Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VALMONTE and DE VILLA
VALMONTE and DE VILLA
The factual background of the case is as follows: In a case filed by the same petitioner organization, Union
of Lawyers and Advocates for People's Right (ULAP) vs.
On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Integrated National Police, 3 it was held that individual
Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of petitioners who do not allege that any of their rights
Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General were violated are not qualified to bring the action, as real
Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting parties in interest.
security operations within its area of responsibility and
peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an The constitutional right against unreasonable searches
effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those
order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the whose rights have been infringed, 4 or threatened to be
social, economic and political development of the infringed. What constitutes a reasonable or
National Capital Region.1 As part of its duty to maintain unreasonable search and seizure in any particular case is
peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in purely a judicial question, determinable from a
various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. consideration of the circumstances involved. 5
Petitioners aver that, because of the installation of said Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation to the effect
checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela are worried of that he had been stopped and searched without a search
being harassed and of their safety being placed at the warrant by the military manning the checkpoints,
arbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition of the without more, i.e., without stating the details of the
military manning the checkpoints, considering that their incidents which amount to a violation of his right against
cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular searches unlawful search and seizure, is not sufficient to enable
and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn, without the Court to determine whether there was a violation of
the benefit of a search warrant and/or court order. Their Valmonte's right against unlawful search and seizure.
alleged fear for their safety increased when, at dawn of Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those
9 July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, a supply officer of the which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable
Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was gunned down search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but
allegedly in cold blood by the members of the NCRDC is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. 6
manning the checkpoint along McArthur Highway at
Malinta, Valenzuela, for ignoring and/or refusing to Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the
submit himself to the checkpoint and for continuing to curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public
speed off inspire of warning shots fired in the air. fair grounds, 7 or simply looks into a vehicle, 8 or flashes
Petitioner Valmonte also claims that, on several a light therein, 9 these do not constitute unreasonable
occasions, he had gone thru these checkpoints where he search.
was stopped and his car subjected to search/check-up
without a court order or search warrant. The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in
Valenzuela (and probably in other areas) may be
Petitioners further contend that the said checkpoints considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC
give the respondents a blanket authority to make to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial
searches and/or seizures without search warrant or court defense and maintaining peace and order for the benefit
order in violation of the Constitution; 2 and, instances of the public. Checkpoints may also be regarded as
have occurred where a citizen, while not killed, had been measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government,
harassed. in the interest of public security. In this connection, the
Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban
Petitioners' concern for their safety and apprehension at centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement,
being harassed by the military manning the checkpoints so clearly reflected in the increased killings in cities of
are not sufficient grounds to declare the checkpoints as police and military men by NPA "sparrow units," not to
SEC 2, ART. III, VALMONTE vs DE VILLA 3
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.
SO ORDERED.