Ricardo C. Valmonte and Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Peoples Rights (ULAP), petitioners, vs. Gen.

Renato De Villa and National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC)

PADILLA, J.
September 29, 1989
G.R. No. 83988
Doctrine

Summary

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.
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.

Petitioners assail the conduct of checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and other areas by the NCRDC,
pursuant to a Letter of Instruction from the General HQ of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. This was
intended to maintain peace and order, among others, in the NCR, but the petitioners were worried of being
harassed by the soldiers. They were 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, which is against their Constitutional
right. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the setting up of checkpoints, reasoning that the petitioners
didnt sufficiently prove that there was such abuse and that the States right to protect its existence prevails
over an individuals right against a warrantless search.

Facts
-

Ratio
/Issues

(Jan. 20, 1987) NCRDC was activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine
General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting security operations for the purpose of
establishing an effective territorial defense and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social,
economic and political development in NCR.
Pursuant to this, checkpoints were set up in Valenzuela and its residents were afraid that their safety
was placed at the militarys arbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition.
Benjamin Parpon, a supply officer of the Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was gunned down
allegedly in cold blood by the members of the NCRDC.
Petitioner, suing in his capacity as a taxpayer and member of the IBP, attested that he and his car
were searched/checked without a court order or search warrant. He said that said checkpoints give
the respondents a blanket authority to conduct such kind of search in violation of Art. 3, Sec. 2 of
the 1987 Constitution.

1) W/n the petitioners right against unreasonable searches and seizure was infringed
COURT: NO. a) Petitioner didnt present any proof that, in the course of manning the checkpoints, the
military committed violations of their Constitutional right. Also, ULAP (who sued in the capacity of an
association whose members are part of IBP) is not qualified to bring the action as a party in interest because
only those whose personal right has been infringed can do so.
b) What constitutes an unreasonable or reasonable search is a judicial question, determinable from a
consideration of the circumstances and in this case, Valmonte only gave a general allegation.
c) As an example, an officer who merely parts the window curtain of a vehicle or flashes his flashlight on
the window does not constitute an unreasonable search.
d) The checkpoints were intended as a security measure in the NCR, given the fact that insurgency
movement has shifted to the urban centers.
e) The conduct of checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, is
part of the price we pay for an orderly society and peaceful community, even 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.
- Military and police checkpoints in Metro Manila were later temporarily lifted to revise the rules on
conduct of the officers manning the checkpoints.

Held

Petition dismissed

Cruz, J. He assailed the sweeping statements in the majority opinion and said that the purposes cited for
the conduct the checkpoints would justify that 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.
- The case at bar, which involves military officers systematically stationed at strategic checkpoint to
actively ferret out suspected criminals by detaining and searching any individual, is unlike the example
given.
- Its like martial law!
Dissent

Sarmiento, J. - Checkpoints are unconstitutional, being a thing of the past during the Martial Law. The
lack of a search warrant makes it so.
- The enjoyment of the right of security of person, home, and effects 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."
- The burden is the State's, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the search. The petitioners, Ricardo
Valmonte in particular, need not, therefore, have illustrated the details of the incident.

Prepared by Eunice V. Guadalope