RIGHT AGAINST ARBITRARY ARREST AND DETENTION

PEOPLE VS MARTI
People of the Philippines vs. Andre Marti
G.R. No. 81561, January 18 1991

Facts:
The appellant and his common law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila Packing and Export
Forwarders in the Pistang Filipino Complex Ermita, Manila carrying with them four gift wrapped packages to be sent in
Zurich Switzerland. The proprietress, Anita Reyes (not related to Shirley Reyes) then asked the appellant if he could
examine and expect the packages however appellant refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books,
cigars, and gloves and were just gifts to a friend. Anita no longer insisted. Before delivery of appellant’s box to the bureau
of Customs and or bureau of Post, Mr. Job Reyes, proprietor and husband of Anita, following standard procedure opened
the boxes for final inspection. When he opened a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He squeezed one of the bundles
allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Job prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and
requesting laboratory examination sample he extracted from the cellophane. Therefore, job and three NBI agents and a
photographer went to the Reyes’ office at Ermita. Job brought out the box in which appellants’ packages were places and
in the presence of the NBI agents, open the top flaps, removed the Styrofoam and took out the cellophane wrappers from
inside the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves are found inside the cellophane.

Issue:
Whether or not there is violation of appellant’s constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that it is not the NBI who made the search. Records of the case clearly indicate that it
was Mr. Job who made search and inspection of the said packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard
operating procedure on the part of Mr. Job as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of
Custom or Post. If the search is made upon the request of law enforces, a warrant must generally must be secured first
if it to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made in the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a
private establishment for its own and private purpose, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of the police
authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual,
not the law enforcer, is involved.
In sum, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be extended to acts committed by
private individual as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.

The alleged violation against unreasonable search and seizure may only invoked against the State by an
individual unjustly traduced by the exercise by the sovereign authority.

SALAZAR vs. ACHACOSO AND MARQUEZ

HORTENCIA SALAZAR, petitioner,

vs.

HON. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, in his capacity as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration,

and FERDIE MARQUEZ, respondents.

FACTS: This concerns the validity of the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of arrest and seizure under Article 38

of the Labor Code, prohibiting illegal recruitment.

On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro filed with the POEA a complaint against petitioner. Having ascertained that the petitioner

had no license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued his challenged

CLOSURE AND SEIZURE ORDER.

The POEA brought a team to the premises of Salazar to implement the order. There it was found that petitioner was operating

Hannalie Dance Studio. Before entering the place, the team served said Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. Flora

Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. Mrs. Flora Salazar informed the team that Hannalie Dance Studio

was accredited with Moreman Development (Phil.). However, when required to show credentials, she was unable to produce

any. Inside the studio, the team chanced upon twelve talent performers — practicing a dance number and saw about twenty

more waiting outside, The team confiscated assorted costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and

witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar.

A few days after, petitioner filed a letter with the POEA demanding the return of the confiscated properties. They alleged lack of

hearing and due process, and that since the house the POEA raided was a private residence, it was robbery.

On February 2, 1988, the petitioner filed this suit for prohibition. Although the acts sought to be barred are already fait accompli,

thereby making prohibition too late, we consider the petition as one for certiorari in view of the grave public interest involved.

ISSUE: May the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) validly issue warrants of search and

seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code?

HELD: PETITION GRANTED. it is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest. Neither may it be done by a mere

prosecuting body.

We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities

must go through the judicial process. To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional

and of no force and effect.

Moreover, the search and seizure order in question, assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that it was validly issued, is clearly in the

nature of a general warrant. We have held that a warrant must identify clearly the things to be seized, otherwise, it is null and

void

For the guidance of the bench and the bar, we reaffirm the following principles:

1. Under Article III, Section 2, of the l987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no other, who may issue warrants of arrest and

search:

2. The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner of

Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation