Guanzon v. de villa GUTIERREZ, JR.

, J This case is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to prohibit the military and police officers to conduct Areal Target Zonings or Saturation Drives in Metro Manila. The petitioners alleged that saturation drives were conducted by the respondents in 12 areas within Metro Manila and arrests were made ranging from 5 to 1,500 people during these drives and were performed in ways that are violative of human rights because people were just yanked out of their houses while their houses are being ransacked and the men were made to strip to identify tattooes and other marks. Those who protested were arrested and arbitrarily detained for a period of time before being released. The Sol Gen argues that the respondents had legal authority to conduct saturation drives and that it was done with due regard of human rights with local and foreign media covering the events and hence, the allegations were total lies. The issue is whether or not the saturation drives were legitimate. SC held that the Bill of Rights limits the States power to intrude into the lives of the people and in this case, it guarantees that the individuals are immune from any invasion of their houses or their bodies. However, this immunity is outweighed by the value of its deterrent effect of the evil sought to be avoided through the police action, in this case, the saturation drives. The SC acknowledged the saturation drives and the possibility that there might have been violations committed when they were conducted but since none of the persons who were directly affected by the saturation drives complained and none of those who were arrested were charged, SC held that the petitioners were not the proper parties to the pleadings.

SC also held that the remedy sought by the petitioners was based only on allegations and therefore not proper since no one has complained and none has been charged. The rules of constitutional litigation have been formulated for an orderly procedure for the vindication of rights. If the Executive decides that occasional saturation drives are necessary to maintain peace and order, then guidelines on how the military and police officers ought to behave should be formulated and enforced by them. Hence, it is the Commission on Human rights who should handle the case and a high level conference should be conducted by the DOJ, the DND and other involved government agencies to come up with guidelines to prevent the abuses. Case should be remanded to the lower court so petitioners can present evidence and a copy should be furnished to the government agencies concerned to formulate guidelines on police actions intended to abate riots and public disturbances and subversive terrorist activities. The Supreme Court remanded the petition to the Regional Trial Courts of Manila, Malabon, and Pasay City where the petitioners may present evidence supporting their allegations and where specific erring parties may be pinpointed and prosecuted.

Cruz Dissent:

Majority simplifies things by saying that because there are no parties and no proof, then it should be dismissed. Its ruling that it cannot act on the complaint because no one directly affected has complained is a specious excuse because the Court had, on many occasions, brushed technicalities aside where constitutional questions are present. The saturation drives were akin to the zonas conducted during the Japanese Occupation.

There is no search warrant or warrant of arrests, no probable cause determined personally by the judge, no examination or affirmation under oath by a complainant and the witnesses produced, no particular description of people or things searched and seized and no showing that the saturation drive falls under the exception of the general rule. The saturation drives cannot be justified by the failed coup detat because it happened before the coup detat.

Sarmiento Dissent:

The facts have been established, there have been 12 saturation drives and the accusation is that they are not lawful and the response of the government is that they have been done with due regard of human rights. So therefore it is only a matter of a question of law, is it lawful or legitimate? No, because there is no judicial warrant. The lack of a warrant invalidates them even if they have been carefully planned in coordination with barangay officials. Majoritys argument that the remedy is not to stop all police actions is not correct because the petitioners are seeking to stop the saturation drives. Its argument that a show of force is necessary so long as the rights of the people are protected is a contradiction because a show of force is violative for lack of judicial warrant. The general rule is for an officer to procure a warrant to make a proper arrest and the exception is when a criminal offense is unfolding, by ruling the way it did, it made the exception the general rule. Reference to the coup detat is not apt because in those instances, there have been crimes committed whereas the saturation drives are just fishing for evidences that may have been committed. Also, the SCs decision to refer the case to Executive agencies is passing the buck to the Executive and by doing so, have made it the judge and jury of its own acts. The petitioners have a legitimate grievance which involves questions of law and the fact that it is being remanded to the lower courts is an admission that there have been indeed violations of human rights.

Bernandez v Valera DIZON, J