D E C I S
I O N
PADILLA, J.:
I. THE
FACTS
On 20 January
1987, the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated
pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters,
AFP, with the mission of conducting security operations within its area of
responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an
effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an
atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political development of the
National Capital Region. As part of its duty to maintain
peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Petitioners Atty. Ricardo
Valmonte, who is a resident of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the Union of
Lawyers and Advocates For People’s Rights (ULAP) sought the declaration of
checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and elsewhere as unconstitutional. In
the alternative, they prayed that respondents Renato De Villa and the National
Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) be directed to formulate guidelines in
the implementation of checkpoints for the protection of the people. Petitioners
contended that the checkpoints gave the respondents blanket authority to make
searches and seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of the
Constitution.
II. THE
ISSUE
Do the military and police checkpoints
violate the right of the people against unreasonable search and seizures?
III. THE
RULING
[The Court, voting 13-2, DISMISSED the
petition.]
NO, military and police checkpoints
DO NOT violate the right of the people against unreasonable search and seizures.
xxx. Not all
searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not
forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but
is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.
Where, for
example, the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which
is parked on the public fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle, or
flashes a light therein, these do not constitute unreasonable search.
The setting up
of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably in other areas) may
be considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission
of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order
for the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to
thwart plots to destabilize the government, in the interest of public security.
In this connection, the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban
centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in
the increased killings in cities of police and military men by NPA “sparrow
units,” not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming
rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers, not all of which are
reported in media, most likely brought about by deteriorating economic
conditions – which all sum up to what one can rightly consider, at the very
least, as abnormal times. Between
the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public
welfare and an individual's right against a warrantless search which is however
reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.
True, the
manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in
uniform, in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of
abuse. But, at the cost of
occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the
checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable
limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful
community.
No comments:
Post a Comment