3. Valmonte v.

De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989)_ Privacy of communication and correspondence

Facts:

This case involves a petition for prohibition filed by Ricardo C. Valmonte and the Union of Lawyers and Advocates for
People's Rights (ULAP) against General Renato de Villa and the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC). The
NCRDC had activated checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila as part of its duty to maintain peace and
order. The petitioners argue that these checkpoints violate their constitutional rights as they are subjected to regular
searches and check-ups without a search warrant or court order. They also cite an incident where a person was allegedly
shot by the military manning the checkpoint for refusing to submit to the search. The petitioners seek the declaration of
checkpoints as unconstitutional and the dismantling and banning of the same, or alternatively, the formulation of
guidelines for the implementation of checkpoints to protect the people.

Issue:

The main issue raised in this case is whether the installation of checkpoints without a search warrant or court order
violates the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the checkpoints in question are not per se illegal. The Court held
that the 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 unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that not all
searches and seizures are prohibited, and the reasonableness of a search is determined on a case-by-case basis. In this
case, the Court found that there was no proof presented to show specific violations of the petitioners' rights against
unlawful search and seizure. The Court also considered the checkpoints as a security measure to establish effective
territorial defense and maintain peace and order, especially in light of the insurgency movement in urban centers.

Ratio:

The Court's decision is based on the interpretation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. The Court held that the right is personal to the aggrieved party and can only be invoked by those whose rights
have been infringed or threatened to be infringed. The Court also emphasized that the reasonableness of a search is
determined by considering the circumstances involved in each case. In this case, the Court found that the installation of
checkpoints without a search warrant or court order is not per se illegal. The Court considered the purpose of the
checkpoints, which is to establish effective territorial defense and maintain peace and order, particularly in areas with
insurgency movements. The Court also noted that the petitioners failed to provide evidence of specific violations of their
rights against unlawful search and seizure. Therefore, the Court concluded that the checkpoints in question are
reasonable and constitutional.

SARMIENTO, J., dissenting:

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.; 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 fire with no provocation and without batting an eyelash.
They likewise shoot you simply because they do not like your face.