598 GUAZON V DE VILLA

Date: 1990 30 January GR Number: 80508 Ponente:

Gutierrez, J
Article III, Section 2 Wayne Michael L. Novera
Petitioners: EDDIE GUAZON Respondents: MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA

Doctrine: In this case, not one of the several thousand persons treated in the illegal and
inhuman 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

Facts:
1. Guazon and forty other petitioners, who of legal age, bona fide residents of Manila,
and have a common or general interest in the preservation of the rule of
2. law, question the conduct of military and police officers in conducting “Areal Target
Zonings” or “Saturation Drives” in Manila.
3. According to them, the police and military officers have a common pattern of human
rights abuses stating that: 1) the police have no search warrant and warrant of arrest;
2) the raiders rouse residents by banging on the walls or windows and ordering the
residents within to come out of their residence; 3) the residents are herded like cows
and were stripped down half-naked and examined for tattoo marks; 4) the raiders
ransacked their houses and that their money and valuable belongings have
disappeared; 5) and that some arrested were detained without charges and that they
were subject to physical and mental torture.
4. The respondents stressed that they have legal authority to conduct saturation drives,
and that the accusations of the petitioners are total lies
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. Whether the Saturation Drives violate the constitutional rights of the NO
residents.
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:

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 prohibited. Rather, it is the procedure used or the methods which offended even
hardened sensibilities.

In this case, not one of the several thousand persons treated in the illegal and inhuman
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