SEC 2, ART.
III, VALMONTE vs DE VILLA 1
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES and SEISURES
Section 2, Article III
1. G.R. No. 83988. September 29, 1989.*
RICARDO C. VALMONTE AND UNION OF LAWYERS AND
ADVOCATES FOR PEOPLE’S RIGHTS (ULAP),
petitioners, vs. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA AND NATIONAL
CAPITAL REGION DISTRICT COMMAND, respondents
Constitutional Law; Search and
Seizure; Checkpoints; The constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right
invocable only by those whose rights have been
infringed or threatened to be infringed.—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.
In a case filed by the same petitioner
organization, Union of Lawyers and Advocates for
People’s Right (ULAP) vs. Integrated National Police, it
was held that 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. The
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures is a personal right invocable only by those
whose rights have been infringed, or threatened to be
infringed. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonale
search and seizure in any particular case is purely a
judicial question, determinable from a consideration of
the circumstances involved. Petitioner Valmonte’s
general allegation to the effect that he had been
stopped and searched without a search warrant by the
military manning the checkpoints, without more, i.e.,
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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Reasonableness of a search
to be determined according to the facts of each case,
not by any fixed formula. Not all searches and seizures
are prohibited.—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.
Same; Same; Between the inherent right of the state to
protect its existence, and promote public welfare, and an
individual’s right against warrantless search which was
reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.—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 reasonably conducted, the
former should prevail.
Same; Same; Same; Constitutionality of
Checkpoints; Checkpoints during abnormal times, if
conducted within reasonable limits, are constitutional.—
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.
PADILLA, J.:
This is a 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.
Petitioner Ricardo C. 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; while petitioner 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.
The factual background of the case is as follows:
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.1 As part of its duty to maintain
peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in
various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Petitioners aver that, because of the installation of said
checkpoints, the 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, considering 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. Their
alleged fear for their safety increased when, at dawn of
9 July 1988, 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.
Petitioner 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.
Petitioners further contend that the 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; 2 and, instances
have occurred where a citizen, while not killed, had been
harassed.
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
SEC 2, ART. III, VALMONTE vs DE VILLA 2
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.
In a case filed by the same petitioner organization, Union
of Lawyers and Advocates for People's Right (ULAP) vs.
Integrated National Police, 3 it was held that 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.
The constitutional right against unreasonable searches
and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those
whose rights have been infringed, 4 or threatened to be
infringed. What constitutes a reasonable or
unreasonable search and seizure in any particular case is
purely a judicial question, determinable from a
consideration of the circumstances involved. 5
Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation to the effect
that he had been stopped and searched without a search
warrant by the military manning the checkpoints,
without more, i.e., 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. 6
Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the
curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public
fair grounds, 7 or simply looks into a vehicle, 8 or flashes
a light therein, 9 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
 SEC 2, ART. III, VALMONTE vs DE VILLA 3
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 reasonably
conducted, 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.

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

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr.,

Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Cortes, Griño-Aquino,
Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Note. —The constitutional provision is a safeguard

against wanton and unreasonable invasion of the
property and liberty of a citizen as to his person, papers
and effects. (People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1.)