Guidelines for Checkpoints

Posted August 6th, 2010 by fallujah

in
 checkpoints

This article appeared 3 years ago on uaa.ph. Since there is a current proposal to increase the number
of checkpoints, by popular request, we reproduce it here for reference):If you encounter a checkpoint:

1. The Rule is: The PNP manning the check point are limited only to a VISUAL SEARCH. They are not
authorized to open your trunk, compartment, or bags(unless you are stupid enough to consent
voluntarily). If they make motions to search your person (body), open your glove compartment or
trunk, NEVER VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO OPEN ANYTHING OR ALLOW THEM TO SEARCH YOU. ALWAYS
OBJECT.

If the police insist on searching against your will, then the search will be rendered ILLEGAL and can be
questioned later, and may be the basis for RETURN or your things, if taken.If you think that you are
being subject to an illegal search, discreetly take a video or pictures of the incident with your cell
phone camera. This will be VITAL EVIDENCE later on, should you decide to question the search. Also
insist on getting the NAMES of the officers, their unit, and their team leader. This is needed later on
for IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES should there be a legal proceeding.2. Only ILLEGAL items in PLAIN
VIEW can be seized. LEGITIMATE ITEMS cannot not seized. So always HIDE your guns carefully in
bags or better in the trunk and make sure they are OUT OF PLAIN SIGHT. Try to cover the gun cases
with cloth or other similar item.

3. Nevertheless, bear in mind that the SUPREME COURT has ruled in Valmonte vs. De Villa 178 SCRA
211 (1989) that checkpoints are valid PROVIDED THAT neither the vehicle must be searched or its
occupant subjected to a body search. Nevertheless, only a VISUAL SEARCH from OUTSIDE the vehicle
may be done.

However if you take public transportation or commute, please be aware that in the infamous case of
People vs. Mikhail Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 410 (1991), a mere "suspicious bag" was upheld as probable
cause to conduct a search of pssangers inside a bus, in which case the drugs found during such search
were upheld to be addmissible as evidence.

4. Practical pointers for checkpoints:

a. Do not panicb. Be courteous, but cordial, with the PNP. Maintain a distance and avoid cracking jokes
or name dropping with them. Just shut up unless asked questions. The sooner you get away, the
better.c. Be sure to object if they ask you to get out of the car and search the vehicle and its
compartments. Always ask what the charge is before they proceed. Never voluntarily consent to a
search. Video the event if possible.d. WATCH CAREFULLY the police when they conduct their search
and make sure that they DO NOT PLANT ANY ILLEGAL ITEM IN YOUR CAR. This may sound absurd,
but this is a common practice.e. If you feel that your rights are being violated or are detained for
more than 1 hour call your relatives or a lawyer immediately.f. If you are arrested do not volunteer
any information or give any statement until your lawyer or relatives arrive.

5. If your guns are discovered:

a. Stay Calm and produce your papersb. Always make sure that you have photocopies of your license
and PTCFOR SOMEWHERE ELSE, just in case they confiscate your license and PTCFOR cards for
verification and they do not return them.c. if they insist on detaining you or confiscating your
weapons, call your relatives or a lawyer.
6. The worst case scenario if you get caught at a checkpoint is they will confiscate your guns. As what
happened in makati recently, the guns could be returned when things are explained and sorted out
with the PNP and the proper verifications are made.

7. Try to avoid known checkpoint areas. Also NEVER ride tandem (angkas) on a motorcycle with your
guns. You are surely going to be stopped and body-searched since tandem riders are a known modus
operandi of assassins. REMEMBER: Checkpoints are considered as potentially dangerous encounters
since they are subject to much abuse. A lot of people get shot and killed and/or illegally detained at
checkpoints. It is not Joke. So be as couteous as possible, but maintain your alertness and PRESENCE
OF MIND, and COMMON SENSE.

Comments
Searched while walking in public?
Submitted by boiledfrog on Fri, 08/06/2010 - 09:02.

Can you be legally searched while simply walking in public? In other words, are there different rules
for vehicle checkpoints and being in a public place on foot? What is the procedure if you are
approached by a policeman while walking around town?

In the UK, there seems to be a trend for police to randomly stop, search and generally harass people,
especially photographers, under supposed anti-terrorism laws. This is a violation of rights but it
doesn't prevent them from trying anyway. Oftentimes, the citizens being stopped know more about
the law than the officers themselves, leading to tense standoffs. The problem became so bad that
photographers groups started issuing their members 'rights cards' that stated the law.

Terry Frisk
Submitted by fallujah on Fri, 08/06/2010 - 10:04.

Yes. IN Manalili vs. COurt of Appeals, 9 OCtober 1997, the Philippine Supreme Court adopted the
United States' Terry vs. Ohio doctrine wherein the police may conduct a body search for concealed
weapons of a suspicious person who is at close range. This is known as a "Terry frisk" in criminal
procedure. However, this is much abused by the police in that if they merely think you look
suspicious, then they can conduct a body search of you for weapons, BUT ANYTHING ELSE WHICH
THEY FIND ON YOU WHICH IS CONTRABAND IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE.

The exact words of the case are: " Where a police officer observes an unusual conduct which leads
him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and where in
the course of investigating this behavior, he identified himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear
for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for protection of himself or others in the area to conduct a
carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which
might beused to assault him. Such search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and any
weapon seized may be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken."

The problem with the foregoing doctrine is that it is much abused by the police. You will notice that
there is a very GENERAL STANDARD by which the police can determine "reasonable fear" or
"suspicious behavior", which can be twisted by just about anyone. For example in the Philippines you
will see in the news that police conduct "SONA" such as when they enter into private pubs,
restaurants, or drinking establishments, and frisk every male inside for weapons. This is outightly
ILLEGAL, since there is no cause to believe that anyone inside a resturant is committing a crime or is a
threat to the public. The problem is nobody is questioning this practice in court.
As you mentioned, I would imagine that in the UK where people are more cognizant of their rights and
freedoms, they would have raised bloody hell with this kind of behavior by the police.

Safer inside a vehicle & other questions...

Submitted by boiledfrog on Fri, 08/06/2010 - 11:29.

So from what you're saying, the only time a body-search is illegal would be when you are traveling
inside your private vehicle, correct?

A few other questions:

1. Are you legally obliged to give your name and provide ID when requested?
2. Are police officers legally obliged to give their name and ID?
3. Can the police legally confiscate recording equipment that you are using to document the
search? (e.g. camera phone, video camera, notepad.)
4. Does consenting to one type of search mean that you have implicitly volunteered to a full
search? For example, some drivers automatically open the trunk or glove box. Does this mean
they have thus also consented to a full search of bags, clothing and other belongings?
5. What powers to private security guards have? I notice that checkpoints in Makati are
sometimes manned by security guards with no police officer present.
6. Do military personnel have different powers to police?

Body searches
Submitted by fallujah on Fri, 08/06/2010 - 20:52.

Not really. The issue of validity of a body search is very complex. I could write a whole book on it.
However, to simplify matters:

a. A Terry frisk is limited to suspicious persons who are being investigated or questioned at close
range. The police cannot just go around and frisk or body search anyone they want.

b. Distinguish between a PRIVATE PERSON and a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. The Constitutional
prohibition against illegal searches and seizures applies only to LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
PUBLIC OFFICIALS. It does not apply to private persons (People vs. Marti)

To answer your questions:

1. Yes

2. Yes. But oftentimes they do not.

3. No.

4. No

5. As stated above, private persons are NOT covered by the prohibition on illegal searches and
seizures. Hence the security guards may validly search you, especially if you are entering a private
establishment such as a mall or bank.

6. Insofar as checkpoints are concerned, no.

Checkpoints and the right against unreasonable search and seizure
Published by Atty. Fred January 21st, 2008 in Criminal Law, Elections and Constitutional Law and Litigation and Labor Law. 6 Comments

A checkpoint is something that motorists have to contend with on the road. Only recently, a “concerned Filipino

citizen” raised some issues with respect to PNP/AFP checkpoints. The issues raised are valid, as the Supreme Court

itself noted that it “has become aware of how some checkpoints have been used as points of thievery and extortion

practiced upon innocent civilians. Even the increased prices of foodstuffs coming from the provinces, entering the

Metro Manila area and other urban centers, are largely blamed on the checkpoints, because the men manning them

have reportedly become “experts” in mulcting travelling traders. This, of course, is a national tragedy.”

Still, the power of the authorities to install checkpoints is conceded by the Supreme Court. With that, let’s have a

brief discussion on checkpoints and the right against unreasonable search and seizures.

The Constitution ensures 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.• (Section 2, Article III).

The Constitution also provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the provision mentioned is inadmissible in

evidence (Sec. 3, Article III).

The general rule is this — no arrests and search/seizure could be made without a warrant. However,

there are exceptions. Among the exceptions concerning search and seizure are: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2)

seizure in plain view; and (3) waiver by the accused of his right against unreasonable search and seizure. These

exceptions, while distinct and separate from each other, are often discussed together (routine airport security

inspection is a slightly different matter, but that’s the subject of another post).

Search and seizure relevant to moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a

warrant under said circumstances. In such cases however, the search and seizure may be made only upon

probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an

automobile or other vehicle contains an item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.

The SC also found probable cause in the following instances:

(a) where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the plastic bag carried by the accused;
(b) where an informer positively identified the accused who was observed to have been acting suspiciously;

(c) where the accused fled when accosted by policemen;

(d) where the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped and searched by policemen who had earlier

received confidential reports that said accused would transport a large quantity of marijuana; and

(e) where the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis of intelligence information and clandestine

reports by a deep penetration agent or spy — one who participated in the drug smuggling activities of the

syndicate to which the accused belonged — that said accused were bringing prohibited drugs into the country.

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the “plain view― of an officer who has a right to be in the

position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The “plain view―

doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:

(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position

from which he can view a particular area;

(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and

(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or

otherwise subject to seizure.

To illustrate, the SC found all these elements in one case: “The law enforcement officers lawfully made an initial

intrusion because of the enforcement of the Gun Ban and were properly in a position from which they particularly

viewed the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, the policemen came inadvertently across a piece of

evidence incriminating the petitioner where they saw the gun tucked into his waist. The gun was in plain view and

discovered inadvertently when the petitioner alighted from the vehicle.― In this particular case, the gun was

found only after the accused steped out of the vehicle. The accused claims that he could not have freely refused

the “police orders” issued by the police team who were “armed to the teeth” and “in the face of

such show of force.” The SC, however, noted that the “police team manning the checkpoint politely

requested the passengers to alight from their vehicles, and the motorists who refused this request were not forced

to do so.―
 As to military or police checkpoints, the Supreme Court already ruled that these checkpoints are not illegal per

se, as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to body search, and the

inspection of the vehicle is merely visual. The search which is limited to routine checks — visual inspection or

flashing a light inside the car, without the occupants being subjected to physical or body searches. In other words,

in the absence of probable cause, the authorities:

(a) cannot compel the passengers to step out of the car;

(b) cannot conduct bodily searches; and

(c) cannot compel the motorist to open the trunk or glove compartment of the car, or any package contained

therein.

A search of the luggage inside the vehicle would require the existence of probable cause. On the other hand, no

probable cause is required if the accused voluntarily opens the trunk and allows the search, as waiver of one’s right

against unreasonable search and seizures is one of the exceptions noted above.

The negative impressions on checkpoints, however, should not be an excuse to be rude to the officers manning

them. If I’m flagged down at a check point, I usually roll down the driver’s window halfway, address the officer in a

courteous manner, then mentally note his name plate. What is your recourse in case of abuse? In the words of the

Supreme Court: “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.”

* Sources:

Abenes vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 156320, February 14, 2007)

People vs. Lacerna (G.R. No. 109250, September 5, 1997)

Valmonte vs. De Villa (G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990)

6 Responses to “Checkpoints and the right against unreasonable search
and seizure”
Feed for this Entry

1. CrisostomoIbarraJan 24th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

 Thorough and clear discussion of the issue. Thank you very much Sirs!

2. CrisostomoIbarraJan 24th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

If I may, does the plain view doctrine and the limitation that the authorities cannot compel the passengers to get

out of the car and bodily search them, applicable also to public utility vehicles?

3. bokJan 26th, 2008 at 6:37 am

sir,

how about in public utility vehicles?

what can be considered illegal search already?

4. _chrisJul 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

The Law can keep talking all it wants.

It can write thick books about how such and such is illegal.

But when you are faced with the real deal; when those “policemen” intimidate you with shady looks; when you

glance left to right and you see their fellow “teammates” serving as watch-outs; when they finally push you to the

corner; when their hunger for money overpowers their normal thinking process and reasoning; when they use the

law to abuse instead of to protect, the law can’t save you.. for how can the Law protect you when those that

enforce it are the same people who go against it.

I really wish they end putting up checkpoints all around Metro Manila.

It does more bad than good.

The number of people that i know that have been extorted is growing.. police asking from P10,000 – P50,000

cash…

The salary of being a policeman here in the Philippines isn’t much, and these cops will do anything to get that

money. They will plant drugs on you, extort you, threaten you, and do just about anything to get paid.

My advice to everyone, get a gun and hide it under the car seat.

Next time you are faced with a hectic situation, put a bullet through the next cop who abuses you.

Stop depending on the law and start depending on yourself.

What’s worse than criminals going against the law, is law-enforcers going against the law.
SC flip-flops: No more Ampatuan trial
live broadcast
BY RAPPLER.COM
POSTED ON 11/12/2012 12:41 PM | UPDATED 11/12/2012 2:31 PM

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) - The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision on allowing live media coverage
of the Ampatuan massacre trial, citing breach of rights of the accused.

The SC decision, dated October 23, 2012 and released Monday, November 12, was due to a motion for
reconsideration filed by Andal Ampatuan Jr., one of the main suspects in the case that involved the gruesome killing
of about 58 in Mindanao.

"A camera that broadcasts the proceedings live on television has no place in a criminal trial because of its prejudicial
effects on the rights of the accused individuals," the court said in its resolution.

The decision will also help protect the judge and the witnesses from outside influences during the trial proper, the
court added.

Ampatuan's motions stated that a public trial will be a breach of his rights to equal protection and presumption of
innocence. His camp also argued that it will deprive him of his right to due process, and will have a "degrading"
psychological effect on him.

The resolution stated that the instead of a live broadcast of the trial, media can still monitor the proceedings via
closed-circuit television. This will also be the method of viewing for some trial courts in Maguindanao and the cities of
Koronadal and General Santos, to help relatives of the victims and of the accused monitor the case.

Supreme Court resolution on the live media coverage of the Ampatuan massacre trial
This reversed the June 14, 2011 decision by the court to allow live coverage of the trial.

The earlier decision allowed live broadcast of the high-profile trial, on the condition that there will be no voice-overs or
annotations of the trial proper; the prohibition of replaying any part of the trial, except on finality of judgment; and that
the broadcast be uninterrupted.

Malacañang, which supports the live broadcast of the trial, said they are still hoping that the SC revisits the decision.

"I hope that they can revisit their decision—even their decision not to cover it live," Deputy Presidential Spokesperson
Edwin Lacierda said in a press briefing.

" I don’t know what prompted them to revisit or to change their minds on the live coverage of Maguindanao massacre.
But that is the litmus test of the judiciary and it is important for us—both the public and media—to be able to know
what’s going on in the Maguindanao massacre trial," he said.