OPLE VS.

TORRES ________________________________________________________________________________ ____ FACTS: The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of Senator Blas F. Ople to prevent the shrinking of the rightto privacy, which the revered Mr. Justice Brandeis considered as "the most comprehensive of rights and the rightmost value d by civilized men." Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate Administrative Ord er 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 citiz enry's protected zone of privacy.We grant the petition for the rights sought to be vindicated by the petitioner need stronger barriers against furthererosion.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 p etition against respondents, then Executive Secretary Ruben Torresand the heads of the government agencies, who as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Comm ittee, arecharged with the implementation of A.O. No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we issued a temporary restraining orderenjoining its implementation. ISSUE: WON the petitioner has the stand to assail the validity of A.O. No. 308 HELD: YES. As is usual in constitutional litigation, respondents raise the threshold i ssues relating to the standing to sue of thepetitioner and the justiciability of the case at bar. More specifically, respondents aver that petitioner has no leg alinterest 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. Petitione r Ople is a distinguished member of our Senate. Asa Senator, petitioner is posse ssed 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 InsuranceSystem (GSIS), petitio ner can also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the mis use of GSISfunds 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 inva lid per se and as infirmed on itsface. His action is not premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects. Moreover, therespondents t hemselves have started the implementation of A.O. No. 308 without waiting for th e rules. As early as January 19, 1997, respondent Social Security System (SSS) c aused the publication of a notice to bid for themanufacture of the National Iden tification (ID) card. Respondent Executive Secretary Torres has publicly announc edthat representatives from the GSIS and the SSS have completed the guidelines f or the national identificationsystem.All signals from the respondents show their unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308 and we need not wait forthe formality of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionality. In this light, the diss enters insistence that wetighten the rule on standing is not a commendable stanc e as its result would be to throttle an importantconstitutional principle and a fundamental right.