NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V.

RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines,

EN BANC by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby direct the following:

SECTION 1. Establishment of a National Computerized Identification Reference

System. A decentralized Identification Reference System among the key basic services
[G.R. No. 127685. July 23, 1998] and social security providers is hereby established.

SEC. 2 Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee. An Inter-Agency Coordinating

Committee (IACC) to draw-up the implementing guidelines and oversee the
BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner, vs. RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, implementation of the System is hereby created, chaired by the Executive Secretary,
HECTOR VILLANUEVA, CIELITO HABITO, ROBERT BARBERS, with the following as members:
CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO, RENATO VALENCIA, TOMAS
P. AFRICA, HEAD OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER Head, Presidential Management Staff
CENTER and CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, respondents.
Secretary, National Economic Development Authority
Secretary, Department of the Interior and
DECISION Local Government
PUNO, J.: Secretary, Department of Health
Administrator, Government Service Insurance
System,
The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of Senator Blas F. Ople to Administrator, Social Security System, Administrator,
prevent the shrinking of the right to privacy, which the revered Mr. Justice Brandeis National Statistics Office Managing Director, National
considered as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized Computer Center.
men."[1] Petitioner Ople prays that we 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 SEC. 3. Secretariat. The National Computer Center (NCC) is hereby designated as
to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of secretariat to the IACC and as such shall provide administrative and technical support
privacy. We grant the petition for the rights sought to be vindicated by the petitioner to the IACC.
need stronger barriers against further erosion.
SEC. 4. Linkage Among Agencies. The Population Reference Number (PRN)
A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on December 12, 1996 generated by the NSO shall serve as the common reference number to establish a
and reads as follows: linkage among concerned agencies. The IACC Secretariat shall coordinate with the
different Social Security and Services Agencies to establish the standards in the use of
"ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE Biometrics Technology and in computer application designs of their respective
SYSTEM systems.

WHEREAS, there is a need to provide Filipino citizens and foreign residents with the SEC. 5. Conduct of Information Dissemination Campaign. The Office of the Press
facility to conveniently transact business with basic service and social security Secretary, in coordination with the National Statistics Office, the GSIS and SSS as lead
providers and other government instrumentalities; agencies and other concerned agencies shall undertake a massive tri-media
information dissemination campaign to educate and raise public awareness on the
WHEREAS, this will require a computerized system to properly and efficiently identify importance and use of the PRN and the Social Security Identification Reference.
persons seeking basic services on social security and reduce, if not totally eradicate,
fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations; SEC. 6. Funding. The funds necessary for the implementation of the system shall be
sourced from the respective budgets of the concerned agencies.
WHEREAS, a concerted and collaborative effort among the various basic services and
social security providing agencies and other government instrumentalities is required
to achieve such a system;
1
SEC. 7. Submission of Regular Reports. The NSO, GSIS and SSS shall submit regular C. THE FUNDS NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
reports to the Office of the President, through the IACC, on the status of implementation IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM MAY BE SOURCED FROM THE
of this undertaking. BUDGETS OF THE CONCERNED AGENCIES;

SEC. 8. Effectivity. This Administrative Order shall take effect immediately. D. A.O. NO. 308 [1996] PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST IN PRIVACY.[3]

DONE in the City of Manila, this 12th day of December in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen We now resolve.
Hundred and Ninety-Six.
I
(SGD.) FIDEL V.
RAMOS" As is usual in constitutional litigation, respondents raise the threshold issues
relating to the standing to sue of the petitioner and the justiciability of the case at
bar. More specifically, respondents aver that petitioner has no legal interest to uphold
A.O. No. 308 was published in four newspapers of general circulation on January and that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated.
22, 1997 and January 23, 1997. On January 24, 1997, petitioner filed the instant
petition against respondents, then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and the heads of These submissions do not deserve our sympathetic ear. Petitioner Ople is a
the government agencies, who as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating distinguished member of our Senate. As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the
Committee, are charged with the implementation of A.O. No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is a
issued a temporary restraining order enjoining its implementation. usurpation of legislative power.[4] As taxpayer and member of the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the legality of the misalignment
Petitioner contends: of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement A.O. No. 308. [5]

"A. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected by the fact that
REFERENCE SYSTEM REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE ACT. THE ISSUANCE OF A.O. the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople
NO. 308 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS, assails A.O. No. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. His action is not
THEREFORE, AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal
POWERS OF THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. defects. Moreover, the respondents themselves have started the implementation of
A.O. No. 308 without waiting for the rules. As early as January 19, 1997, respondent
Social Security System (SSS) caused the publication of a notice to bid for the
B. THE APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY THE PRESIDENT FOR THE manufacture of the National Identification (ID) card.[6] Respondent Executive Secretary
IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. NO. 308 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION Torres has publicly announced that representatives from the GSIS and the SSS have
OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC FUNDS completed the guidelines for the national identification system. [7] All signals from the
FOR EXPENDITURE. respondents show their unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308 and we need not
wait for the formality of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionality. In this light,
C. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. NO. 308 INSIDIOUSLY LAYS THE the dissenters insistence that we tighten the rule on standing is not a commendable
GROUNDWORK FOR A SYSTEM WHICH WILL VIOLATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS stance as its result would be to throttle an important constitutional principle and a
ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION."[2] fundamental right.
II
Respondents counter-argue:
We now come to the core issues. Petitioner claims that A.O. No. 308 is not
A. THE INSTANT PETITION IS NOT A JUSTICIABLE CASE AS WOULD WARRANT a mere administrative order but a law and hence, beyond the power of the
A JUDICIAL REVIEW; President to issue. He alleges that A.O. No. 308 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.
B. A.O. NO. 308 [1996] WAS ISSUED WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON Petitioner's sedulous concern for the Executive not to trespass on the lawmaking
THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF CONGRESS; domain of Congress is understandable. The blurring of the demarcation line between
the power of the Legislature to make laws and the power of the Executive to execute
laws will disturb their delicate balance of power and cannot be allowed. Hence, the
2
exercise by one branch of government of power belonging to another will be given procedural principles of governance"[25] and "embodies changes in administrative
a stricter scrutiny by this Court. structures and procedures designed to serve the people." [26] The Code is divided into
seven (7) Books: Book I deals with Sovereignty and General Administration, Book II
The line that delineates Legislative and Executive power is not with the Distribution of Powers of the three branches of Government, Book III on the
indistinct. Legislative power is "the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, Office of the President, Book IV on the Executive Branch, Book V on the Constitutional
and to alter and repeal them."[8] The Constitution, as the will of the people in their Commissions, Book VI on National Government Budgeting, and Book VII on
original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in the Congress of the Administrative Procedure. These Books contain provisions on the organization, powers
Philippines.[9] The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general and and general administration of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
comprehensive.[10] The legislative body possesses plenary power for all purposes of government, the organization and administration of departments, bureaus and offices
civil government.[11] Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is under the executive branch, the organization and functions of the Constitutional
necessarily possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it Commissions and other constitutional bodies, the rules on the national government
elsewhere.[12] In fine, except as limited by the Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, budget, as well as guidelines for the exercise by administrative agencies of quasi-
legislative power embraces all subjects and extends to matters of general concern or legislative and quasi-judicial powers. The Code covers both the internal administration
common interest.[13] of government, i.e, internal organization, personnel and recruitment, supervision and
While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the President executes discipline, and the effects of the functions performed by administrative officials on
the laws.[14] The executive power is vested in the President.[15] It is generally defined private individuals or parties outside government. [27]
as the power to enforce and administer the laws.[16] It is the power of carrying the laws It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely implements the
into practical operation and enforcing their due observance. [17] Administrative Code of 1987. It establishes for the first time a National Computerized
As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He Identification Reference System. Such a System requires a delicate adjustment of
represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the various contending state policies-- the primacy of national security, the extent of privacy
officials and employees of his department.[18] He has control over the executive interest against dossier-gathering by government, the choice of policies, etc. Indeed,
department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume the dissent of Mr. Justice Mendoza states that the A.O. No. 308 involves the all-
directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with important freedom of thought. As said administrative order redefines the parameters
the discretion of its officials.[19] Corollary to the power of control, the President also has of some basic rights of our citizenry vis-a-vis the State as well as the line that separates
the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace the administrative power of the President to make rules and the legislative power of
and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices Congress, it ought to be evident that it deals with a subject that should be covered by
under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.[20] law.

Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and Nor is it correct to argue as the dissenters do that A.O. No. 308 is not a law
enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs.[21] It enables the because it confers no right, imposes no duty, affords no protection, and creates no
President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the office. Under A.O. No. 308, a citizen cannot transact business with government
official conduct of his agents.[22] To this end, he can issue administrative orders, agencies delivering basic services to the people without the contemplated identification
rules and regulations. card. No citizen will refuse to get this identification card for no one can avoid dealing
with government. It is thus clear as daylight that without the ID, a citizen will have
Prescinding from these precepts, we hold that A.O. No. 308 involves a difficulty exercising his rights and enjoying his privileges. Given this reality, the
subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order. An contention that A.O. No. 308 gives no right and imposes no duty cannot stand.
administrative order is:
Again, with due respect, the dissenting opinions unduly expand the limits of
administrative legislation and consequently erodes the plenary power of Congress to
"Sec. 3. Administrative Orders.-- Acts of the President which relate to particular aspects make laws. This is contrary to the established approach defining the traditional limits of
of governmental operation in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be administrative legislation. As well stated by Fisher: "x x x Many regulations however,
promulgated in administrative orders."[23] bear directly on the public. It is here that administrative legislation must be
restricted in its scope and application. Regulations are not supposed to be a
An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific substitute for the general policy-making that Congress enacts in the form of a
aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with public law. Although administrative regulations are entitled to respect, the
the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying authority to prescribe rules and regulations is not an independent source of
out the legislative policy.[24] We reject the argument that A.O. No. 308 implements power to make laws."[28]
the legislative policy of the Administrative Code of 1987. The Code is a general
law and "incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and III

3
 Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law, still intrusion into it. In modern terms, the capacity to maintain and support this enclave of
it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation because private life marks the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society.'"
facially it violates theright to privacy. The essence of privacy is the "right to be let
alone."[29] In the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut,[30] the United States Supreme Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of privacy is
Court gave more substance to the right of privacy when it ruled that the right has a recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution.[33] It is
constitutional foundation. It held that there is a right of privacy which can be found within expressly recognized in Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights:
the penumbras of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments, [31] viz:
"Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
"Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras formed by emanations from except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise
these guarantees that help give them life and substance x x x. Various guarantees as prescribed by law."
create zones of privacy.The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First
Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against
the quartering of soldiers `in any house' in time of peace without the consent of the Other facets of the right to privacy are protected in various provisions of the Bill of
owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the Rights, viz:[34]
`right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination "Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: `The enumeration
in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
retained by the people.'" effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
In the 1968 case of Morfe v. Mutuc,[32] we adopted the Griswold ruling that there is a except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
constitutional right to privacy. Speaking thru Mr. Justice, later Chief Justice, Enrique examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
Fernando, we held: produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
"xxx
x x x.
The Griswold case invalidated a Connecticut statute which made the use of
contraceptives a criminal offense on the ground of its amounting to an unconstitutional
invasion of the right of privacy of married persons; rightfully it stressed "a relationship Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by
lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right
guarantees." It has wider implications though. The constitutional right to privacy has to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public
come into its own. health, as may be provided by law.

So it is likewise in our jurisdiction. The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition x x x.

independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of
constitutional protection. The language of Prof. Emerson is particularly apt: 'The Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
concept of limited government has always included the idea that governmental powers sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall
stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. This is indeed one of not be abridged.
the basic distinctions between absolute and limited government. Ultimate and
pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."
absolute state. In contrast, a system of limited government safeguards a private sector,
which belongs to the individual, firmly distinguishing it from the public sector, which the
state can control. Protection of this private sector-- protection, in other words, of the Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil
dignity and integrity of the individual--has become increasingly important as modern Code provides that "[e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
society has developed. All the forces of a technological age --industrialization, peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons" and punishes as actionable torts
urbanization, and organization-- operate to narrow the area of privacy and facilitate several acts by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy of another. [35] It also
holds a public officer or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any

4
violation of the rights and liberties of another person, [36] and recognizes the privacy of densities of bone, skin, fat and blood vessels all contribute to the individual's personal
letters and other private communications.[37] The Revised Penal Code makes a crime "heat signature."[53]
the violation of secrets by an officer,[38] the revelation of trade and industrial
secrets,[39] and trespass to dwelling.[40] Invasion of privacy is an offense in special In the last few decades, technology has progressed at a galloping rate. Some
laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law,[41] the Secrecy of Bank Deposit Act[42] and the science fictions are now science facts. Today, biometrics is no longer limited to the
Intellectual Property Code.[43] The Rules of Court on privileged communication use of fingerprint to identify an individual. It is a new science that uses various
likewise recognize the privacy of certain information.[44] technologies in encoding any and all biological characteristics of an individual
for identification. It is noteworthy that A.O. No. 308 does not state what specific
Unlike the dissenters, we prescind from the premise that the right to privacy biological characteristics and what particular biometrics technology shall be
is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, hence, it is the burden of used to identify people who will seek its coverage. Considering the banquet of
government to show that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling state options available to the implementors of A.O. No. 308, the fear that it threatens
interest and that it is narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two the right to privacy of our people is not groundless.
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 A.O. No. 308 should also raise our antennas for a further look will show that
other government instrumentalities and (2) the need to reduce, if not totally eradicate, it does not state whether encoding of data is limited to biological information
fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. It is alone for identification purposes. In fact, the Solicitor General claims that the
debatable whether these interests are compelling enough to warrant the issuance of adoption of the Identification Reference System will contribute to the "generation of
A.O. No. 308.But what is not arguable is the broadness, the vagueness, the population data for development planning." [54] This is an admission that the PRN will
overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if implemented will put our people's right to not be used solely for identification but for the generation of other data with remote
privacy in clear and present danger. relation to the avowed purposes of A.O. No. 308. Clearly, the indefiniteness of A.O.
No. 308 can give the government the roving authority to store and retrieve
The heart of A.O. No. 308 lies in its Section 4 which provides for a Population information for a purpose other than the identification of the individual through
Reference Number (PRN) as a "common reference number to establish a linkage his PRN.
among concerned agencies" through the use of "Biometrics Technology" and
"computer application designs." 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,
Biometry or biometrics is "the science of the application of statistical methods an individual must present his PRN everytime he deals with a government agency to
to biological facts; a mathematical analysis of biological data." [45] The term avail of basic services and security. His transactions with the government agency will
"biometrics" has now evolved into a broad category of technologies which necessarily be recorded-- whether it be in the computer or in the documentary file of
provide precise confirmation of an individual's identity through the use of the the agency. The individual's file may include his transactions for loan availments,
individual's own physiological and behavioral characteristics.[46] A physiological income tax returns, statement of assets and liabilities, reimbursements for medication,
characteristic is a relatively stable physical characteristic such as a fingerprint, retinal hospitalization, etc. The more frequent the use of the PRN, the better the chance
scan, hand geometry or facial features. A behavioral characteristic is influenced by of building a huge and formidable information base through the electronic
the individual's personality and includes voice print, signature and keystroke.[47] Most linkage of the files.[55] The data may be gathered for gainful and useful
biometric identification systems use a card or personal identification number (PIN) for government purposes; but the existence of this vast reservoir of personal
initial identification. The biometric measurement is used to verify that the individual information constitutes a covert invitation to misuse, a temptation that may be
holding the card or entering the PIN is the legitimate owner of the card or PIN. [48] too great for some of our authorities to resist.[56]
A most common form of biological encoding is finger-scanning where We can even grant, arguendo, that the computer data file will be limited to the
technology scans a fingertip and turns the unique pattern therein into an individual name, address and other basic personal information about the individual. [57] Even that
number which is called a biocrypt.The biocrypt is stored in computer data hospitable assumption will not save A.O. No. 308 from constitutional infirmity for again
banks[49] and becomes a means of identifying an individual using a service. This said order does not tell us in clear and categorical terms how these information
technology requires one's fingertip to be scanned every time service or access is gathered shall be handled. It does not provide who shall control and access the
provided.[50] Another method is the retinal scan. Retinal scan technology employs data, under what circumstances and for what purpose. These factors are essential
optical technology to map the capillary pattern of the retina of the eye. This technology to safeguard the privacy and guaranty the integrity of the information. [58]Well to note,
produces a unique print similar to a finger print.[51] Another biometric method is known the computer linkage gives other government agencies access to the information. Yet,
as the "artificial nose." This device chemically analyzes the unique combination of there are no controls to guard against leakage of information. When the access
substances excreted from the skin of people.[52] The latest on the list of biometric code of the control programs of the particular computer system is broken, an intruder,
achievements is the thermogram. Scientists have found that by taking pictures of a without fear of sanction or penalty, can make use of the data for whatever purpose, or
face using infra-red cameras, a unique heat distribution pattern is seen. The different worse, manipulate the data stored within the system.[59]

5
 It is plain and we hold that A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal The rules and regulations to be drawn by the IACC cannot remedy this fatal
information which will be gathered about our people will only be processed defect. Rules and regulations merely implement the policy of the law or order. On its
for unequivocally specified purposes.[60] The lack of proper safeguards in this regard face, A.O. No. 308 gives the IACC virtually unfettered discretion to determine the metes
of A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the individual's liberty of abode and travel by and bounds of the ID System.
enabling authorities to track down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous
persons to access confidential information and circumvent the right against self- Nor do our present laws provide adequate safeguards for
incrimination; it may pave the way for "fishing expeditions" by government authorities a reasonable expectation of privacy. Commonwealth Act No. 591 penalizes the
and evade the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. [61] The possibilities disclosure by any person of data furnished by the individual to the NSO with
of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometrics and computer technology are imprisonment and fine.[73] Republic Act No. 1161 prohibits public disclosure of SSS
accentuated when we consider that the individual lacks control over what can be employment records and reports.[74] These laws, however, apply to records and data
read or placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of the data with the NSO and the SSS. It is not clear whether they may be applied to data with the
encoded.[62] They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to other government agencies forming part of the National ID System. The need to clarify
prevent.[63] the penal aspect of A.O. No. 308 is another reason why its enactment should be given
to Congress.
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 Next, the Solicitor General urges us to validate A.O. No. 308's abridgment of the
most graphic threats of the computer revolution. [64] The computer is capable of right of privacy by using the rational relationship test.[75] He stressed that the
producing a comprehensive dossier on individuals out of information given at different purposes of A.O. No. 308 are:(1) to streamline and speed
times and for varied purposes.[65] It can continue adding to the stored data and keeping up the implementation of basic government services, (2) eradicate fraud by avoiding
the information up to date. Retrieval of stored data is simple. When information of a duplication of services, and (3) generate population data for development planning. He
privileged character finds its way into the computer, it can be extracted together with concludes that these purposes justify the incursions into the right to privacy for the
other data on the subject.[66] Once extracted, the information is putty in the hands of means are rationally related to the end.[76]
any person. The end of privacy begins. We are not impressed by the argument. In Morfe v. Mutuc,[77] we upheld the
Though A.O. No. 308 is undoubtedly not narrowly drawn, the dissenting opinions constitutionality of R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as a valid police
would dismiss its danger to the right to privacy as speculative and hypothetical. Again, power measure. We declared that the law, in compelling a public officer to make an
we cannot countenance such a laidback posture. The Court will not be true to its role annual report disclosing his assets and liabilities, his sources of income and expenses,
as the ultimate guardian of the people's liberty if it would not immediately smother the did not infringe on the individual's right to privacy. The law was enacted to promote
sparks that endanger their rights but would rather wait for the fire that could consume morality in public administration by curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official
them. corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service.[78]

We reject the argument of the Solicitor General that an individual has a The same circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. For one, R.A. 3019 is
reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the National ID and the use of a statute, not an administrative order. Secondly, R.A. 3019 itself is sufficiently
biometrics technology as it stands on quicksand. The reasonableness of detailed. The law is clear on what practices were prohibited and penalized, and it was
a person's expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test: (1) whether by his narrowly drawn to avoid abuses. In the case at bar, A.O. No. 308 may have been
conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) whether this impelled by a worthy purpose, but, it cannot pass constitutional scrutiny for it is not
expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. [67] The factual circumstances narrowly drawn. And we now hold that when the integrity of a fundamental right is
of the case determines the reasonableness of the expectation. [68] However, other at stake, this court will give the challenged law, administrative order, rule or
factors, such as customs, physical surroundings and practices of a particular activity, regulation a stricter scrutiny. It will not do for the authorities to invoke the
may serve to create or diminish this expectation.[69] The use of biometrics and computer presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Nor is it enough
technology in A.O. No. 308 does not assure the individual of a reasonable expectation for the authorities to prove that their act is not irrational for a basic right can be
of privacy.[70] As technology advances, the level of reasonably expected privacy diminished, if not defeated, even when the government does not act
decreases.[71] The measure of protection granted by the reasonable expectation irrationally. They must satisfactorily show the presence of compelling state
diminishes as relevant technology becomes more widely accepted. [72] The security of interests and that the law, rule, or regulation is narrowly drawn to preclude
the computer data file depends not only on the physical inaccessibility of the file but abuses. This approach is demanded by the 1987 Constitution whose entire matrix is
also on the advances in hardware and software computer technology. A.O. No. 308 is designed to protect human rights and to prevent authoritarianism. In case of doubt, the
so widely drawn that a minimum standard for a reasonable expectation of least we can do is to lean towards the stance that will not put in danger the rights
privacy, regardless of technology used, cannot be inferred from its provisions. protected by the Constitution.
The case of Whalen v. Roe[79] cited by the Solicitor General is also off-line.
In Whalen, the United States Supreme Court was presented with the question of
6
whether the State of New York could keep a centralized computer record of the names this Court to strict scrutiny. The reason for this stance was laid down in Morfe v. Mutuc,
and addresses of all persons who obtained certain drugs pursuant to a doctor's to wit:
prescription. The New York State Controlled Substances Act of 1972 required
physicians to identify patients obtaining prescription drugs enumerated in the statute, "The concept of limited government has always included the idea that governmental
i.e., drugs with a recognized medical use but with a potential for abuse, so that the powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. This is indeed
names and addresses of the patients can be recorded in a centralized computer file of one of the basic distinctions between absolute and limited government. Ultimate and
the State Department of Health. The plaintiffs, who were patients and doctors, claimed pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the
that some people might decline necessary medication because of their fear that the absolute state. In contrast, a system of limited government safeguards a private sector,
computerized data may be readily available and open to public disclosure; and that which belongs to the individual, firmly distinguishing it from the public sector, which the
once disclosed, it may stigmatize them as drug addicts. [80] The plaintiffs alleged that state can control. Protection of this private sector-- protection, in other words, of the
the statute invaded a constitutionally protected zone of privacy, i.e, the individual dignity and integrity of the individual-- has become increasingly important as modern
interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and the interest in independence in society has developed. All the forces of a technological age-- industrialization,
making certain kinds of important decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court held that while urbanization, and organization-- operate to narrow the area of privacy and facilitate
an individual's interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters is an aspect of the intrusion into it. In modern terms, the capacity to maintain and support this enclave of
right to privacy, the statute did not pose a grievous threat to establish a constitutional private life marks the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society." [87]
violation. The Court found that the statute was necessary to aid in the enforcement of
laws designed to minimize the misuse of dangerous drugs. The patient-identification
requirement was a product of an orderly and rational legislative decision made IV
upon recommendation by a specially appointed commission which held The right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man living in a
extensive hearings on the matter. Moreover, the statute was narrowly drawn and mass society. The threats emanate from various sources-- governments, journalists,
contained numerous safeguards against indiscriminate disclosure. The statute employers, social scientists, etc.[88] In the case at bar, the threat comes from the
laid down the procedure and requirements for the gathering, storage and retrieval of executive branch of government which by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the people
the information. It enumerated who were authorized to access the data. It also to surrender their privacy by giving information about themselves on the pretext that it
prohibited public disclosure of the data by imposing penalties for its violation. In view will facilitate delivery of basic services. Given the record-keeping power of the
of these safeguards, the infringement of the patients' right to privacy was justified by a computer, only the indifferent will fail to perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308
valid exercise of police power. As we discussed above, A.O. No. 308 lacks these vital gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against
safeguards. unsuspecting citizens. It is timely to take note of the well-worded warning of Kalvin,
Even while we strike down A.O. No. 308, we spell out in neon that the Court Jr., "the disturbing result could be that everyone will live burdened by an unerasable
is not per se against the use of computers to accumulate, store, process, retrieve record of his past and his limitations. In a way, the threat is that because of its record-
and transmit data to improve our bureaucracy. Computers work wonders to achieve keeping, the society will have lost its benign capacity to forget." [89] Oblivious to this
the efficiency which both government and private industry seek. Many information counsel, the dissents still say we should not be too quick in labelling the right to privacy
systems in different countries make use of the computer to facilitate important social as a fundamental right. We close with the statement that the right to privacy was not
objectives, such as better law enforcement, faster delivery of public services, more engraved in our Constitution for flattery.
efficient management of credit and insurance programs, improvement of IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and Administrative Order No. 308
telecommunications and streamlining of financial activities.[81] Used wisely, data stored entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System"
in the computer could help good administration by making accurate and comprehensive declared null and void for being unconstitutional.
information for those who have to frame policy and make key decisions.[82] The benefits
of the computer has revolutionized information technology. It developed the SO ORDERED.
internet,[83] introduced the concept of cyberspace[84]and the information superhighway
where the individual, armed only with his personal computer, may surf and search all
kinds and classes of information from libraries and databases connected to the net. Narvasa, C.J., Melo, and Quisumbing, JJ., joins J. Kapunan and J. Mendoza in
their dissents.
In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not Regalado, J., in the result.
bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle Davide, Jr., in the result; joins J. Panganiban in his separate opinion.
scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the Romero, Vitug and Panganiban, JJ., see separate opinion.
common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused [85] and a compelling Kapunan, and Mendoza, JJ., see dissenting opinion.
interest justify such intrusions.[86] Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by Bellosillo, and Martinez, JJ., concur.
proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. Purisima, J., joins J. Mendozas dissent.
We reiterate that any law or order that invades individual privacy will be subjected by
7