DISSENTING
OPINIONS
[At issue in this case is the validity
of military and police checkpoints, and the searches and seizures attendant thereto, vis-a-vis the constitutional right of
the people against unreasonable search and seizure.
As indicated in the immediately preceding post,
the Supreme Court voted 13-2 to sustain the validity of these checkpoints. It held
in part that “[b]etween 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.” Justice Padilla reasoned in his ponencia that “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.”
Justices Cruz and Sarmiento however dissented from the majority. And to my
mind, their stirring dissents are equally persuasive, if not more so. We therefore
look at these dissents in this entry.]
CRUZ,
J., dissenting:
In his
characteristic eloquence, Justice Cruz lamented the “sweeping statements
in the majority opinion,” which he characterized as “as dangerous as the
checkpoints it would sustain and fraught with serious threats to individual
liberty.” He went on to explain:
xxx. The bland
declaration that individual rights must yield to the demands of national
security ignores the fact that
the Bill of Rights was intended precisely to limit the authority of the State
even if asserted on the ground of national security. What is worse is that the
searches and seizures are peremptorily pronounced to be reasonable even without proof of probable cause and much less the
required warrant. The improbable excuse is that they are aimed at
‘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.’ For these purposes, every
individual may be stopped and searched at random and at any time simply because
he excites the suspicion, caprice, hostility or malice of the officers manning
the checkpoints, on pain of arrest or worse, even being shot to death, if he
resists.
I have no quarrel
with a policeman flashing a light inside a parked vehicle on a dark street as a
routine measure of security and curiosity. But the case at bar is different. Military
officers are systematically stationed at strategic checkpoint to actively
ferret out suspected criminals by detaining and searching any individual who in
their opinion might impair ‘the social, economic and political development of
the National Capital Region.’ It is incredible that we can sustain such a measure. And we are not
even under martial law.
SARMIENTO, J., dissenting:
Agreeing
with Justice Cruz, Justice Sarmiento likewise dissented. He took exception to the reasoning of the
majority and explained why the subject checkpoint searches are invalid, thus:
The Charter says that
the people enjoy the right of security of person, home, and effects. It is also
the bedrock – the right of the people to be left alone – on which the regime of
law and constitutionalism rest. It is not, as the majority would put it, a matter of ‘occasional
inconveniences, discomfort and even irritation.’ To say that it is, is – so I
submit – to trivialize the plain command of the Constitution.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx [T]he absence alone of a search
warrant, as I have averred, makes checkpoint searches unreasonable, and by
itself, subject to constitutional challenges. As it is, ‘checkpoints’ have
become ‘search warrants’ unto themselves, a roving one at that.
That ‘[n]ot all searches and seizures are prohibited,’
the majority points out, is fine. And so is ‘a reasonable search is not to be
determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of
each case.’ But the question, exactly, is: Is (are) the search(es) in this case
reasonable? I submit that it (they) is (are) not, for one simple reason: No
search warrant has been issued by a judge.
I likewise do not
find this case to be a simple matter of an ‘officer merely draw(ing) aside the
curtain of a vacant vehicle ... or simply look(ing) there,’ ‘or flash(ing) a
light therein.’ What we have here is Orwell's Big Brother watching every step
we take and every move we make.
xxx xxx xxx
‘Between
the inherent right of the state to protect its existence ... and on
individual’s right against a warrantless search, which is reasonably
conducted,’ so my brethren go on, the former shall prevail. First, this is the same lie that the
hated despot foisted on the Filipino people. It is a serious mistake to fall
for it a second time around. Second, the checkpoint searches herein are unreasonable:
There was no warrant. (Citations omitted.)
No comments:
Post a Comment