FACTS:

This case involves a petition filed by Senator Blas F. Ople challenging the validity of Administrative Order No. 308, titled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System." The petitioner argues that the administrative order is unconstitutional on two grounds: it usurps the power of Congress to legislate, and it violates the right to privacy of the citizenry. Administrative Order No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on December 12, 1996, with the aim of establishing a computerized system to identify persons seeking basic services and social security. The order also created an Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee to oversee the implementation of the system. The petitioner filed the instant petition against the respondents, including the then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and heads of government agencies involved in the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee.

Petitioner Ople is a Senator and a member of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). He filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308 (A.O. No. 308) issued by the President, which establishes a national identification system. Respondents argue that petitioner has no legal interest to uphold and that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. However, petitioner asserts that as a Senator and taxpayer, he has standing to bring suit and can challenge the misalignment of public funds and misuse of GSIS funds for the implementation of A.O. No. 308. Additionally, the respondents themselves have started implementing A.O. No. 308 without waiting for the rules to be promulgated. Petitioner claims that A.O. No. 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law, which the President has no power to issue as it infringes on the power of Congress to make laws.

This case involves the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308 (AO 308) which established a National Computerized Identification Reference System. The petitioners argue that AO 308 should be invalidated because it deals with a subject that should be covered by law and it violates the right to privacy. They contend that AO 308 requires citizens to obtain an identification card in order to transact with government agencies, which infringes on their rights and privileges. The petitioners also argue that administrative legislation should be restricted in its scope and application and that it should not be a substitute for general policy-making enacted by Congress. They invoke the right to privacy, which has been recognized as a constitutional right. The court referred to the Griswold v. Connecticut case in the US Supreme Court and the Morfe v. Mutuc case in the Philippines, which both recognized the constitutional right to privacy.

The case revolves around the right to privacy. The petitioners, who are journalists, filed a petition to stop the implementation of a city ordinance that requires them to secure permits before conducting interviews or taking photographs of any city officials or employees. They argue that the ordinance is a violation of their rights to free speech, press, and information, as well as their right to privacy.

The respondents, on the other hand, argue that the ordinance is valid as it aims to protect the privacy of the city officials and employees. They contend that, as public servants, the officials and employees should also have a right to privacy.

The petitioners assert that the ordinance is overly broad and vague, and grants the city officials and employees authority to determine what constitutes an invasion of their privacy. They argue that the ordinance, therefore, gives the officials and employees arbitrary control over the exercise of their profession.

The trial court upheld the validity of the ordinance, stating that the right to free speech and information is not absolute and must be balanced with the right to privacy. Hence, the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Administrative Order No. 308 constitutes a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate.

2. Whether Administrative Order No. 308 impermissibly intrudes on the citizenry's protected zone of privacy.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that Administrative Order No. 308 involves a subject that should be covered by law, not merely by an administrative order, as it establishes a new National Computerized Identification Reference System that affects the life and liberty of every Filipino citizen and foreign resident.

2. The Court further held that Administrative Order No. 308 facially violates the right to privacy as it is broad, vague, and overreaching, posing a clear and present danger to the people's right to privacy.

PRINCIPLES:

• The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

• The President cannot usurp the legislative power of Congress by issuing administrative orders that effectively create laws.

• Government actions that infringe on fundamental rights must be justified by a compelling state interest and must be narrowly drawn to prevent abuses.

• The reasonable expectation of privacy depends on the conduct of the individual and whether society recognizes the expectation as reasonable.

• The security and integrity of personal information in government identification systems must be ensured through clear and categorical terms, including controls on how the information is accessed and used.