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.

PADILLA, J.:

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 . 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; and, instances have occurred where a citizen, while not killed,
had been harassed. 

ISSUE: W/N the installed checkpoints violated the Constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure (NO)

RULING: The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those whose
rights have been infringed, 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. 

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.

Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds, or
simply looks into a vehicle, or flashes a light therein, 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. 

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 83988

May 24, 1990

In the Court’s decision dated 29 September 1989, petitioners’ petition for prohibition seeking the declaration of the checkpoints as
unconstitutional and their dismantling and/or banning, was dismissed. Petitioners have filed the instant motion and supplemental
motion for reconsideration of said 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 organized government is on the balance, or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave 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.

Recent and on-going events have pointed to the continuing validity and need for checkpoints manned by either military or police
forces. The sixth (6th) attempted coup d’etat (stronger than all previous ones) was staged only last 1 December 1989. Another
attempt at a coup d’etat is taken almost for granted. The NPA, through its sparrow units, has not relented but instead accelerated its
liquidation of armed forces and police personnel. Murders, sex crimes, hold-ups and drug abuse have become daily occurrences.
Unlicensed firearms and ammunition have become favorite objects of trade. Smuggling is at an all- time high. Whether or not
effective as expected, checkpoints have been regarded by the authorities as a security measure designed to entrap criminals and
insurgents and to constitute a dragnet for all types of articles in illegal trade.

No one can be compelled, under our libertarian system, to share with the present government its ideological beliefs and practices, or
commend its political, social and economic policies or performance. But, at least, one must concede to it the basic right to defend
itself from its enemies and, while in power, to pursue its program of government intended for public welfare; and in the pursuit of
those objectives, the government has the 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.

The checkpoints are nonetheless attacked by the movants as a warrantless search and seizure and, therefore, violative of the
Constitution. As already stated, vehicles are generally allowed to pass these checkpoints after a routine inspection and a few
questions. If vehicles are stopped and extensively searched, it is because of some probable cause which justifies a reasonable
belief of the men at the checkpoints that either the motorist is a law-offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been
instruments of some offense. Besides these warrantless searches and seizures at the checkpoints are quite similar to searches and
seizures accompanying warrantless arrests during the commission of a crime, or immediately thereafter. In People vs. Kagui
Malasuqui, it was held·

“To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant,
would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals,
facilitating their escape in many instances.”

By the same token, a warrantless search of incoming and outgoing passengers, at the arrival and departure areas of an
international airport, is a practice not constitutionally objectionable because it is founded on public interest, safety, and necessity.

Lastly, the Court’s decision on checkpoints does not, in any way, validate nor condone abuses committed by the military manning
the checkpoints. The Court’s decision was concerned with power, i.e. whether the government employing the military has the power
to install said checkpoints. Once that power is acknowledged, the Court’s inquiry ceases. True, power implies the possibility of its
abuse. But whether there is abuse in a particular situation is a different “ball game” to be resolved in the constitutional arena. The
checkpoint is a military “concoction”. It behooves the military to improve the QUALITY of their men assigned to these checkpoints.
For no system or institution will succeed unless the men behind it are honest, noble and dedicated.

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. This tenet
should be ingrained in the soldiery in the clearest of terms by higher military authorities.

ACCORDINGLY, the Motion and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are DENIED. This denial is FINAL. SO ORDERED.