G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998,
♦ Decision,
Puno, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion,
Romero, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion,
Vitug, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion,
Panganiban, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Kapunan, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion,
Mendoza, [J]
EN BANC
G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998
BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner,
vs.
RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, HECTOR VILLANUEVA, CIELITO HABITO, ROBERT BARBERS, CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO, RENATO VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA, HEAD OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER and CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.
Separate Opinions
PANGANIBAN, J., separate opinion;
I concur only in the result and only on the ground that an executive issuance is not legally sufficient to establish an all-encompassing computerized system of identification in the country.ℒαwρhi৷ The subject matter contained in AO 308 is beyond the powers of the President to regulate without a legislative enactment.
I reserve judgmeht on the issue of wherher a national ID system is an infringement of the constitutional right to privacy or the freedom of thought until after Congress passes, if ever, a law to this effect. Only then, and upon the filing of a proper petition, may the provisions of the statute be scrutinized by the judiciary to determine their constitutional foundation. Until such time, the issue is premature; and any decision thereon, speculative and academic.1
Be that as it may, the scholarly discussions of Justices Romero, Puno, Kapunan and Mendoza on the constitutional right to privacy and freedom of thought may stil become useful guides to our lawmakers, when and if Congress should deliberate on a bill establishing a national identification system.
Let it be noted that this Court, as shown by the voting of the justices, has not definitively ruled on these points. The voting is decisive only on the need for the appropriate legislation, and it is only on this ground that the petition is granted by this Court.
Footnotes
1 Basic is the doctrine that constitutional issues should not be used to decide a controversy, if there are other available grounds, as in this case. (See Justice Isagani Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1995 ed., pp. 29-31.)
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
