The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308, which established a national computerized identification system, arguing it usurped the power of Congress to legislate and infringed on citizens' right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that while the President has authority to issue administrative orders to government agencies, AO 308 effectively created new law by requiring citizens to present identification cards to access basic government services, which exceeds the President's power. The Court found AO 308 substituted administrative regulations for general police powers that belong to Congress alone.
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308, which established a national computerized identification system, arguing it usurped the power of Congress to legislate and infringed on citizens' right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that while the President has authority to issue administrative orders to government agencies, AO 308 effectively created new law by requiring citizens to present identification cards to access basic government services, which exceeds the President's power. The Court found AO 308 substituted administrative regulations for general police powers that belong to Congress alone.
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308, which established a national computerized identification system, arguing it usurped the power of Congress to legislate and infringed on citizens' right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that while the President has authority to issue administrative orders to government agencies, AO 308 effectively created new law by requiring citizens to present identification cards to access basic government services, which exceeds the President's power. The Court found AO 308 substituted administrative regulations for general police powers that belong to Congress alone.
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308, which established a national computerized identification system, arguing it usurped the power of Congress to legislate and infringed on citizens' right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that while the President has authority to issue administrative orders to government agencies, AO 308 effectively created new law by requiring citizens to present identification cards to access basic government services, which exceeds the President's power. The Court found AO 308 substituted administrative regulations for general police powers that belong to Congress alone.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Ople v.
Torres
G.R. No. 127685. July 23, 1998
FACTS:
The petitioner prays to invalidate Administrative Order No. 308, entitled “Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System” on the constitutional grounds that it is a ususpation of the power of Congress to legislate and it intrudes on our citizenry’s right to privacy.
This Petition is to review a decision of the Executive Secretary and the Members of the Inter- Agency Coordinating Committee.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Administrative Order No. 308 is unconsitutional due to the usuroation of the power of the Congress to legislate.
RULING:
The Petitioner claims that A.O No. 308 is not an administrative order but a law. Hence, it is beyond the power of the President to issue. The President has the duty of supervising the enforecement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively. IT is not a low becuase it confers no rightm imposes no duty, affords no protection, and creates no office. However, Under A.O. No. 308, a citizen cannot transact a businedd with government agencies delivering basic services without the use of an indentification card. Without the ID, a citizen will have difficulty exercising his rights and enjoyinghis priveleges.
It was stated by Fisher, in his work on Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President, that “Many regulations however, 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 substitute for the general police-making that Congress enacts in the form of a public laww. Although administrative regulations are entitled to respect, the authority to prescribe rules and regulations is not an independent source of power to make laws.
