---

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

VITUG, J., separate opinion;

One can appreciate the concern expressed by my esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno, echoing that of the petitioner, the Honorable Blas F. Ople, on the issuance of Administrative Order No. 308 by the President of the Philippines and the dangers its implementation could bring. I find it hard, nevertheless, to peremptorily assume at this time that the administrative order will be misused and to thereby ignore the possible benefits that can be derived from, or the merits of, a nationwide computerized identification reference system. The great strides and swift advances in technology render it inescapable that one day we will, at all events, have to face up with the reality of seeing extremely sophisticated methods of personal identification and any attempt to stop the inevitable may either be short-lived or even futile. The imperatives, I believe, would instead be to now install specific safeguards and control measures that may be calculated best to ward-off probable ill effects of any such device. Here, it may be apropos to recall the pronouncement of this Court in People vs. Nazario1 that —

As a rule, a statute or [an] act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.2

Administrative Order No. 308 appears to be so extensively drawn that could, indeed, allow unbridled options to become available to its implementors beyond the reasonable comfort of the citizens and of residents alike.

Prescinding from the foregoing, and most importantly to this instance, the subject covered by the questioned administrative order can have far-reaching consequences that can tell on all individuals, their liberty and privacy, that, to my mind, should make it indispensable and appropriate to have the matter specifically addressed by the Congress of the Philippines, the policy-making body of our government, to which the task should initially belong and to which the authority to formulate and promulgate that policy is constitutionally lodged.

WHEREFORE, I vote for the nullification of Administrative Order No. 308 for being an undue and impermissible exercise of legislative power by the Executive.ᇈWᑭHIL

---

Footnotes

1 165 SCRA 186

2 At p. 195.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

---