Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989
RICARDO C. VALMONTE AND UNION OF LAWYERS AND
ADVOCATES FOR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS (ULAP), petitioners,
vs.
GEN. RENATO DE VILLA AND NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
DISTRICT COMMAND, respondents.
Ricardo C. Valmonte for himself and his co-petitioners.
PADILLA, J.:
This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order, seeking the declaration of checkpoints in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila or elsewhere, as unconstitutional and the
dismantling and banning of the same or, in the alternative, to direct
the respondents to formulate guidelines in the implementation of
checkpoints, for the protection of the people.
Petitioner Ricardo C. Valmonte sues in his capacity as citizen of the
Republic, taxpayer, member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), and resident of Valenzuela, Metro Manila; while petitioner Union
of Lawyers and Advocates for People's Rights (ULAP) sues in its
capacity as an association whose members are all members of the IBP.
The factual background of the case is as follows:
On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command
(NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the
Philippine General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting
security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral
areas, for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial defense,
maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive
to the social, economic and political development of the National
Capital Region. 1 As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the
NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro
Manila.
Petitioners aver that, because of the installation of said checkpoints,
the residents of Valenzuela are worried of being harassed and of their
safety being 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. Their alleged fear for their safety
increased when, at dawn of 9 July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, a supply
officer of the Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was gunned down
allegedly in cold blood by the members of the NCRDC manning the
checkpoint along McArthur Highway at Malinta, Valenzuela, for ignoring

and/or refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint and for continuing

to speed off inspire of warning shots fired in the air. Petitioner
Valmonte also claims that, on several occasions, he had gone thru
these checkpoints where he was stopped and his car subjected to
search/check-up without a court order or search warrant.
Petitioners further contend that the said checkpoints give the
respondents a blanket authority to make searches and/or seizures
without search warrant or court order in violation of the Constitution; 2
and, instances have occurred where a citizen, while not killed, had
been harassed.
Petitioners' concern for their safety and apprehension at being
harassed by the military manning the checkpoints are not sufficient
grounds to declare the checkpoints as per se illegal. No proof has been
presented before the Court to show that, in the course of their routine
checks, the military indeed committed specific violations of petitioners'
right against unlawful search and seizure or other rights.
In a case filed by the same petitioner organization, Union of Lawyers
and Advocates for People's Right (ULAP) vs. Integrated National Police,
3
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, 4 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. 5
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 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. 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. 6
Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a
vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds, 7 or simply
looks into a vehicle, 8 or flashes a light therein, 9 these do not
constitute unreasonable search.
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. In

this connection, the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban
centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly
reflected in the increased killings in cities of police and military men by
NPA "sparrow units," not to mention the abundance of unlicensed
firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such
urban centers, not all of which are reported in media, most likely
brought about by deteriorating economic conditions which all sum
up to what one can rightly consider, at the very least, as abnormal
times. 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.
Finally, on 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. 10
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano,
Gancayco, Bidin, Cortes, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ.,
concur.
Separate Opinions
CRUZ, J., dissenting:
I dissent. The sweeping statements in the majority opinion are as
dangerous as the checkpoints it would sustain and fraught with serious
threats to individual liberty. 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. What is worse is
that the searches and seizures are peremptorily pronounced to be
reasonable even without proof of probable cause and much less the
required warrant. The improbable excuse is that they are aimed at
'establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and
order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic

and political development of the National Capital Region." For these

purposes, 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.
I have no quarrel with a policeman flashing a light inside a parked
vehicle on a dark street as a routine measure of security and curiosity.
But the case at bar is different. Military officers are systematically
stationed at strategic checkpoint to actively ferret out suspected
criminals by detaining and searching any individual who in their
opinion might impair "the social, economic and political development
of the National Capital Region." It is incredible that we can sustain such
a measure. And we are not even under martial law.
Unless we are vigilant of our rights, we may find ourselves back to the
dark era of the truncheon and the barbed wire, with the Court itself a
captive of its own complaisance and sitting at the death-bed of liberty.
SARMIENTO, J., dissenting:
I join Justice Isagani Cruz in his dissent, delivered so staightforwardly
and eloquently. I am agreed that the existence alone of checkpoints
makes search done therein, unreasonable and hence, repugnant to the
Constitution.
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."
(Resolution, 4.) To say that it is, is so I submit to trivialize the plain
command of the Constitution.
Checkpoints, I further submit, are things of martial rule, and things of
the past. They first saw the light of day by virtue of General Order No.
66 (AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY TO ESTABLISH
CHECKPOINTS, UPDATE LISTS OF WANTED PERSONS AND CONDUCT
DRAGNET OPERATIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES), a martial law
issuance, as amended by General Order No. 67 (AMENDING AND
AMPLIFYING PARAGRAPH 7 OF GENERAL ORDER NO. 66 DATED
SEPTEMBER 12, 1980), yet another martial law issuance. (See O.G.
4224-4226; 4226-4227 [Aug., 1983].) They are, so I strongly submit,
repressive measures, the same measures against which we had fought
so painstakingly in our quest for liberty, a quest that ended at EDSA
and a quest that terminated a dictatorship. How soon we forget.
While the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as my
brethren advance, 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. The
petitioners, Ricardo Valmonte in particular, need not, therefore, have

illustrated the "details of the incident" (Resolution, supra, 4) in all their

gore and gruesomeness.
In any event, the absence alone of a search warrant, as I have averred,
makes checkpoint searches unreasonable, and by itself, subject to
constitutional challenges. (Supra.) As it is, "checkpoints", have become
"search warrants" unto themselves a roving one at that.
That "[n]ot all searches and seizures are prohibited," the majority
points out, is fine. And so is "a reasonable search is not to be
determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the
facts of each case." (Supra) But the question, exactly, is: Is (are) the
search(es) in this case reasonable? I submit that it (they) is (are) not,
for one simple reason: No search warrant has been issued by a judge.
I likewise do not find this case to be a simple matter of an "officer
merely draw(ing) aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle ... or simply
look(ing) (supra) there, "or flash(ing) a light therein." (Supra) What we
have here is Orwell's Big Brother watching every step we take and
every move we make.
As it also is, "checkpoints" are apparently, State policy. The American
cases the majority refers to involve routine checks compelled by
"probable cause". What we have here, however, is not simply a
policeman on the beat but armed men, CAFGU or Alsa Masa, who hold
the power of life or death over the citizenry, who fire with no
provocation and without batting an eyelash. They likewise shoot you
simply because they do not like your face. I have witnessed actual
incidents.
Washington said that militia can not be made to dictate the terms for
the nation. He can not be anymore correct here.
"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. (Supra)
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.
A final word. After twenty years of tyranny, the dawn is upon us. The
country is once again the "showcase of democracy" in Asia. But if in
many cases, it has been "paper democracy", let this Court anyway
bring to pass its stand, and make liberty in the land, a living reality.
I vote then, to grant the petition.
Separate Opinions
CRUZ, J., dissenting:
I dissent. The sweeping statements in the majority opinion are as
dangerous as the checkpoints it would sustain and fraught with serious
threats to individual liberty. 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. What is worse is
that the searches and seizures are peremptorily pronounced to be
reasonable even without proof of probable cause and much less the
required warrant. The improbable excuse is that they are aimed at
'establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and
order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic
and political development of the National Capital Region." For these
purposes, 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.
I have no quarrel with a policeman flashing a light inside a parked
vehicle on a dark street as a routine measure of security and curiosity.
But the case at bar is different. Military officers are systematically
stationed at strategic checkpoint to actively ferret out suspected
criminals by detaining and searching any individual who in their
opinion might impair "the social, economic and political development
of the National Capital Region." It is incredible that we can sustain such
a measure. And we are not even under martial law.
Unless we are vigilant of our rights, we may find ourselves back to the
dark era of the truncheon and the barbed wire, with the Court itself a
captive of its own complaisance and sitting at the death-bed of liberty.
SARMIENTO, J., dissenting:
I join Justice Isagani Cruz in his dissent, delivered so staightforwardly
and eloquently. I am agreed that the existence alone of checkpoints
makes search done therein, unreasonable and hence, repugnant to the
Constitution.
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."
(Resolution, 4.) To say that it is, is so I submit to trivialize the plain
command of the Constitution.
Checkpoints, I further submit, are things of martial rule, and things of
the past. They first saw the light of day by virtue of General Order No.
66 (AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY TO ESTABLISH
CHECKPOINTS, UPDATE LISTS OF WANTED PERSONS AND CONDUCT
DRAGNET OPERATIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES), a martial law
issuance, as amended by General Order No. 67 (AMENDING AND
AMPLIFYING PARAGRAPH 7 OF GENERAL ORDER NO. 66 DATED
SEPTEMBER 12, 1980), yet another martial law issuance. (See O.G.
4224-4226; 4226-4227 [Aug., 1983].) They are, so I strongly submit,
repressive measures, the same measures against which we had fought

so painstakingly in our quest for liberty, a quest that ended at EDSA

and a quest that terminated a dictatorship. How soon we forget.
While the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as my
brethren advance, 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. The
petitioners, Ricardo Valmonte in particular, need not, therefore, have
illustrated the "details of the incident" (Resolution, supra, 4) in all their
gore and gruesomeness.
In any event, the absence alone of a search warrant, as I have averred,
makes checkpoint searches unreasonable, and by itself, subject to
constitutional challenges. (Supra.) As it is, "checkpoints", have become
"search warrants" unto themselves a roving one at that.
That "[n]ot all searches and seizures are prohibited," the majority
points out, is fine. And so is "a reasonable search is not to be
determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the
facts of each case." (Supra) But the question, exactly, is: Is (are) the
search(es) in this case reasonable? I submit that it (they) is (are) not,
for one simple reason: No search warrant has been issued by a judge.
I likewise do not find this case to be a simple matter of an "officer
merely draw(ing) aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle ... or simply
look(ing) (supra) there, "or flash(ing) a light therein." (Supra) What we
have here is Orwell's Big Brother watching every step we take and
every move we make.
As it also is, "checkpoints" are apparently, State policy. The American
cases the majority refers to involve routine checks compelled by
"probable cause". What we have here, however, is not simply a
policeman on the beat but armed men, CAFGU or Alsa Masa, who hold
the power of life or death over the citizenry, who fire with no
provocation and without batting an eyelash. They likewise shoot you
simply because they do not like your face. I have witnessed actual
incidents.
Washington said that militia can not be made to dictate the terms for
the nation. He can not be anymore correct here.
"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. (Supra)
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.
A final word. After twenty years of tyranny, the dawn is upon us. The
country is once again the "showcase of democracy" in Asia. But if in
many cases, it has been "paper democracy", let this Court anyway
bring to pass its stand, and make liberty in the land, a living reality.

I vote then, to grant the petition.

Footnotes
1 Comment of Respondents. Rollo, p. 32.
2 Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution provides: 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.
3 G.R. No. 80432. Minute Resolution dated 8 March 1988.
4 Section 52, 79 C.J.S. 810-811.
5 Section 8, 79 C.J.S. 786.
6 U.S. v. Robinwitz, N.Y., 70 S. Crt. 430,339 U.S. 56,94 L.Ed. 653;
Harries v. U.S., Okl., 67 S.Ct. 1098 & 331 U.S. 146, 94 L.Ed. 1871;
Martin v. U.S., C.A. Va., 183 F2d 436; 66, 79 C.J.S., 835-8,36.
7 Ibid., citing the case of People v. Case, 190 MW 289, 220 Mich. 379,
27 A.L.R. 686.
8 Ibid., citing the case of State v. Gaina, 97 SE 62, 111 S.C. 1 74, 3
A.L.R. 1500.
9 Ibid., citing the case of Rowland v. Commonwealth, 259 SW 33, 202
Rg 92.
10 Comment. Rollo, pp. 25-26.

G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989

RICARDO C. VALMONTE AND UNION OF LAWYERS AND
ADVOCATES FOR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS (ULAP), petitioners,
vs.
GEN. RENATO DE VILLA AND NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
DISTRICT COMMAND, respondents.
Ricardo C. Valmonte for himself and his co-petitioners.
Facts:
On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command
(NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the
Philippine General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting
security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral
areas, for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial defense,

maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive

to the social, economic and political development of the National
Capital Region. 1 As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the
NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro
Manila.
Petitioners aver that, because of the installation of said checkpoints,
the residents of Valenzuela are worried of being harassed and of their
safety being 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. Their alleged fear for their safety
increased when, at dawn of 9 July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, a supply
officer of the Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was gunned down
allegedly in cold blood by the members of the NCRDC manning the
checkpoint along McArthur Highway at Malinta, Valenzuela, for ignoring
and/or refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint and for continuing
to speed off inspire of warning shots fired in the air. Petitioner
Valmonte also claims that, on several occasions, he had gone thru
these checkpoints where he was stopped and his car subjected to
search/check-up without a court order or search warrant.
Issue:
Whether or not the installation of checkpoints violates the
right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Ruling:
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. In
this connection, the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban
centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly
reflected in the increased killings in cities of police and military men by
NPA "sparrow units," not to mention the abundance of unlicensed
firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such
urban centers, not all of which are reported in media, most likely
brought about by deteriorating economic conditions which all sum
up to what one can rightly consider, at the very least, as abnormal
times. 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.