Valmonte and ULAP v.

De Villa and NCR District the implementation of checkpoints, for the

Command (1989) protection of the people.

DOCTRINE/S: ISSUE/S and HELD:

 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.
 Checkpoints, when conducted within reasonable
limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly
society and a peaceful community.
PARTIES:
 Ricardo Valmonte sues in his capacity as citizen
of the Republic, taxpayer, member of the IBP,
and resident of Valenzuela
 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
1. Whether petitioners may challenge the
constitutionality of the checkpoints. – NO, they are not
the real parties in interest.
In the case of ULAP v. 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 unreasonable
search and seizure in any particular case is purely a
judicial question, determinable from a consideration of
the circumstances involved.

FACTS: In this case, Petitioners’ concern for their safety and

 The NCR District Command (NCRDC) was apprehension at being harassed by the military manning
activated pursuant to an LOI of the AFP, with the checkpoints are not sufficient grounds to declare the
the mission of conducting security operations checkpoints as per se illegal. No proof has been
within its area of responsibility and peripheral presented to show that, in the course of their routine
areas, to maintain peace and order in the NCR. checks, the military indeed committed specific violations
 As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, of petitioners’ right against unlawful search and seizure
the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various or other rights.
parts of Valenzuela.
2. Whether the checkpoints are unconstitutional. – NO,
 Petitioners aver that, because of these
the installation of checkpoints is reasonable.
checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela are
worried of being harassed and of their safety
Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those
being placed at the arbitrary, capricious and
which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable
whimsical disposition of the military manning
search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but
the checkpoints, considering that their cars and
is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.
vehicles are being subjected to regular searches
and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn,
In this case, the setting up of the questioned checkpoints
without the benefit of a search warrant and/or
in Valenzuela may be considered as a security measure
court order.
to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of
o Their alleged fear for their safety
establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining
increased when someone was gunned
peace and order for the benefit of the public.
down allegedly by the members of the
Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to
NCRDC manning the checkpoint for
thwart plots to destabilize the government, in the
ignoring and/or refusing to submit
interest of public security. In this connection, the Court
himself to the checkpoint and for
may take judicial notice of the shift to urban centers and
continuing to speed off inspite of
their suburbs of the insurgency movement, reflected in
warning shots fired in the air.
the increased killings in cities of police and military men
o They contend that the said checkpoints
by NPA “sparrow units,” not to mention the abundance
give the respondents a blanket authority
of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in
to make searches and/or seizures
lawlessness and violence in such urban centers—which
without search warrant or court order in
all sum up to what one can rightly consider, at the very
violation of the Constitution.
least, as abnormal times.
 Petitioners filed for prohibition with preliminary
injunction and/or TRO, seeking the declaration
Between the inherent right of the state to protect its
of checkpoints in Valenzuela or elsewhere, as
existence and promote public welfare and an
unconstitutional and the dismantling and
individual’s right against a warrantless search which is
banning of the same or, in the alternative, to
direct the respondents to formulate guidelines in
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.

WHEREFORE, petition is DISMISSED.