Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SYLLABUS
DECISION
PADILLA , J : p
Separate Opinions
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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 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.
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
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
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.