Valmonte v De Villa

G.R. No. 83988

September 29, 1989
Ponente- J. Padilla
Belenzo-Group 4

Petitioners: RICARDO C. VALMONTE AND UNION OF LAWYERS AND ADVOCATES FOR PEOPLE'S
RIGHTS (ULAP)
Respondents: GEN. RENATO DE VILLA AND NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION DISTRICT COMMAND

 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.
 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;
 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.
 20 January 1987  NCR District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of
Instruction 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.
 NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
 Petitioners
o Installation of said checkpoints  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
o 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.
o Alleged fear for their safety increased when 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.
o 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.
 o 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;
o Instances have occurred where a citizen, while not killed, had been harassed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the checkpoints installed are illegal?
 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.
 ULAP vs. Integrated National Police  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.
 Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures  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
 Valmonte's general allegation 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.
 DOES NOT CONSTITUTE UNREASONABLE SEARCH  Where 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
 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.
 Court took judicial notice
o shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement,
o Increased killings in cities of police and military men by NPA "sparrow units,"
o abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and
violence in such urban centers,
 Inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare prevails
over an individual's right against a warrantless search which
however reasonably conducted
  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

JUDGMENT: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

DISSENTS:
Justice Cruz
 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.
 Searches and seizures are peremptorily pronounced to be reasonable even without proof
of probable cause and much less the required warrant.
 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 checkpoint 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.
Justice Sarmiento
 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 a matter of "occasional inconveniences, discomfort and even irritation."
 To say that it is, is to trivialize the plain command of the Constitution.
 Checkpoints are things of martial rule, and things of the past.
o 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..
 While the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a right personal to the
aggrieved party, the petitioners, precisely, have come to Court because they had been, or
had felt, aggrieved.
 o In that event, the burden is the State's, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the
search.
 Valmonte need not have illustrated the "details of the incident" in all their gore and
gruesomeness.
 The absence alone of a search warrant makes checkpoint searches unreasonable, and by
itself, subject to constitutional challenges.
 "checkpoints", have become "search warrants" unto themselves a roving one at that.
 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.
 "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”
o 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.
o Second, the checkpoint searches herein are unreasonable: There was no warrant.
 \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.