Scribd
Upload
16 views1 page

Case

The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of an administrative order that established a national computerized identification system. The order would require individuals to provide biometric data and be issued an identification number for all transactions. The Supreme Court held that the order encroached on legislative power and violated the right to privacy as it did not adequately safeguard privacy or show a compelling state interest.

Uploaded by

Jerome Bernabe
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views1 page

Case

The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of an administrative order that established a national computerized identification system. The order would require individuals to provide biometric data and be issued an identification number for all transactions. The Supreme Court held that the order encroached on legislative power and violated the right to privacy as it did not adequately safeguard privacy or show a compelling state interest.

Uploaded by

Jerome Bernabe
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Ople vs.

Torres
July 23, 1998 J. Puno
Facts:
The petitioner, Senator Blas Ople, assails the constitutionality of A.O. 38,
!A"option of a #ational $o%puteri&e" '"enti(cation Syste%) for
encroachin* upon the le*islature+s po,er to enact la,s an" -iolatin* the
fun"a%ental ri*ht to pri-acy. The respon"ent is ./ecuti-e Secretary 0u1en
Torres to*ether ,ith the other hea"s of the 'nter2A*ency $oor"inatin*
$o%%ittee 3'A$$4 ,ho lea"s the i%ple%entation. A.O. 38 see5s to
esta1lish a unifor% '6 syste% ,ith three %ain purposes7 314 strea%line an"
spee" up the i%ple%entation of 1asic *o-ern%ent ser-ices, 324 era"icate
frau" 1y a-oi"in* "uplication of ser-ice, an" 334 *enerate population "ata
for "e-elop%ent plannin*. The '6 syste% ,ill use 1io%etrics ,hich re8uires
the use of an in"i-i"ual+s physiolo*ical an" 1eha-ioural characteristics that
,ill 1e store" in a co%puter. .ach one ,ill 1e issue" a Personal
'"enti(cation #u%1er 3P'#4 an" all of his transactions %ay 1e recor"e".
Issues:
314 9:# A.O. 38 encroaches upon the le*islature+s po,er to enact la,s
324 9:# A.O. 38 -iolates the ri*ht to pri-acy
Held/Ratio
(1) Yes. 't "eals ,ith a su1;ect that re8uires the passa*e of a la,. A.O.
38 in-ol-es a su1;ect that is not appropriate to 1e co-ere" 1y an
a"%inistrati-e or"er 1ut 1y a la,. 't e/pan"s the li%it of
a"%inistrati-e le*islation an" conse8uently ero"es the plenary po,er
of $on*ress. The ar*u%ent that it i%ple%ents the A"%inistrati-e
$o"e of 198< coul" not hol" *roun" as it is a *eneral la, an" only
=incorporates in a uni(e" "ocu%ent the %a;or structural, functional
an" proce"ural principles of *o-ernance+. 't esta1lishes for the (rst
ti%e a #ational $o%puteri&e" '"enti(cation Syste% ,hich re8uires
the "elicate a";ust%ent of -arious conten"in* state policies.
(2) Yes. 't -iolates the ri*ht to pri-acy. A.O. 38 "oes not pro-i"e
a"e8uate safe*uar"s for a reasona1le e/pectation of pri-acy. Althou*h
it %ay ha-e 1een for a ,orthy cause, A.O. 38 "oes not sho, that
there is a co%pellin* state interest an" fails constitutional scrutiny for
it is not narro,ly "ra,n as to preclu"e a1uses. As ,hen a *i-en
fun"a%ental ri*ht is at sta5e the $ourt *i-es it a stricter scrutiny. This
is "e%an"e" 1ecause the 198< $onstitution is "esi*ne" to protect
hu%an ri*hts an" to pre-ent authoritarianis%.

You might also like