1ST CD

OPLE VS. TORRES

Summary:

The case involves the constitutionality of AO 308 which sought to adopt a national computerized ID reference system
in the Philippines. SC held it is unconstitutional for having a subject that it not appropriate to be covered by an
administrative order, and hence, beyond the power of the President to issue.

Doctrine:

. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the
administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.

Administrative legislation must be restricted in its scope and application. Regulations are not supposed to be a
substitute for the general policy-making that Congress enacts in the form of a public law. Authority to prescribe rules
and regulations is not an independent source of power to make laws.

Facts:

 Senator Blas Ople assails the validity of Administrative Order No. 308 “Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System” on the grounds that (1) it is a usurpation of the power of
Congress to legislate and (2) that it intrudes the citizen’s right to privacy.
o Admin Order was issued by President Fidel Ramos in 1996. A.O. 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.
 . Sec. 4 provides for a Population Reference Number (PRN) as a common reference number to establish a
linkage among concerned agencies through the use of Biometrics Technology and computer application
designs.
 Ople’s main contentions: (1) the establishment of a national computerized ID reference system requires a
legislative act. The issuance by the President of the A.O. is therefore an a usurpation of legislative power;
(2) appropriation of public funds by the President for such A.O. is an unconstitutional usurpation of power
of Congress to appropriate public funds

Issues Ratio:

 Senator Blas Ople assails the validity of Administrative Order No. 308 “Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System” on the grounds that (1) it is a usurpation of the power of
Congress to legislate and (2) that it intrudes the citizen’s right to privacy.
o Admin Order was issued by President Fidel Ramos in 1996. A.O. 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.
 . Sec. 4 provides for a Population Reference Number (PRN) as a common reference number to establish a
linkage among concerned agencies through the use of Biometrics Technology and computer application
designs.
 Ople’s main contentions: (1) the establishment of a national computerized ID reference system requires a
legislative act. The issuance by the President of the A.O. is therefore an a usurpation of legislative power;
(2) appropriation of public funds by the President for such A.O. is an unconstitutional usurpation of power
of Congress to appropriate public funds

Dispositive:

Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System"
declared null and void for being unconstitutional.
2nd CD
OPLE VS. TORRES
Remus Ceasar Calicdan9 months ago
Avg. Rating:

Summary:

The petition at bar is an on the part of Senator Blas F. Ople to prevent the shrinking of the right to privacy. Petitioner
Ople prays that we invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized
Identification Reference System" based on the assumption that it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected
zone of privacy.

Doctrine:

Section 3 of the Bill of Rights states that:

The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law and any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Facts:

Petitioner argues that the implementation of A.O. No. 308 will lay the groundwork for a system that will violate the Bill
of Rights by recording every important transaction an individual makes throughout the course of his/her life which
would warrant a pool of information of such individual open to the use of any person or authority who uses it. 

Issues Ratio:

Whether or not Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference
System" is violative of the Right to Privacy?

Dispositive:

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. Pursuant to said
administrative order, an individual must present his PRN everytime 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 availments, 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.

We can even grant, arguendo, that the computer data file will be limited to the name, address and other basic
personal information about the individual. Even that hospitable assumption will not save A.O. No. 308 from
constitutional infirmity for again said order does not tell us in clear and categorical terms how these information
gathered shall be handled. It does not provide who shall control and access the data, under what
circumstances and for what purpose. These factors are essential to safeguard the privacy and guaranty the
integrity of the information.

The ability of a sophisticated data center to generate a comprehensive cradle-to-grave dossier on an individual and
transmit it over a national network is one of the most graphic threats of the computer revolution. The computer is
capable of producing a comprehensive dossier on individuals out of information given at different times and for varied
purposes. It can continue adding to the stored data and keeping the information up to date. Retrieval of stored data is
simple. When information of a privileged character finds its way into the computer, it can be extracted
together with other data on the subject. Once extracted, the information is put in the hands of any person.
The end of privacy begins.

Other Notes:

CALALANG VS. WILLIAMS

Your Rating:

Summary:

Calalang filed a petition for writ of prohibition against certain officials in enforcing the prohibition of animal-drawn
vehicles in certain areas and during certain periods of the day. The Court ruled that Commonwealth Act No 548, the
law in question, is constitutional. 

Doctrine:

Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the humanization of laws and
the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular
conception may at least be approximated.

Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures
calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper
economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the
existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. 

Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and
diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a
combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state
of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest
number."

Facts:

 Maximo Calalang brought a petition for a writ of prohibition against the following respondents: Chairman of
the National Traffic Commission (A.D. Williams), Director of Public Works (Vicente Fragante), Acting
Secretary of Public Works and Communications (Sergio Bayan), Mayor of the City of Manila (Eulogio
Rodriguez), and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila (Juan Dominguez).
 It is alleged in the petition that the respondents have caused and enforced the prohibition of animal-
drawn vehicles from passing along Rosario St. extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmarinas
Street (from 7:30am-12:30pm and from 1:30-5:30p.m.); and Rizal Avenue extending from the railroad
crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street (from 7-11a.m.) for a period of one year from the date of the
opening of the Colgante Bridge, to the detriment not only of their owners but of the riding public as well.
 The petitioner avers that the rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on national
roads, pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 548, infringe upon the constitutional precept regarding the
promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people

Issues Ratio:
  WON CA No 548 is unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative power – NO

o The provisions of CA No 548 do not confer legislative power upon the Director of Public Works
and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
o The authority therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and
regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but merely to
carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly.
o The delegated power is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merely the
ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law is to
be predicated.
o To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and
how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the
traffic thereon and the requirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative
function which cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly. It must depend on
the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the duty of determining
whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot be said that the
exercise of such discretion is the making of the law. 

 WON CA No 548 constitutes as an unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade and abridge the
right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion – NO  

o Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the
paramount police power of the state.
o In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public
convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic, a menace to
public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law, and the state
in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property,
and with business and occupations.
o Persons and property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to
secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state. 

 WON CA No 548 infringes upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice – NO

o The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken sympathy towards any
given group. Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,"
but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the
State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be
approximated.
o Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of
society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying
the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. 
o Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of
interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that
should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and
economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting
the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the
greatest number."

Dispositive:

In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed for is hereby denied, with costs against the petitioner. So
ordered.