Constitutional Law: VALMONTE VS. GEN. DE VILL

VALMONTE VS. GEN. DE VILLA

FACTS:

On January 20, 1987, the  NCRDC was activated with the mission of conducting security operationswithhin its area of responsibility and peripheral areas for thepurpose of establishing an effective territorialdefense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic  and  political development of the NCR. As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela and Metro Manila.

Petitioners aver that because of the institution of said checkpoints, the Velanzuela residents 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 a search warrant or a court order. Their alleged fear for their safety increased when Benjamin Parpon was gunned down allegedly in cold blood by members of the NCRDC for ignoring and/or continuing to speed off inspite of warning shots fired in the air.

HELD:

Petitioner’s concern for their safety and apprehension at being harassed by the military manning the checkpoints are not sufficient grounds to declare the checkpoints 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 of other rights.

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.

Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden.

The setting up of the questioned checkpoints 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 benefit of the public. Checkpoints may not also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government, in the interest of public security.

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 military in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and 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.