SYNOPSIS

Administrative Order No. 308, entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized

Identification Reference System," was issued by the President on December
12, 1996.

SENATOR BLAS F. OPLE challenges the constitutionality of said A.O.

on two (2) grounds, namely:
(1) it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate; and
(2) its impermissibility intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy.

OPLE contends that the A.O. is not a mere A.O. but a law and, hence, beyond
the power of the President to issue. OPLE further alleges that said A.O.
establishes a system of identification that is all-encompassing in scope, affects
the life and liberty of every Filipino citizen and foreign resident, and more
particularly, violates their right to privacy.

In declaring the A.O. null and void for being unconstitutional, the Supreme
Court held that the A.O. involves a subject that is not appropriate to be
covered by said administrative order. An administrative order is an ordinance
issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative
operation of government. An administrative order must be in harmony with
the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and
carrying out the legislative policy.

The essence of privacy is the right to be let alone. The right to privacy is
recognized and enshrined in several provisions of the Constitution.
Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws. Unlike the
dissenters, we prescind 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. What is not arguable is the broadness,
the vagueness, the overbreath of A.O. No. 308 which if implemented will put
our people's right to privacy in clear and present danger.
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. Even while we strike down A.O. No. 308, we spell out that the
Court is not per se against the use of computers to accumulate, store,
process, retrieve and transmit data to improve our bureaucracy. 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.

DECISION

The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of OPLE to prevent

the shrinking of the right to privacy, which the revered Mr. Justice Brandeis
considered as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by
civilized men.''