Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor foun...
Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy]
GR No. 127685. July 23, 1998
FACTS:
This is a petition raised by Senator Blas Ople to invalidate the Administrative Order No. 308 or the Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System issued by President Fidel V. Ramos.
The petitioner contends that the implementation of the said A.O. will violate the rights of the citizens of privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution. Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy]
ISSUE:
Whether or not A.O. No. 308 violates the right of privacy. Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy]
Read: Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)
HELD:
Yes.
The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection.
The right of privacy is guaranteed in several provisions of the Constitution:
"Sections 3 (1), 1, 2, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights
The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, hence, it is the burden of government to show that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two considerations:
(1) the need to provide our citizens and foreigners with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic service and social security providers and other government instrumentalities and
(2) the need to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. It is debatable whether these interests are compelling enough to warrant the issuance of A.O. No. 308. Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy]
But what is not arguable is the broadness, the vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if implemented will put our people's right to privacy in clear and present danger.
The possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometrics and computer technology are accentuated when we consider that the individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of the data encoded.
They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.
The petition is granted and declared the Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" null and void for being unconstitutional.
READ FULL TEXT
Read more case digests here:
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration
Tolentino vs. Comelec
Javellana vs. Executive Secretary
Philippine Bar Association vs. Comelec
Frivaldo vs. Comelec
GR No. 127685. July 23, 1998
FACTS:
This is a petition raised by Senator Blas Ople to invalidate the Administrative Order No. 308 or the Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System issued by President Fidel V. Ramos.
The petitioner contends that the implementation of the said A.O. will violate the rights of the citizens of privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution. Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy]
ISSUE:
Whether or not A.O. No. 308 violates the right of privacy. Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy]
Read: Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)
HELD:
Yes.
The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection.
The right of privacy is guaranteed in several provisions of the Constitution:
"Sections 3 (1), 1, 2, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights
Sec. 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.Read: Soliven vs. Makasiar
The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, hence, it is the burden of government to show that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two considerations:
(1) the need to provide our citizens and foreigners with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic service and social security providers and other government instrumentalities and
(2) the need to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. It is debatable whether these interests are compelling enough to warrant the issuance of A.O. No. 308. Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy]
But what is not arguable is the broadness, the vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if implemented will put our people's right to privacy in clear and present danger.
The possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometrics and computer technology are accentuated when we consider that the individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of the data encoded.
They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.
The petition is granted and declared the Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" null and void for being unconstitutional.
READ FULL TEXT
Read more case digests here:
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration
Tolentino vs. Comelec
Javellana vs. Executive Secretary
Philippine Bar Association vs. Comelec
Frivaldo vs. Comelec
I really appreciate the kind of topics you post here. Thanks for sharing us a great information that is actually helpful. Good day! los angeles motorcycle accident attorney
ReplyDelete