1.

Article 3 Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states

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.
2. Policy 1: The law should protect the people of the Philippines
from unreasonable searches and seizures without warrant.
Policy 2: The law should provide for cases wherein a warrant
could not be secured should a search or seizure be necessary.
Policy 3: The law should establish the procedure for issuance of
warrants and the determination of probable cause.
3.Case 1 Policy: The law should protect the persons home as
well as the items from warrantless searches.
Case 2 Policy: The law should define consent to be searched.
Case 3 Policy: The law should prevent the usage of tools to
inspect a home without a warrant.
Case 4 Policy: The law should, in the interest of public safety,
allow the search of people by the police in designated areas.
Case 5. Policy: The law should protect the items of persons from
being tracked without a warrant.
4. The law affirms all these policies. This affirmation is further
attested by the following jurisprudence;
Case 1: People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Martinez Y
Angeles G.R. No 191366. In this case, the Police officers had,
without a warrant, entered the accuseds household and had
seized various items. The Supreme Court ruled that the entrance
into was contrary to law.
Case 2: Pasion Vda de Garcia v. Locsin 65 Phil. 689, 695
States that the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon
any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the
citizen in the position of either contesting an officer's authority
by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but instead they
hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not
consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration or
regard for the supremacy of the law.
Case 3: People of the Philippines vs. Zenaida Bolasa Y
Nakoboan G.R. No. 125754 States that the police officers action

of peering into the household without a warrant is contrary to

law.
Case 4: People of the Philippines vs. Belen Mariacos G.R.o.
188611 states that the customs officers of the airport are
allowed to conduct searches without a warrant.
Case 5: SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception
and Recording of Communications. The provisions of Republic Act
No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) provides that only upon a
written order by the Court of Appeals may the police use a
tracking device.
5. The unifying policy is that the law should protect its people
from warrantless searches and seizures however this is limited
by certain exceptions, where the determination of probable
cause is required.