The Checkpoints Case : Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No.

83988 September 29,

1989 (173 SCRA 211)
DECISION
PADILLA, J.:

I. THE FACTS

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. As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the NCRDC installed
checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.

Petitioners Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, who is a resident of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the Union of Lawyers
and Advocates For People’s Rights (ULAP) sought the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and
elsewhere as unconstitutional. In the alternative, they prayed that respondents Renato De Villa and the National
Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) be directed to formulate guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints
for the protection of the people. Petitioners contended that the checkpoints gave the respondents blanket authority
to make searches and seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of the Constitution.

II. THE ISSUE

Do the military and police checkpoints violate the right of the people against unreasonable search and
seizures?

III. THE RULING

[The Court, voting 13-2, DISMISSED the petition.]

NO, military and police checkpoints DO NOT violate the right of the people against unreasonable
search and seizures.

xxx. 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.

Where, for example, 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, 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 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 reasonablyconducted, 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.

People v Basay G.R. No. 86941

FACTS: Jaime Ramirez and Teodoro Basay were accused of killing four (4) people and burned their house after. Both
accused signed a Joint waiver, but was disregarded by the court because when they signed sain joint waiver, they were
not represented by a counsel. Basay was Acquitted,however, Jaime Ramirez was sentenced with life imprisonment
because the court admitted in eveidence the so-called extra-judicial confession of jaime Ramirez as part of the res
gestate the alleged statement of Bombie Toting (victim) to the police constabulary SGt. Tabanao. Jaime Ramirez is a
farmer, he only finished Grade II and that he doesn’t know how to read. He, however, understands the Cebuano dialect.
The referred sworn statement in English was taken on March 7, 1986 and subscribed and sworn to only on March 14,
1986 before Judge Teopisto Calumpang.

ISSUE: W/N the constitutional right of the accused to counsel and to remain silent during custodial investigation were
violated.

RULING: The SC declared in People v Nicandro that one’s right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel
contemplates the “Transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of
an abstract constitutional principle”. Thus it is not enough for the interrogatot to merely repeat to the person under
investigation the provisions of Section 20, Article III of the 1987 Constitution; the former must also explain the effects of
such provision in practical terms. The rights “to be informed” carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the
police investigator to explain, and contemplates effective communication which results in the subjects understanding of
what is conveyed.

Inchong v. Hernandez

G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957

Facts:

This Court has before it the delicate task of passing upon the validity and constitutionality of a legislative enactment,
fundamental and far-reaching in significance. The enactment poses questions of due process, police power and equal
protection of the laws. It also poses an important issue of fact, that is whether the conditions which the disputed law
purports to remedy really or actually exist. Admittedly springing from a deep, militant, and positive nationalistic impulse,
the law purports to protect citizen and country from the alien retailer. Through it, and within the field of economy it
regulates, Congress attempts to translate national aspirations for economic independence and national security, rooted
in the drive and urge for national survival and welfare, into a concrete and tangible measures designed to free the
national retailer from the competing dominance of the alien, so that the country and the nation may be free from a
supposed economic dependence and bondage. Do the facts and circumstances justify the enactment?

The rule in general is as follows:

Aliens are under no special constitutional protection which forbids a classification otherwise justified simply because the
limitation of the class falls along the lines of nationality. That would be requiring a higher degree of protection for aliens
as a class than for similar classes than for similar classes of American citizens. Broadly speaking, the difference in status
between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police power. (2 Am., Jur.
468-469.)
Issue:

Is the exclusion in the future of aliens from the retail trade unreasonable. Arbitrary capricious, taking into account the
illegitimate and pernicious form and manner in which the aliens have heretofore engaged therein?

Held:

Resuming what we have set forth above we hold that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and
danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens and country
from dominance and control; that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru
which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future; that the law does not violate the
equal protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen
in the exercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due process of law clause, because the law is prospective in
operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their
privilege; that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear to us to be plainly evident — as a
matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but actually necessary — and that in any case such matter falls within the
prerogative of the Legislature, with whose power and discretion the Judicial department of the Government may not
interfere; that the provisions of the law are clearly embraced in the title, and this suffers from no duplicity and has not
misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected; and that it cannot be said to be void for supposed
conflict with treaty obligations because no treaty has actually been entered into on the subject and the police power
may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement.

Some members of the Court are of the opinion that the radical effects of the law could have been made less harsh in its
impact on the aliens. Thus it is stated that the more time should have been given in the law for the liquidation of existing
businesses when the time comes for them to close. Our legal duty, however, is merely to determine if the law falls
within the scope of legislative authority and does not transcend the limitations of due process and equal protection
guaranteed in the Constitution. Remedies against the harshness of the law should be addressed to the Legislature; they
are beyond our power and jurisdiction.

The petition is hereby denied, with costs against petitioner.