225 OPLE v.

TORRES
Date: 23 July 1998 GR Number: 127685 Ponente:
Puno, J.
Article 3, Section 1 Your name: Hazel Dee
Petitioners: Respondents:
Blas F. Ople Ruben D. Torres, et. Al
Doctrine:
As taxpayer and member of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can
also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to
implement A.O. No. 308.
Facts:
The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of Senator Blas F. 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." 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:
(1) it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and
(2) it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy.

We grant the petition for the rights sought to be vindicated by the petitioner need stronger
barriers against further erosion.
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 against
respondents, then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and the heads of the government
agencies, who as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee, are charged with the
implementation of A.O. No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining its implementation.
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. WON the petitioner has the stand to assail the validity of A.O. No. 1. Yes
308.
 Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:

1. 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 and that the implementing
rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated.

These submissions do not deserve our sympathetic ear. Petitioner Ople is a distinguished
member of our Senate. As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the requisite standing to bring
suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. As
taxpayer and member of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can
also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to
implement A.O. No. 308.

The ripeness for adjudication of the Petition at bar is not affected by the fact that the
implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A.O.
No. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. His action is not premature for the rules
yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal 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 manufacture of the National Identification (ID) card. Respondent Executive
Secretary Torres has publicly announced that representatives from the GSIS and the SSS have
completed the guidelines for the national identification system.

All signals from the 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, the dissenters insistence that we tighten the rule on standing is not a commendable
stance as its result would be to throttle an important constitutional principle and a
fundamental right.
§