GUANZON VS DE VILLA

FACTS:
 This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to prohibit the military and police
officers represented by public respondents from conducting "Areal Target Zonings" or "Saturation
Drives" in Metro Manila.

Petitioners’ Contention:
 The 41 petitioners alleged that the "saturation drive" or "areal target zoning" that were conducted
in their place (Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional.
 The alleged acts committed during the raid are the following:
1. Petitioners alleged that there is no specific target house to search and that there is no search
warrant or warrant of arrest served.
2. Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and without nameplates or identification
cards.
3. The residents were rudely roused from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of
their houses.
4. The residents were at the point of high-powered guns and herded like cows.
5. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for the police to examine their tattoo marks.
6. The residents complained that they're homes were ransacked, tossing their belongings and
destroying their valuables. Some of their money and valuables had disappeared after the
operation.
7. The residents also reported incidents of maulings, spot-beatings, and maltreatment. Those
who were detained also suffered mental and physical torture to extract confessions and
tactical information.

Respondents’ Contention:
 The respondents said that such accusations mentioned above were total lies.
 Respondents contends that the Constitution grants to the government the power to seek and
cripple subversive movements for the maintenance of peace in the state.
 The aerial target zoning was intended to flush out subversives and criminal elements coddled by
the communities were the said drives were conducted.
 Respondents averred that they have intelligently and carefully planned months ahead for the
actual operation and that local and foreign media joined the operation to witness and record such
event.

ISSUE:
WON the areal target zoning and the saturation drive is legal

RULING:
 YES. The conduct of areal target zoning or saturation drive is a valid exercise of the military powers
of the President.
 According to the Supreme Court, everything stated before them consists only of
allegations. According to petitioners, more than 3,407 persons were arrested in the saturation
drives covered by the petition. No estimates are given for the drives in Block 34, Dagat-dagatan,
Navotas; Apelo Cruz Compound, Pasig; and Sun Valley Drive near the Manila International Airport
area. Not one of the several thousand persons treated in the illegal and inhuman manner
 described by the petitioners appears as a petitioner or has come before a trial court to present
the kind of evidence admissible in courts of justice. Moreover, there must have been tens of
thousands of nearby residents who were inconvenienced in addition to the several thousand
allegedly arrested. None of those arrested has apparently been charged and none of those
affected has apparently complained.
 The areal target zonings in this petition were intended to flush out subversives and criminal
elements particularly because of the blatant assassinations of public officers and police officials
by elements supposedly coddled by the communities where the "drives" were conducted.
 Moreover, there is nothing in the Constitution which denies the authority of the Chief Executive,
to order police actions to stop unabated criminality, rising lawlessness, and alarming communist
activities.
 Where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion, the police or military may go in force to the
combat areas, enter affected residences or buildings, round up suspected rebels and otherwise
quell the mutiny or rebellion without having to secure search warrants and without violating the
Bill of Rights.
 The Constitution grants the Government the power to seek and cripple subversive movements
which would bring down constituted authority and substitute a regime where individual liberties
are suppressed as a matter of policy in the name of security of the State.