University of the Philippines College of Law

Block F2021

Topic Right Against Unlawful Searches and Seizures

Case No. G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989
Case Name RICARDO VALMONTE & UNION OF LAWYERS FOR PEOPLES RIGHTS (ULAP) vs
GEN. RENATO DE VILLA AND NCR DISTRICT COMMAND (NCRDC)
Ponente PADILLA, J.
Case Assigned to: Doc Rey and Rean

SUMMARY
The NCRDC, a military unit, activated checkpoints in Valenzuela. Said checkpoints caused petitioners to worry
about their security (their vehicles were being stopped and searched) in and so the called out the
unconstitutionality of the checkpoints. The Court dismissed the petition mainly on the grounds that the
checkpoints were justified and that there was no evidence of violations made by the checkpoint personnel.

RELEVANT FACTS
Checkpoints have been set up in Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Said checkpoints were installed by the NCRDC. The NCRDC was a unit activated pursuant to a Letter of
Instruction issued by the AFP. Its mission was to conduct security operations in its area.
Petitioners sought to declare the checkpoints installed by NCRDC as unconstitutional, or at least to direct
the respondents to formulate guidelines in the implementation of the checkpoints.
Petitioners claim that because of the checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela worry that they will be
harassed and that their safety will be placed at the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition of the military
manning the checkpoints, considering that their cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular searches and check-
ups, especially at night or at dawn, without the benefit of a search warrant and/or court order.
To worsen the citizens fear, there was even an incident of a man being shot down allegedly by NCRDC
members for the mans speeding past a checkpoint.
Petitioner Valmonte claimed that he had been subject to these warrantless searches at these checkpoints.

ISSUES

W/N the said checkpoints gave the respondents a blanket authority to make searches and/or seizures
without a search warrant or court order in violation of the constitution. NO.
W/N the said checkpoints are justified. YES.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the said No. The checkpoints were not unconstitutional.
checkpoints gave the
respondents a blanket 1. LACK OF EVIDENCE ON PETITIONERS PART - Petitioners' concern for their safety
authority to make and apprehension at being harassed by the military manning the checkpoints are not
searches and/or sufficient grounds to declare the checkpoints as per se illegal. No proof has been
seizures without a presented before the Court to show that, in the course of their routine checks, the
search warrant or court military indeed committed specific violations of petitioners' right against unlawful
order in violation of the search and seizure or other rights.
constitution.
Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation to the effect that he had been stopped and
searched without a search warrant by the military manning the checkpoints, without
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021

more, i.e., without stating the details of the incidents which amount to a violation of
his right against unlawful search and seizure, is not sufficient to enable the Court to
determine whether there was a violation of Valmonte's right against unlawful search
and seizure.

2. THE RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IS A PERSONAL

RIGHT; CASE-TO-CASE BASIS - In a case filed by the same petitioner organization,
ULAP vs. Integrated National Police, it was held that individual petitioners who do
not allege that any of their rights were violated are not qualified to bring the action,
as real parties in interest.

The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal

right invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed, or threatened to
be infringed. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in
any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration
of the circumstances involved.

W/N the said Yes. The checkpoints are justified.

checkpoints are
justified. 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.

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 (there have
been increased killing by the NPA in urban areas).

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.

ON FORMULATING GUIDELINES: 17 July 1988, military and police checkpoints in Metro Manila were temporarily
lifted and a review and refinement of the rules in the conduct of the police and military manning the checkpoints
was ordered by the National Capital Regional Command Chief and the Metropolitan Police Director.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2021

DISSENTING OPINIONS

CRUZ, J. 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. Further, the searches and seizures are done without proof/ warrant. 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. It is incredible that we can sustain such a measure. And we are not even under martial law.

SARMIENTO, J. - Existence alone of checkpoints makes search done therein, unreasonable and hence,
repugnant to the Constitution. As it is, "checkpoints", have become "search warrants" unto themselves
a roving one at that.

The Charter says that the people enjoy the right of security of person, home, and effects. (CONST., art.
III, sec. 2.) 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.

While the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a right personal to the aggrieved party, the
petitioners, precisely, have come to Court because they had been, or had felt, aggrieved. I submit that
in that event, the burden is the State's, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the search.

"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.