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.

DECISION

PADILLA, J : p

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,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 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 inspite 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 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, Griño-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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 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 checkpoints 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 straight-forwardly

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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 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, 29 C.J.S. 810-811.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 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. 145, 94 L. Ed. 1871; Martin v. U.S., C.A.
Va., 183 F2d 436; 66, 79 C.J.S., 835-836.

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. 174, 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com