Ople vs Torres Torres GR No 127685 23 July 1998 RA 10173 and its effect on Ople vs Torres Introduction
The right to privacy is the right to be let alone in the words of Samuel D. Warren arren and Louis D. Brandeis. Brandeis. It is a fundamental human right right which gives one person the right to be free free of unsancti unsanctioned oned intrusion intrusion from another another person person on matters matters which the public is not necessar necessarily ily concerned. concerned. This right is the most valued among all the other rights that man possesses. Through time immemorial, man has come up with ways on how to protect such right. right. rom creating creating secret secret codes in communica communication, tion, to building building high fences fences around around the houses, to being secretive in information which to disclose, are some of the ways how man has protected its privacy privacy from other people. There is even a saying in !onstitutional !onstitutional Law, "uoting "uoting British British #arliamen arliamentari tarian an Willia William m #itt, #itt, "The "The poor poores estt man man may may in his his cott cottag age e bid bid defance to all the orce o the Crown. It may be rail; its roo may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter -- but the King o ngland cannot enter; all his orces dare not cross the threshold o the ruined tenement" . $arious $arious protection for this most valued right were developed over the years of man%s legacy to ensure that this right shall not be violated. Laws carrying strict penalties penalties were passed to ensure that such right shall be amply protected.
Though there is no speci&c provision provision that will spea' of the right to privacy, privacy, such right is incorporated to various laws of our land ranging from the Bill of (ights in our !onstitution to the !ivil !ode and to some Special Special #enal #enal Laws. To name a few, our constitution constitution has recog recogni) ni)ed ed this this right right to priva privacy cy by provi providin ding g in our Bill of (ights (ights that that the privacy privacy of communication and correspondence correspondence shall be inviolable. This right protects us from illegal accumula accumulation tion of informati information on through through eavesdr eavesdroppin opping g on private private conversat conversations. ions. Thus, Thus, the *nti+wir *nti+wire e Tapping apping Law was passed. passed. In our !ivil !ivil !ode, !ode, the right to privacy privacy is protect protected ed by providing that every person shall respect the dignity, personality, personality, privacy and peace of mind of anothe anotherr person person.. Witho Without ut the right right to priva privacy, cy, people people can can easil easily y intru intrude de to anothe anotherr person%s life without any hesitation and fear of any penalty.
Throughout the years, technology has been the number one consistent threat to privacy. With the evolution evolution of technology, the threats threats to privacy privacy became sophisticated. sophisticated. ur personal information information are made made available out in the open without without us 'nowing it. In order to eradicate this threat threat to our privacy, proper safeguards safeguards must be put in place. This has been the the main main issu issue e why why the the nati nation onal al iden identi ti&c &cat atio ion n syst system em intr introd oduc uced ed in -/ -/ by the the *dmin dminis istr trat ativ ive e rde rderr 01 01/ / issu issued ed by then then #resid esiden entt idel idel (amos amos was was decl declar ared ed unconstitutional by the Supreme Supreme !ourt. But in 21-2, our legislature has successfully successfully passed
a law for the protection of our personal information gathered in the public and private sectors. This paper will try to determine whether the constitutional issues raised in the case of ple vs Torres has been answered by (epublic *ct -1-30 and whether the country will bene&t in having a national id system.
Ople vs. Torres
In the landmar' case of ple vs. Torres, the then Senator Blas ple &led a petition before the Supreme !ourt to declare the *dministrative rder no. 01/ issued by then #resident idel (amos as unconstitutional. Senator ple raised the issues that the said *dministrative rder no. 01/ is a usurpation by the #resident of the powers of the legislature and said *dministrative rder violates the right to privacy which is well amply protected in the Bill of (ights.
The ob4ective of this *dministrative rder no. 01/ is to create a national computeri)e identi&cation reference system that will eradicate fraudulent transaction with the government by properly and e5ciently identify persons see'ing basic services on social security. The said order will re"uire the collection of personal information from the population reference number generated by the 6ational Statistics 5ce. The end goal of this *dministrative rder is to provide convenience in transacting business between ilipino citi)ens and foreign residents with the government. Senator ple in his petition &led before the Supreme !ourt, said that the #resident has usurp the power of !ongress because the establishment of a 6ational !omputeri)ed Identi&cation (eference System re"uires a legislative act. In addition to that, the Senator also said in his petition that only the !ongress has the right to appropriate funds for government agencies and therefore the appropriation in the said *dministrative rder is another usurpation of the power of !ongress. 7e therefore prayed that the said rder by #resident (amos be struc' down as unconstitutional.
The Supreme !ourt spea'ing through 8ustice #uno held that the said *dministrative rder is unconstitutional because it encroaches on the power of the legislative since it establishes for the &rst time a 6ational !omputeri)ed Identi&cation (eference System which might a9ect the primacy of national security and the e:tent of privacy against dossier. The !ourt pointed out the lac' of proper safeguard in protecting the information that will be gathered from the public as one of the reasons for stri'ing down the *dministrative rder. Several 4ustices made their own separate opinion either 4oining the opinion of 8ustice #uno or in dissenting to it. ne of the dissenters, 8ustice ;apunan stated that stri'ing down the said order as unconstitutional is premature at that point. ne of the re"uisites in order for a law to be struc' down is that there should be an actual case or controversy involving a con
still in the process of being implemented as the implementing rules and regulations are still being drafted. But despite the heavy dissent of the other 8ustices, the vote to declare it unconstitutional won. =any of the 8ustices who voted against the said order favoured the possibility of abuse of discretion among the data collectors because of lac' of laws to safeguard data privacy.
Data Privacy Act of 2012
(epublic *ct no. -1-30 or better 'nown as Data #rivacy *ct of 21-2 was passed by the Senate and 7ouse of (epresentatives on 8une >, 21-2 and signed by #resident Benigno *"uino on *ugust -?, 21-2. The said law aims to ensure that personal information in information and communications system in the government and in the private sector are secured and amply protected. This law gives security to individuals that their personal data will be 'ept and properly secured.
The passing of this law has been considered as a victory to the people%s privacy because of the protection this law o9ers to the public. The number one advantage this law o9ers is it ensures protection to privacy. The scope of this law e:tends to both natural and 4uridical persons. The coverage of its 4urisdiction e:tend to acts done or practice in and outside of the #hilippines as long as it relates to personal information about a #hilippine citi)en or resident or has a lin' with the #hilippines.
*n independent body which will be 'nown as the 6ational #rivacy !ommission will be created. The !ommission will be in charge of the administration and implementation of the provisions of this provided in the Data #rivacy *ct. The !ommission shall be headed by a #rivacy !ommissioner who shall act as !hairman and two Deputy #rivacy !ommissioner to be appointed by the #resident of the #hilippines with a term of three years, renewable for another three years. The !ommission shall be attached to the Department of Information and !ommunications Technology. @tmost con&dentiality at all times will be e:pected from the !ommission with regard to personal information that comes to their 'nowledge.
The collection of personal information must be for a speci&ed and legitimate purpose only and determined and declared beforehand. They should be processed fairly and must be 'ept up to date. The information collected can only be retained for as long as it is necessary for the ful&lment of the purpose for which the data was collected. This law has provided for the standard in processing the personal information. They must contain at least one of the conditions enumerated such as the data sub4ect has given his consentA it is necessary to the ful&lment of the contractA necessary for compliance in legal obligationsA it is necessary to
protect important interest of the data sub4ectsA it is necessary to respond to national interestA and the processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interest.
#arameters have been set in order to prevent any unlawful use of personal data without the consent of the individual. ven the lawful heirs are given the right to e:ercise the rights of a data sub4ect when the latter is deceased or incapacitated or incapable of e:ercising their rights. The processing of sensitive personal information and privileged information are li'ewise prohibited in this law e:cept for the following instances that it enumerated. The law is complete since the criteria for the lawful processing of personal information are properly laid down in order to prevent any confusion in the implementation of this law. #enalties have been included in order to ensure that those who will brea' the law will thin' twice before doing it because of the sti9 penalties they might face when they get caught. Imprisonment for a period as short as one year and as long as si: years has been meted out for violations of any of the provisions of this act.
Eect of RA 1017 to Ople vs. Torres
In the case of ple vs. Torres, the main issues raised and which was highly tal'ed about by the public was the possible threat to privacy which the 6ational Identi&cation (eference System might create. The people feared that the information which will be gathered from the public might be use illegally. In -/, when that case was decided, there were no laws to protect the public from unlawful use of information. In my opinion, if the said case was decided in today%s time where we have the Data #rivacy *ct of 21-2, the decision by the Supreme !ourt might have a di9erent result.
The way I see it, the protection o9ered by (* -1-30 answers the worries that the 4ustices have mentioned in the ple vs. Torres case. *lthough one of the reasons for stri'ing down the *dministrative rder 01/ is the usurpation of legislative duties by the e:ecutive, not all the 4ustices supported the view that there was indeed usurpation of duties. In a dissenting opinion by 8ustice ;apunan, he 4usti&ed the legality of the #resident to issue the said administrative order because the agencies involve are under the umbrella of the e:ecutive department. Therefore, the #resident has the power to issue orders a9ecting those agencies involve. This constitutional issue is a matter of interpretation. There is no concrete way on how to 4udge the said issue. In my opinion, I share the dissent of 8ustice ;apunan that it should not be considered as usurpation of duties. 8ustice ;apunan and 8ustice #uno have o9ered two legitimate interpretation of whether it is usurpation by the #resident of the legislative duties. But at the end of the day, the only reason why the said *dministrative rder was struc' down was because of the ma4ority vote made by the 8ustices to declare it unconstitutional and therefore the opinion of 8ustice #uno became the case law. But given another situation were in the Data #rivacy *ct of 21-2 was present
during the deliberation of the case, I believe that the constitutionality of the *dministrative rder will be upheld. The bene&ts of a national id system during that time can%t 4ust be allowed to pass by.
=ost of the 4ustices decided to go against the said *dministrative rder because of the lac' of safeguard in our country for the protection of personal information. In the separate opinion of 8ustice $itug, he recogni)ed the importance of having a nationwide computeri)ed identi&cation reference system. 7e suggested that in order to en4oy the bene&ts of this nationwide id system, the country should install speci&c safeguards and control measures that may be calculated best to ward+o9 probable ill e9ects of any such device. or this reason, I strongly believe that the Data #rivacy *ct will sway the votes of most of the 8ustices during that time to favor in upholding the constitutionality of the said order. #roper safeguards were introduced in the Data #rivacy *ct for the protection of personal information collected from the public.
6ow that (* -1-30 is in place, I don%t see any reason why the *dministrative rder 01/ should be struc' down in today%s time. The issue of whether it is usurpation by the #resident of the Legislative powers is a debatable matter. Both the a5rmative and the negative sides raised good issues why it is or it is not a usurpation of Legislative power. I also believe that it is premature to declare the said order unconstitutional because it is very basic in law that when the law provides for re"uisites in order for a given act fall under the scope of the said law, all re"uisites must be present. 7ere, I share the opinion of the other 4ustices who recogni)ed the fact that there is still no actual controversy which involves the said *dministrative rder. Therefore lac'ing one important re"uisite, any decision on the constitutionality of the said order is premature.
ne of the fears of the 8ustices about having a computeri)ed id system is that the advancement in technology brings an increase in threat to privacy. Since technology has been the consistent threat to privacy through the years, they suggested that the development of technology might bring an uncontrollable threat to privacy. This I don%t agree. I believe that side by side with the advancement in technology comes the development in privacy protection particularly that of collecting personal information. The fear that advancement in technology might e:pose people to the public about information which they hold private can also be eradicated by safeguard measures to privacy. *s an e:ample, nowadays, in purchasing stu9 online using credit cards, most websites have a veri&ed secured web page in order to assure the buying public that their credit card information will not be stolen during the process of buying online. !ouple of years ago, we don%t have this 'ind of protection to the buying public. Thus, as time goes by, and technology develops, protection to privacy li'ewise develops. We should not be in constant fear that our privacy will be violated by the changing times and development in technology. There will always be other means that will protect our privacy as technology develops over time.
Therefore it is with my strong opinion that (epublic *ct -1-30 or better 'nown as Data #rivacy act of 21-2 has answered the constitutional issues presented by the Supreme !ourt in the case of ple vs. Torres. Thus, I believe that constitutionality of the said *dministrative rder will be upheld because of the Data #rivacy *ct.
!onclusion
Data #rivacy *ct of 21-2 has given us measures that will entail protection to our privacy which is highly valuable to us. The fear of possible encroachment to our privacy brought about by the introduction of a 6ational !omputeri)e Identi&cation (eference System should be set aside. Instead of worrying about something that has not yet happened, we should focus more on the bene&ts that a national id will give us. * law has already been passed to set up the parameters in securing that our privacy will be protected. 6ow is the time for our country to have a national id system. =any countries have adopted a national id system and are already reaping the bene&ts of it.
Studies have shown in other countries that the introduction of a national id system has helped in preventing crime or lessen its occurrence. This is because the introduction of a national id system will help to trac' o9enders easily since personal information was collected from them. Their whereabouts can easily be traced.
We should always 'eep in mind that only those who are hiding something illegally should fear a national id system. Those who have clean hands should not worry a bit for the law will further protect their welfare rather than abuse it. The contention that the government might abuse this power given to them should be set aside. We should always believe in our government that what they do is always for our welfare and that it is their utmost priority. *fter all, we were the ones who ultimately put them into such power. Thus, we should trust our government &rst rather than doubt it at once.
It%s is already time for our country to ma:imi)e our potential and improve our standings in the world. There will always be pro%s and con%s in whatever decision our government will do. But in this case of introducing a national id system, the bene&ts are clearly greater than the cost. Therefore, it is in my humble opinion that I suggest the creation of a 6ational !omputeri)e Identi&cation System to ma:imi)e the potential of our government and to minimi)e any fraud in its day to day transactions with the people. The only "uestion now is up to what e:tent personal information should be collected.
