed nder this new systemwold Est take place of the old identification cards and bdget=wise, the fnds that were being sedto manfactre the old *0 cards, which are sally acconted for nder the !Spplies and Materials!item of the Aovernment $cconting and $diting Manal, cold now be tili"ed to fnd the newcards. :ence, what is envisioned is not transfer of appropriations bt a pooling of fnds and

resorces by the varios government agencies involved in the proEect.

:7+7FO+7, * vote to dismiss the petition.

$ENDOA, J., separate opinion;

My vote is to dismiss the petition in this case.

"irst. * cannot find anything in the te@t of $dministrative Order %o. &'( of the #resident of the#hilippines that wold warrant a declaration that it is violative of the right of privacy. So far as * can

see, all the $dministrative Orders does is

N establish an *dentification +eference System involving the following serviceagencies of the government

#residential Management Staff

%ational 7conomic 0evelopemnt $thority

0epartment of the *nterior and 5ocal Aovernment

0epartment of :ealth

Aovernment Service *srance System

Social Secrity Office

%ational )ompter )enter


41/46

N create a committee, composed of the heads of the agencies concerned, todraft rles for the System;

N direct the se of the #oplation +eference %mber >#+%? generated by the%ational )enss and Statistics Office as the common reference nmber tolink the participating agencies into an *dentification +eference System, and

the adoption by the agencies of standards in the se of biometrics technologyand compter designs; and

N provide for the fnding of the System from the bdgets of the agenciesconcerned.

#etitioner arges, however, that !the implementation of $.O. %o. &'( will mean that each and everyFilipino and resident will have a file with the government containing, at the very least, his ,RNandphysiological biometrics sch as, bt not limited to, his facial featres, hand geometry, retinal or irispattern, 0%$ pattern, fingerprints, voice characteristics, and signatre analysis.!

*n spport of his contention, petitioner a? births, >b? deaths, >c? marriages and their annlments; >d?legitimations, >e? adoptions, >f? acknowledgments of natral children, >g? natrali"ations, and >h? changesof name. 3

Other stattes giving government agencies the power to re


42/46

sch as fingerprinting or electronic photography in banks have become commonplace. $s has beenobserved, the teaching hospital has come to be accepted as offering madical services that compensatefor the loss of the isolation of the sickbed; the increased capacity of applied sciences to tili"e more andmore kinds of data and the cose


43/46

worship, withot discrimination or preference, shall be forever be allowed. %oreligios test shall be re


44/46

0hird. There is no basis for believing that, beyond the identification of individals, the System will besed for illegal prposes. %or are sanctions lacking for the nathori"ed se or disclosre ofinformation gathered by the varios agencies constitting the System. For e@ample, as the SolicitorAeneral points ot. ).$. %o. C31. P penali"es the nathori"ed se or disclosre of data frnishedthe %SO with a fine of not more than #4''.'' or imprisonment for not more than si@ months or both.

$t all events, at this stage, it is prematre to pass on the claim that the *dentification +eferenceSystem can be sed for the prpose of compiling massive dossiers on individals that can be sedto crtail basic civil and political rights since, if at all, this can only be provided in the implementingrles and reglations which have yet to be promlgated. e have already stated that $.O. %o. &'( isnot a statte. 7ven in the case of stattes, however, where implementing rles are necessary to ptthem into effect, it has been held that an attack on their constittionality wold be prematre. 17$s7dgar in +ing Learpts it, !+ipeness is all.! 18For, to borrow some more Shakespearean lines,

The canker galls the infants of the spring

Too oft before their bttons be disclos-d. 19

That, more than any doctrine of constittional law * can think of, sccinctly e@presses the rleon ripeness, prematrity, and hypothetical, speclative, or conEectral claims.

Of special relevance to this case is Laird v& 0atm. 2)There, a class sit was broght seekingdeclaratory and inEnctive relief on the claim that a 6.S. $rmy intelligence srveillance of civilian politicalactivity having !a potential for civil disorder! e@ercised !a present inhibiting effect on Irespondents- flle@pression and tili"ation of their First $mendment rights.! *n holding the case nonEsticiable, the 6.S.Spreme )ort, in an opinion by )hief Jstice Brger. said 21

*n recent years this )ort has fond in a nmber of cases that constittionalviolations may arise from the deterrent or --chilling,! effect of governmentalreglations that fall short of a direct prohibition against the e@ercise of First

$mendment rights. I)itation of cases omitted *n none of these cases, however, did

the chilling effect arise merely from the individal-s knowledge that a governmentalagency was engaged in certain activities or from the individal-s concomitant fearthat, armed with the frits of those activities, the agency might in the ftre takesome otherand additional action detrimental to that individal. +ather, in each ofthese cases, the challenged e@ercise of governmental power was reglatory,proscriptive, or complsory in natre, and the complainant was either presently orprospectively sbEect to the reglations, proscriptions, or complsions that he waschallenging. . . .

IThese decisions have in no way eroded the !established principle that to entitle aprivate individal to invoke the Edicial power to determine the validity of e@ective orlegislative action he mst show that he was sstained or is immediately in danger of

sstaining a direct inEry as the reslt of that action. . . .

The respondents do not meet this test; Ithe alleged !chilling! effect may perhaps beseen as arising from respondents- perception of the system as inappropriate to the

$rmy-s role nder or form of government, or as arising from respondents- beliefsthat it is inherently dangeros for the military to be concerned with activities in thecivilian sector, or as arising from respondents- less generali"ed yet speclativeapprehensiveness that the $rmy may at some ftre date misse the information insome way that wold case direct harm to respondents. $llegations of a sbEective


45/46

!chill! are not an ade13D?.

"orth. Aiven the fact that no right of privacy is involved in this case and that any obEection to the

identification +eference System on the grond that it violates freedom of thoght is prematre,speclative, or conEectral pending the issance of the implementing rles, it is clear that petitionerBlas F. Ople has no case of action and, therefore, no standing to bring this action. *ndeed, althoghhe assails $.O. %o. &'( on the grond that it violates the right of privacy, he claims no personalinEry sffered as a reslt of the Order in C? which. provides

%o law shall be passed athori"ing any transfer of appropriations; however, the#resident, the #resident of the Senate, the Speaker of the :ose of +epresentatives,the )hief Jstice of the Spreme )ort, and the heads of )onstittional)ommissions may, by law, be athori"ed to agment any item in the generalappropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of theirrespective appropriations.

Bt, as the Solicitor Aeneral states

#etitioner-s argment is anchored on two erroneos assmptions one, that all theconcerned agencies, inclding the SSS and the AS*S, receive bdgetary spportfrom the national government; and two, that the A$$ is the only law whereby pblicfnds are appropriated. Both assmptions are wrong.

The SSS and AS*S do not presently receive bdgetary spport from the %ationalAovernment. They have achieved self=spporting stats sch that the contribtionsof their members are sfficient to finance their e@penses. One wold be hard pressedto find in the A$$ an appropriation of fnds to the SSS and the AS*S.

Frthermore, their respective charters athori"e the SSS and the AS*S to disbrsetheir fnds >+ep. $ct %o. 1141 I13C, as amended, Sec. 2C; #res. 0ecree %o. 114I13DD, as amended, Sec. 23? withot the need for a separate appropriation from the

)ongress.

%or as Senator can petitioner claim standing since no power of )ongress is alleged to have beenimpaired by the $dministrative Order in


46/46

The )onstittion of the #hilippines makes the #resident not only the e@ective btalso the administrative head of the government. . . . 7@ective power refers to thelegal and political fnction of the #resident involving the e@ercise of discretion.

$dministrative power, on the other hand, concerns itself with the work of applyingpolicies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. Thesetwo fnctions are often confsed by the pblic bt they are distinct from each other.

The #resident as the e@ective athority has the dty of spervising the enforcementof laws for the maintenance of general peace and pblic order. $s administrativehead, his dty is to see that every government office is managed and maintainedproperly by the persons in charge of it in accordance with pertinent laws andreglations.

. . . The power of control vested in him by the )onstittion makes for a stronglycentrali"ed administrative system. *t reinforces frther his position as the e@ective ofthe government, enabling him to comply more effectively with his constittional dtyto enforce the laws. It enables him to fi5 a niform standard of a administrativeeficiency and to check the official condct of his agents. The decisions of all theofficers within his department are sbEect to his power of revision, either on his ownmotion or on the appeal of some individal who might deem himself aggrieved by theaction of an administrative official. *n case of serios dereliction of dty, he maysspend or remove the officials concerned. 23

For the foregoing reasons, the petition shold be 0*SM*SS70.

Documents

1. Ople vs Torres