GR 80508 Jan. 30, 1990 Gutierrez, Jr.

, J. Eddie Guazon, et al. v. Maj. Gen. Renato De Villa, Brig. Gen. in sufficient numbers. A show of force is sometimes necessary as long as the rights of people are
Alexander Aguirre, Brig. Gen. Ramon Montano, Brig. Gen. Alfredo Lim, and Col. Jesus Garcia. protected and not violated.
 In Breithaupt v. Abram: Due process is not measured by the yardstick of personal reaction or the
NATURE OF THE CASE sphygmogram of the most sensitive person, but by that whole community sense of 'decency and
Petition for Prohibition w/ prelim-injunction to prohibit military and police officers from conducting “Aerial fairness that has been woven by common experience into the fabric of acceptable conduct.
Target Zonings" or "Saturation Drives" in Metro Manila intended to flush out subversives and criminal  The violations of human rights alleged by the petitioners are serious. If proven to be true, not only
elements particularly because of the blatant assassinations of public officers and police officials by elements a writ of prohibition but criminal prosecutions would immediately issue as a matter of course.
supposedly coddled by the communities where the "drives" were conducted.  Where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion, the police or military may go in force to the
combat areas, enter affected residences or buildings, round up suspected rebels and otherwise
FACTS quell the mutiny or rebellion without having to secure search warrants and without violating the
41 petitioners claim to represent Metro Manila citizens. Respondents represented by Sol-Gen. Petitioners Bill of Rights.
stated that there were 12 “saturation drives” conducted, all during night to early morning (9:30 pm to 5:00  It is clear from the pleadings of both petitioners and respondents, however, that there was no
am), in Tondo, Manila, Quezon City, and Pasay City, the first was conducted on March 5, 1987 (Tondo, Manila), rebellion or criminal activity similar to that of the attempted coup d' etats. There appears to have
while the last was conducted on November 3, 1987 (Lower Maricaban, Pasay). Petitioners claimed that these been no impediment to securing search warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were
areas where “aerial target zonings” and “saturation drives” were conducted were pinpointed by the searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested. There is no strong showing that the
authorities as places where subversives are hiding. In the July 20 (Bangkusay, Tondo) operation, 7 persons objectives sought to be attained by the "areal zoning" could not be achieved even as the rights of
were arrested while in the last operation(Maricaban, Pasay), 1,500 persos were allegedly apprehended squatter and low-income families are fully protected.
(Maricaban), in total: 3,407 persons were arrested. Petitioners proceeded describing the operations: no  Where a violation of human rights specifically guaranteed by the Constitution is involved, it is the
specific target house; the authorities were in civilian clothing without any identification cards, not armed with duty of the court to stop the transgression and state where even the awesome power of the state
any search or warrant of arrest, despite of this, they cordon an area of more than one residence; authorities may not encroach upon the rights of the individual. It is the duty of the court to take remedial
rudely rouse the residents (shouting, kicking the doors open) ordering them to come out of their homes; action even in cases such as the present petition where the petitioners do not complain that they
authorities pointed gun at the residents, male residents were ordered to strip naked for examination of any were victims of the police actions, where no names of any of the thousands of alleged victims are
tattoo and other marks, meanwhile, some authorities conducted search inside the houses without any given, and where the prayer is a general one to stop all police "saturation drives," as long as the
witnesses; other residents complained that some raiders ransacked their homes tossing their belongings with Court is convinced that the event actually happened.
regard for their value (walls and ceilings were also destroyed); some residents claimed lost of money and  The Court believes it highly probable that some violations were actually committed. We cannot
valuables; those persons arrested on the spot were hauled off to waiting vehicles that took them to detention imagine police actions of the magnitude described in the petitions and admitted by the
centers where they were interrogated/verified. As pointed out, no search warrants or warrants of arrest were respondents, being undertaken without some undisciplined soldiers and policemen committing
presented nor are there conditions present authorizing warrantless arrests; there were some hooded men certain abuses. A blanket prohibition such as that sought by the petitioners would limit all police
present during the operations who were the ones who fingerpointed suspected subversives; authorities actions to one on one confrontations where search warrants and warrants of arrests against
always brandish their weapons and point them at residents during operations; some were released w/o specific individuals are easily procured.
charge after few days of arbitrary detention; but some who were detained for further verification were  Anarchy may reign if the military and the police decide to sit down in their offices because all
subjected to mental/physical torture to extract confessions/information. As defense, respondents contended concerted drives where a show of force is present are totally prohibited.
that petitioners lack standing to file current action; that the accusations of human right violations are total
lies; that the operations were executed in coordination with barangay officials who pleaded with their WON the original action for prohibition is the appropriate remedy – NO
constituents to submit themselves voluntarily for character and personal verification and that local and  Where not one victim complains and not one violator is properly charged, the problem is not
foreign correspondents, who had joined these operations, witnessed and recorded the events that transpired initially for the Supreme Court. It is basically one for the executive departments and for trial courts .
relative thereto. They also claim that they have legal authority to conduct saturation drives. They cited Art 6, The rules of constitutional litigation have been evolved for an orderly procedure in the vindication
Sec. 17 of the Constitution (The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and of rights. They should be followed.
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.). They also cited Sec. 18 (The President shall be  The problem is appropriate for the Commission on Human Rights. A high-level conference should
the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may bring together the heads of the DOJ, DND, and the operating heads of affected agencies and
call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. ...) institutions to devise procedures for the prevention of abuses.
 Under the circumstances of this taxpayers' suit, there is no erring soldier or policeman whom we
ISSUE/RULING can order prosecuted. In the absence of clear facts ascertained through an orderly procedure, no
WON the operations conducted by the respondents are legal – NO permanent relief can be given at this time. Further investigation of the petitioners' charges and a
 The procedures conducted by the authorities are violative of the express guarantees of our Bill of hard look by administration officials at the policy implications of the prayed for blanket prohibition
Rights, one of which is right to privacy. are also warranted.
 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. CA citing Villanueva v. Querubin: What is sought to be  In the meantime and in the face of a prima facie showing that some abuses were probably
guarded is a man's prerogative to choose who is allowed entry to his residence. In that haven of committed and could be committed during future police actions, we have to temporarily restrain
refuge, his individuality can assert itself not only in the choice of who shall be welcome but the alleged banging on walls, the kicking in of doors, the herding of half-naked men to assembly
likewise in the kind of objects he wants around him. There the state, however powerful, does not areas for examination of tattoo marks, the violation of residences even if these are humble
as such have access except under the circumstances … To value the privacy of home and person shanties of squatters, and the other alleged acts which are shocking to the conscience.
and to afford its constitutional protection against the long reach of government is no less than to
value human dignity, and that his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social PETITION IS REMANDED to RTCs of Manila, Malabon, Pasay where petitioners may present evidence
need, and then only under stringent procedural safeguards. supporting their allegations against erring parties. Copies of this decision are likewise forwarded to the CHR,
 It is significant that it is not the police action  perse which is impermissible, and which should be DOJSec, DNDSec, and the Commanding General PC-INP for the drawing up and enforcement of clear
prohibited. Rather, it is the procedure used or in the words of the court, methods which "offend guidelines to govern police actions intended to abate riots and civil disturbances, flush out criminal elements,
even hardened sensibilities." The Court sees nothing wrong in police making their presence visibly and subdue terrorist activities. In the meantime, the acts violative of human rights alleged by the petitioners
felt in troubled areas. Police cannot respond to riots or violent demonstrations if they do not move as committed during the police actions are ENJOINED until such time as permanent rules to govern such
actions are promulgated.
J. Cruz Dissenting Opinion J. Sarmiento Dissenting Opinion
o The ruling that the petitioners are not proper parties is a specious pretext for inaction. We have o The question, then, is purely one of law: Are the saturation drives in question lawful and
held that technical objections may be brushed aside where there are constitutional questions that legitimate? It is also a question that is nothing novel: No, because the arrests were not
must be met. There are many decisions applying this doctrine. accompanied by a judicial warrant.
o I believe that where liberty is involved, every person is a proper party even if he may not be o Therefore, the fact that they had been carefully planned, executed in coordination with Tondo's
directly injured. Each of us has a duty to protect liberty and that alone makes him a proper party. It barangay officials, and undertaken with due courtesy and politeness (which I doubt), will not
is not only the owner of the burning house who has the right to call the firemen. Everyone has the validate them. The lack of a warrant makes them, per se illegal.
right and responsibility to prevent the fire from spreading even if he lives in the other block. o According to the majority, "the remedy is not to stop all police actions, including the essential and
o The saturation drive is not unfamiliar to us. It is like the "zona" of the Japanese Occupation. An legitimate ones . . . [w]e see nothing wrong in police making their presence visibly felt in troubled
area was surrounded by soldiers and all residents were flushed out of their houses and lined up, to areas . . . " 2 But the petitioners have not come to court to "stop all police actions" but rather, the
be looked over by a person with a bag over his head. This man pointed to suspected guerrillas, saturation drives, which are, undoubtedly, beyond police power.
who were immediately arrested and eventually if not instantly executed. o That "[a] show of force is sometimes necessary as long as the rights of people are protected and
o Saturation drives are not among the accepted instances when a search or an arrest may be made not violated3 is a contradiction in terms. A "show of force" (by way of saturation drives) is a
without warrant. They come under the concept of the fishing expeditions stigmatized by law and violation of human rights because it is not covered by a judicial warrant.
doctrine. At any rate, if the majority is really introducing the "zona" as another exception to the o As a general rule, a peace officer can not act unless he is possessed of the proper arrest or search
rule, it must not equivocate. It must state that intention in forthright language and not in vague warrant. The exception is when a criminal offense is unfolding before him, in which case, action is
generalizations that concede the wrong but deny the right. justified and necessary. The majority would have the exception to be simply, the general rule.
o To justify the "zona" on the basis of the recent coup attempt is, in my view, to becloud the issue. o The fact of the matter is that we are not here confronted by police officers on the beat or prowl
The "zonas" complained of happened before the failed coup and had nothing whatsoever to do cars on patrol. What we have and I suppose that everybody is agreed on it- are lightning raids of
with that disturbance. There was no "large scale mutiny or actual rebellion' when the saturation homes, arbitrary confiscation of effects, and summary arrests of persons, the very acts proscribed
drives were conducted and there were no "combat areas" either in the places where the violations by the Constitution. If this is a "show of force", it certainly has no place in a constitutional
were committed. The failed coup cannot validate the invalid "zonas' retroactively. democracy.

J. Padilla Separate Opinion

o Petitioners' vivid description of the "areal target zoning" or "saturation drives" allegedly conducted
by police and military units in Metro Manila, obviously intended to ferret out criminals or
suspected criminals in certain cordoned areas, while vigorously denied by respondents, deserves
an effective and immediate response from this Court.
o I submit that since this Court is not a trier of facts and this case involves certainty of facts alleged
by petitioners and denied by respondents — this case should be referred to a proper trial court
where the petitioners can present evidence to support and prove the allegations they make of
such brutal and inhuman conduct on the part of military and police units.
o More than the military and police checkpoints sustained by this Court as a general proposition
during abnormal times,** and which involve the right of military and police forces to check on
vehicles and pedestrians passing through certain fixed points for the purpose of apprehending
criminals and/or confiscating prohibited articles like unlicensed firearms, the "areal target zoning"
and "saturation drives", as described in petitioners' allegations, are actual raids on private homes
in selected areas, and are thus positive assaults against the individual person and his dignity. The
individual is, as described, yanked out of his home, without any arrest warrant, to face
investigation as to his connections with lawless elements. In short, the sanctity of the home is
pulverized by military and police action. Thus, while the checkpoint is a defensive device, on the
part of government, the "areal target zoning" or "saturation drive" is a direct assault against, an
intrusion into individual rights and liberties.
o Respondents, fortunately, have branded petitioners' allegations of such brutality, as total lies. It is
indeed difficult to even contemplate that such methods reminiscent of a "police state" can exist in
a society built on a republican and constitutional system. Respondents Must be given a chance to
face their accusers and prove that they are indeed fabricating falsehoods. But the stakes I submit,
are too high for this Court, as the guardian of individual liberties, to avoid a judicial confrontation
with the issue.
o I vote, therefore, to refer this case (dispensing with normal venue requirements) to the Executive
Judge, RTC of Manila, for him —
1. to receive the evidences of all the parties, in support and in refutation of the
petitioners' allegations;
2. to decide the case expeditiously on the bases of the evidence, subject to review by this
Court;
3. to report to this Court on action taken.