Valmonte v.

De Villa, 170 SCRA 256 (1989)

F: On 1/20/87, the NCRDC was activated w/ the mission of conducting security operations w/in
its area or responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an effective
territorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the
social, economic and political dev''t of the NCR. As part of its duty to maitain peace and order,
the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela and MM. Petitioners aver that,
bec. of the institution of said checkpoints, the Valenzuela residents are worried of being harassed
and of their sarety 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, w/o a SW and/ or court order.
Their alleged fear for their safety increased when Benjamin Parpon, was gaunned 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'' rights 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 w/c 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 benfit of the public. Checkpoints may not also be regarded
as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the govt, 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 w/c 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 inconveninece, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during
these abnormal times, when conducted w/in reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an
orderly society and a peaceful community.

Source: http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767286-case-digest-valmonte-villa-
170/#ixzz1XK3dS0DF

Valmonte v. De Villa, 170 SCRA 256 (1989)

F: On 1/20/87, the NCRDC was activated w/ the mission of conducting security

operations w/in its area or responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of
establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and
providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political dev't of the
NCR. As part of its duty to maitain peace and order, the NCRDC installed
checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela and MM.

Petitioners aver that, bec. of the institution of said checkpoints, the

Valenzuela residents are worried of being harassed and of their sarety 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, w/o a SW and/ or court
order. Their alleged fear for their safety increased when Benjamin Parpon, was
gaunned 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' rights 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 w/c 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 benfit of the public.
Checkpoints may not also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize
the govt, 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 w/c 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 inconveninece, discomfort and even irritation
to the citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted w/in
reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful
community. RAM.