Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
Valmonte v. De Villa 1990 decision
It should be stated, at the outset, that nowhere in the questioned decision did this Court
legalize all checkpoints, i.e. at all times and under all circumstances. What the Court declared
is, that checkpoints are not illegal per se. Thus, under exceptional circumstances, as where the
survival of organizedgovernment is on the balance, or where the lives and safety of the people
are ingrave peril, checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government.
Implicit in this proposition is, that when the situation clears and such grave perils are removed,
checkpoints will have absolutely no reason to remain. One must concede to the basic right of
the (government) to defend itself from its enemies and, while in power, to pursue its program
of government intended or public welfare; and in the pursuit of those objectives, the
government hasthe equal right, under its police power, to select the reasonable means and
methods for best achieving them. The checkpoint is evidently one of such means it has
selected.
Admittedly, the routine checkpoint stop does intrude, to a certain extent, on motorist's right to
"free passage without interruption", but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a
brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle's occupants are required to answer a brief
question or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a
body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks
cannot be regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search. These
routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive
In any situation, where abuse marks the operation of a checkpoint, the citizen is not helpless.
For the military is not above but subject to the law. And the courts exist to see that the law is
supreme. Soldiers, including those who man checkpoints, who abuse their authority act beyond
the scope of their authority and are, therefore, liable criminally and civilly for their abusive acts.
And even assuming that there was no such waiver, the Court held that still Bocalans
contention deserves scant consideration because there are instances where search and seizure
can be made without necessarily being preceded by an arrest. An illustration would be the
stop-and-search without a warrant at military or police checkpoints, the constitutionality of
which has already been upheld by this Court [in Valmonte vs. De Villa]. Vehicles are generally
allowed to pass through these checkpoints after a routine inspection and answering a few
questions. If vehicles are stopped and extensively searched it is because of some probable
cause which justifies a reasonable belief of those manning the checkpoints that either the
motorist is a law-offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments in the
commission of an offense.
According to the Court, lest it be misunderstood, the foregoing doctrine is not intended to do
away with the general rule that no person shall be subjected to search of his person, personal
effects and belongings, or his residence except of virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion
of a lawful arrest. This case, however, is an incident to or an offshoot of a lawful stop-andsearch at a military or police checkpoint.
The checkpoint in the instant case was established in line with Operational Bakal, the main
object of which was to search for unlicensed firearms and other prohibited items in the
possession of unauthorized persons passing through it. When the jeep carrying the contraband
passed through the checkpoint, it was flagged down and the occupants were asked routine
questions. In the course thereof, Pfc. Galang noticed a black leather bag the sides of which
were bulging. He asked what the contents of the bag were. None of the accused answered. At
that moment, the demeanor of the accused changed; they became suspiciously quiet and
nervous as if they were concealing something from Pfc. Galang. The accused clearly appeared
to be in abject fear of being discovered. Such peculiar apprehensiveness if not restrained
reaction of the accused, which did not appear normal, provided the probable cause justifying a
more extensive search that led to the opening of the bag and the discovery of the prohibited
stuff.
Guanzon v De Villa
Facts: The 41 petitioners alleged that the "saturation drive" or "aerial target zoning" that were
conducted in their place (Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional. They alleged that there is no
specific target house to be search and that there is no search warrant or warrant of arrest
served. Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and without nameplates or
identification cards. The residents were rudely rouse from their sleep by banging on the walls
and windows of their houses. The residents were at the point of high-powered guns and herded
like cows. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for the police to examine their tattoo
marks. 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. 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 informations. The respondents said that such accusations were all lies. Respondents
contends that the Constitution grants to government the power to seek and cripple subversive
movements for the maintenance of peace in the state. The aerial target zoning were intended
to flush out subversives and criminal elements coddled by the communities were the said
drives were conducted. They said 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: Whether or Not the saturation drive committed consisted of violation of human rights.
Held: It is not the police action per se which should be prohibited rather it is the procedure used
or the methods which "offend even hardened sensibilities" .Based on the facts stated by the
parties, it appears to have been no impediment to securing search warrants or warrants of
arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested. There
is no showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the "aerial zoning" could not be
achieved even as th rights of the squatters and low income families are fully protected.
However, the remedy should not be brought by a tazpaer suit where not one victim complaints
and not one violator is properly charged. In the circumstances of this taxpayers' suit, there is
no erring soldier or policeman whom the court can order prosecuted. In the absence of clear
facts no permanent relief can be given.
In the meantime where there is showing that some abuses were committed, the court
temporary restraint the alleged violations which are shocking to the senses. Petition is
remanded to the RTC of Manila.