Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989 (173 SCRA 211) : The Dissenting Opinions

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.”

The Checkpoints Case : Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989 (173 SCRA 211)

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.

In Re del Castillo Plagiarism Controversy (Part II) : The February 8, 2011 Per Curiam Resolution

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

                                                             

 [T]he Court’s decision in the present case does not set aside [the different norms assumed by educational institutions in treating plagiarism].  The decision makes this clear, thus:

To paraphrase Bast and Samuels, while the academic publishing model is based on the originality of the writer’s thesis, the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to cite historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions.  The judge is not expected to produce original scholarship in every respect.  The strength of a decision lies in the soundness and general acceptance of the precedents and long held legal opinions it draws from.

            xxx                              xxx                              xxx