Valmonte v.
De Villla (1989)
The Case. – This petition is for prohibition seeking the
declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela or elsewhere
as unconstitutional and the dismantling and banning of
the same. In the alternative, it asked the court to direct
the respondents to formulate guidelines in the
implementation of checkpoints.
The Facts. – On 20 January 1987, the NCR District
Command (NCRDC), with the mission of “conducting
security operations…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 NCR,”
installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela.
The Allegations. – Petitioners aver (1) that, because of
the installation of said checkpoints, the residents are
worried of being harassed and (2) that their safety being
placed at the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical
disposition of the military manning the checkpoints.
They contend that this is so since checkpoints give the
respondents blanket authority to make searches and/or
seizures without warrant or court order in violation of
the Constitution, and instances have occurred where a
citizen, while not killed, had been harassed.
Their 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 for ignoring
and/or refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint and
for continuing to speed off in spite of warning shots
fired in the air.
Valmonte also claims that, on several occasions, his
car has been subjected to such searches.
Supreme Court. – 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.
The constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures is a personal right to be invoked
only by those whose rights have been infringed, or
threatened to be infringed.
Valmonte's general allegation without stating the
details of the incidents is not sufficient to enable the
Court to determine whether there was a violation of his
right against unlawful search and seizure.
Further, not all searches and seizures are prohibited.
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 are not unreasonable searches.
Still further, the setting up of the questioned
checkpoints may be considered as a security measure to
enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission, especially with
the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence. 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.
Also, while there may be susceptibility to abuse, all
governmental power is susceptible to abuse. But, at the
cost of occasional inconvenience, the checkpoints are
part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a
peaceful community.
Finally, the checkpoints were already lifted for a
refinement of the rules.
Disposition. – Petition dismissed.
Dissent. – 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. The case involves military
officers 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."
It is incredible that we can sustain such a measure. And
we are not even under martial law. (Cruz)
I am agreed that the existence alone of checkpoints
makes search done therein, unreasonable and hence,
repugnant to the Constitution. Checkpoints are things
of martial rule, and things of the past. (Sarmiento)