ISSUE/s of the CASE

Whether the Saturation Drives violate the constitutional rights of the residents.
ACTION OF THE COURT
SC: The petition is DISMISSED.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
 No. Absent proper party/parties that are directly affected by the operation, the Court has no
authority to pass upon the issue for it falls under the execution of the Executive and the RTCs.
The Constitution grants the government the power to seek and cripple subversive movements.
However, all police actions are governed by the limitation of the Bill of Rights. It is significant
to point out that it is not police action per se which is impermissible and which should be
probited. Rather, it is the procedure used or the methods which offende even hardened
sensibilities.

In this case, not one of the several thousand persons treated in the illegal and in human manner
appears as petitioner or as come before the trial court to present evidence. The Court believes it
is highly probable that some violations were actually committed. But the remedy is not to stop all
police actions, including the essential and legitimate ones. A show of force is sometimes
necessary as long as the rights of the people are protected and not violated.

Under the circumstances of this taxpayers’s suit, there is no erring soldier or policeman who
can be prosecuted. As such absence of facts, no permanent relief can be given.

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.