EN BANC

[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.

Ricardo C. Valmonte for himself and his co-petitioners.

SYLLABUS

SARMIENTO, J., dissenting:

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTION; BEDROCK OF THE REGIME OF
LAW AND CONSTITUTIONALISM. — 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, as the majority would put it, a matter of "occasional
inconveniences, discomfort and even irritation." (Resolution, 4.) To say that it is, is — so
I submit — to trivialize the plain command of the Constitution.
2. ID.; SEARCH AND SEIZURE; BURDEN OF PROVING REASONABLENESS
INCUMBENT UPON THE STATE. — While the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures, as my brethren advance, is a right personal to the aggrieved party, the
petitioners, precisely, have come to Court because they had been, or had felt, aggrieved.
I submit that in that event, the burden is the State's, to demonstrate the reasonableness
of the search. The petitioners, Ricardo Valmonte in particular, need not, therefore, have
illustrated the "details of the incident" (Resolution, supra, 4 ) in all their gore and
gruesomeness.
3. ID.; ID.; ABSENCE ALONE OF A SEARCH WARRANT MAKES CHECKPOINT
SEARCHES UNREASONABLE. — The absence alone of a search warrant, as I have
averred, makes checkpoint searches unreasonable, and by itself, subject to
constitutional challenges. (Supra.) As it is, "checkpoints", have become "search
warrants" unto themselves — a roving one at that.
4. ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR NOT SIMPLY A POLICEMAN ON THE BEAT. — The
American cases the majority refers to involve routine checks compelled by "probable
cause". What we have here, however, is not simply a policeman on the beat but armed
men, CAFGU or Alsa Masa, who hold the power of life or death over the citizenry, who
re with no provocation and without batting an eyelash. They likewise shoot you simply
because they do not like your face.

DECISION

PADILLA , J : p

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 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 bene t 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 o cer 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
inspite of warning shots red 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 su cient 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 speci c violations of
petitioners' right against unlawful search and seizure or other rights.
In a case led 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 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 su cient 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 xed
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. 6
Where, for example, the o cer 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 ashes 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 bene t 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 re ected in the increased killings in cities of police
and military men by NPA "sparrow units," not to mention the abundance of unlicensed
rearms 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 re nement 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. 1 0
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.

Separate Opinions
CRUZ , J., dissenting:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 I dissent. 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. What is worse
is that the searches and seizures are peremptorily pronounced to be reasonable even
without proof of probable cause and much less the required warrant. The improbable
excuse is that they are aimed at "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." For these
purposes, every individual may be stopped and searched at random and at any time
simply because he excites the suspicion, caprice, hostility or malice of the o cers
manning the checkpoints, on pain of arrest or worse, even being shot to death, if he
resists.
I have no quarrel with a policeman ashing 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 o cers are systematically stationed at strategic checkpoints 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. And we are
not even under martial law.
Unless we are vigilant of our rights, we may nd ourselves back to the dark era of
the truncheon and the barbed wire, with the Court itself a captive of its own
complaisance and sitting at the death-bed of liberty.

SARMIENTO , J., dissenting:

I join Justice Isagani Cruz in his dissent, delivered so straight-forwardly and

eloquently. I am agreed that 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, as the
majority would put it, a matter of "occasional inconveniences, discomfort and even
irritation." (Resolution, 4.) To say that it is, is — so I submit — to trivialize the plain
command of the Constitution.
Checkpoints, I further submit, are things of martial rule, and things of the past.
They rst saw the light of day by virtue of General Order No. 66 (AUTHORIZING THE
CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY TO ESTABLISH CHECKPOINTS, UPDATE LISTS OF WANTED
PERSONS AND CONDUCT DRAGNET OPERATIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES), a
martial law issuance, as amended by General Order No. 67 (AMENDING AND
AMPLIFYING PARAGRAPH 7 OF GENERAL ORDER NO. 66 DATED SEPTEMBER
12,1980), yet another martial law issuance. (See O.G. 4224-4226; 4226-4227 [Aug.,
1983].) They are, so I strongly submit, 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. How soon we forget.
While the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as my brethren
advance, is a right personal to the aggrieved party, the petitioners, precisely, have come
to Court because they had been, or had felt, aggrieved. I submit that in that event, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 burden is the State's, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the search. The petitioners,
Ricardo Valmonte in particular, need not, therefore, have illustrated the "details of the
incident" (Resolution, supra, 4 ) in all their gore and gruesomeness.
In any event, the absence alone of a search warrant, as I have averred, makes
checkpoint searches unreasonable, and by itself, subject to constitutional challenges.
(Supra.) As it is, "checkpoints", have become "search warrants" unto themselves — a
roving one at that.
That "[n]ot all searches and seizures are prohibited," the majority points out, is
ne. And so is "a reasonable search is not to be determined by any xed formula but is
to be resolved according to the facts of each case." (Supra) But the question, exactly, is:
Is (are) the search(es) in this case reasonable? I submit that it(they) is(are) not, for one
simple reason: No search warrant has been issued by a judge.
I likewise do not nd this case to be a simple matter of an "o cer merely
draw(ing) aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle . . . or simply look(ing) (supra) there, "or
ash(ing) a light therein. "(Supra) What we have here is Orwell's Big Brother watching
every step we take and every move we make.
As it also is, "checkpoints" are apparently, State policy. The American cases the
majority refers to involve routine checks compelled by "probable cause". What we have
here, however, is not simply a policeman on the beat but armed men, CAFGU or Alsa
Masa, who hold the power of life or death over the citizenry, who re with no
provocation and without batting an eyelash. They likewise shoot you simply because
they do not like your face. I have witnessed actual incidents.
Washington said that militia can not be made to dictate the terms for the nation.
He can not be anymore correct here.
"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. (Supra) 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. Second, the checkpoint searches herein are unreasonable: There was no
warrant.
A nal word. 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.
I vote then, to grant the petition.

Footnotes
1. Comment of Respondents. Rollo, p. 32.
2. Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution provides:

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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 3. G.R. No. 80432. Minute Resolution dated 8 March 1988.

4. Section 52, 29 C.J.S. 810-811.

5. Section 8, 79 C.J.S. 786.
6. U.S. v. Robinwitz, N.Y., 70 S. Crt. 430, 339 U.S. 56, 94 L. Ed. 653; Harries v. U.S., Okl., 67 S.
Ct. 1098 & 331 U.S. 145, 94 L. Ed. 1871; Martin v. U.S., C.A. Va., 183 F2d 436; 66, 79
C.J.S., 835-836.

7. Ibid., citing the case of People v. Case, 190 MW 289, 220 Mich. 379, 27 A.L.R. 686.
8. Ibid., citing the case of State v. Gaina, 97 SE 62, 111 S.C. 174, 3 A.L.R. 1500.
9. Ibid., citing the case of Rowland v. Commonwealth, 259 SW 33, 202 Rg 92.
10. Comment. Rollo, pp. 25-26.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com