GUAZON VS DE VILLA

EDDIE GUAZON, et al. vs. MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, ET AL.
,
GR NO. 80508, January 30, 1990
Warrantless searches; “zonings” and “saturation drives” Section 17, Art. VII of
the Constitution
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
FACTS: This is a petition for Prohibition with preliminary injunction to prohibit military
and police officers from conducting “Aireal target zonings” or “saturation drive” in Metro
Manila particularly in places where they suspect that the subversives are hiding. The 41
petitioners claim that the saturation drives conducted by the military is in violation of
their human rights because with no specific target house in mind, in the dead of the
night or early morning hours, police and military officers without any search warrant
cordon an area of more than one residence and sometimes the whole barangay. Most
of them are in civilian clothes and w/o nameplates or identification cards; that the
raiders rudely rouse residents from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of
their homes, shouting, kicking their doors open (destroying some) and ordering the
residents to come out; the residents are herded like cows at the point of high powered
guns, ordered to strip down to their briefs and examined for tattoo marks; that while
examination of the bodies of the men are being conducted, the other military men
conduct search and seizures to each and every house without civilian witnesses from
the neighbors; some victims complained that their money and other valuables were lost
as a result of these illegal operations.
The respondents claim that they have legal authority to conduct saturation drives under
Art. VII, Sec. 17 of the Constitution which provides:
The respondents would want to justify said military operation on the following
constitutional provisions:
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion
xxxxxx
The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
HELD: There can be no question that under ordinary circumstances, the police action of
the nature described by the petitioners would be illegal and blatantly violative of the Bill
of Rights. If the military wants to flush out subversive and criminal elements, the same
must be consistent with the constitutional and statutory rights of the people. However,
nowhere in the Constitution can we see a provision which prohibits the Chief Executive
from ordering the military to stop unabated criminality, rising lawlessness and alarming
communist activities. However, all police actions are governed by the limitations of the
Bill of Rights. The government cannot adopt the same reprehensible methods of
authoritarian systems both of the right and of the left. This is so because Art. III, Section
3 of the Constitution is very clear as explained in Roan vs. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
and Century Fox vs. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 655. Also, it must be pointed out that
police actions should not be characterized by methods that offend one’s sense of justice
(Rochin vs. California, 342 US 165).
The Court believes it 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 people are protected
and not violated. However, the remedy of the petitioners is not an original action for
prohibition since not one victim complains and not one violator is properly charged. It is
basically for the executive department and the trial courts. The problem is appropriate
for the Commission of Human Rights.
The petition was therefore remanded to the Regional Trial Courts of Manila, Malabon
and Pasay City where the petitioners may present evidence supporting their allegations
so that the erring parties may be pinpointed and prosecuted. In the meantime, the acts
violative of human rights alleged by the petitioners as committed during the police
actions are ENJOINED until such time as permanent rules to govern such actions are
promulgated.
********************
Cruz, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ. , Dissenting
The ruling of the majority that the petitioners are not proper parties is a specious pretext
for inaction. We have held that technical objections may be brushed aside where there
are constitutional questions that must be met (RODRIGUEZ VS. GELLA, 92 PHIL. 603;
TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702; PHILCONSA VS. JIMENEZ, 65 SCRA
479; EDU VS. ERICTA, 35 SCRA 481; GONZALES VS. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835;
LAGUNZAD VS. CA, 154 SCRA 199; DEMETRIA VS. ALBA,148 SCRA 208). Lozada
was in fact an aberration.
Where liberty is involved, every person is a proper party even if he may not be
directly injured. Each of us has a duty to protect liberty and that alone makes him a
proper party. It is not only the owner of a burning house who has the right to call
the firemen.
Section 2, Art. III of the constitution is very clear: Unreasonable searches and seizures
of whatever nature and for whatever purpose is prohibited.
Saturation drives are NOT AMONG THE ACCEPTED INSTANCES WHEN A SEARCH
OR AN ARREST MAY BE MADE WITHOUT A WARRANT. THEY COME UNDER THE
CONCEPT OF THE FISHING EXPEDITIONS STIGMATIZED BY LAW AND DOCTRINE
X X X I submit that this court should instead categorically and emphatically that these
saturation drives are violative of human rights and individual liberty and should be
stopped immediately. While they may be allowed in the actual theater of military
operations against the insurgents, the Court should also make it clear that Metro Manila
is not such a battleground.
7. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL,

ROLANDO DURAL and RENATO VILLANUEVA. MANOLITA UMIL and NICANOR
DURAL, FELICITAS SESE VS. FIDEL RAMOS, ET AL. and companion cases, G.R. No.
81567, July 9, 1990 (An NPA may be arrested without warrant while sleeping or being
treated in a hospital because his being a communist rebel is a continuing crime)
h. If the judge finds that there’s probable cause, must he issue a warrant of arrest as a
matter of course? See the distinctions.
Meaning: mabilisang paghahalughog at pagsuyod sa komunidad upang madakip ang

pinaghihinalaang kriminal o subersibo.

GUAZON VS DE VILLA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUAZON VS DE VILLA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUAZON VS DE VILLA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDDIE GUAZON, et al. vs. MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, ET AL.

Cruz, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ. , Dissenting

7. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL,

Meaning: mabilisang paghahalughog at pagsuyod sa komunidad upang madakip ang

You might also like