By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
DEMOCRACY is said to be robust when the balance of exercise by the State of its inherent powers of Taxation, Eminent Domain and Police Power on one hand, is rightly tempered by the citizens’ proper and timely invocation of their civil liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights, on the other.
There is always a healthy friction between the State’s exercise of its so-called stately powers when the citizens become mindful of their entitlements under the Bill of Rights.
Fundamentally, it is the Constitution which adumbrates these powers and rights but the proper interplay of one when pitted against the other and as to how far they can go, (ie, the state may exceed its domain and interlope unto the citizen’s rights; or conversely, the citizen abuses his freedom), it would devolve upon the courts to decide how far one has strayed and will point out the infraction.
This interplay of power by the state and civil rights of its citizens both of which are founded on the constitution, should not be oblivious of the well-settled rule that the constitution is “a charter of power granted by liberty, and not “a charter of liberty granted by power”.
It has been underscored in American jurisprudence, where we look to when deciding profound constitutional issues in our jurisdiction, that:
On the Constitution’s Source of Power
“The American Constitution, he wrote, is a charter [] of power granted by liberty” not ( as in even enlightened European nations) a charter of liberty … granted by power. In the United States, it is the people, not a central authority, who are the source of legitimate federal power. Thus Americans are unlikely to consider an exercise of governmental authority fully legitimate unless they can trace the source of that exercise back to the people themselves. We can easily trace congressional statutes back to the people through our system of federal elections, which put in place the representatives who write the statutes. pp. 145-146, The Court and the World, Stephen Breyer citing James Madison
In the same manner, in the Philippines, it should never be forgotten that while the State is all-mighty and all-powerful given its vast resources and governmental powers; the source of these awesome powers is the people: who must be free in order that the State will live up to its mandate to govern them.
Where do we draw the line then, of lawful exercise by the State of its powers? One potential root of conflict and a common problem area where the demarcation line is most difficult to locate is in the State’s exercise of its power to search and seize illegal contraband or items and arrest the perpetrator in furtherance of law and order in society. It is in the friction that is created when the police officers representing the State, in implementing a warrantless search and seizure that excesses most often happen, and where the citizen must be most on guard against.
The following cases recently decided by the Philippine Supreme Court (SC) which are surveyed in this article, will teach both law enforcement officers as well as the citizens as to how and when warrantless searches and seizures are proper and when the same had exceeded the limits provided for by law and the constitution.
The FIRST CASE involves a police check point which had been legally put-up on a strategic area where motorists are passing through. Here came a riding-in-tandem who very suspiciously made a quick u-turn obviously to avoid the policemen manning the checkpoint. This suspicious actuation of the motorists gave rise to “probable cause” which allowed the police to effect an arrest and to seize the illegal items. Here’s what the Supreme Court said:
“It is apparent that Amagos’ act of making an abrupt u-turn instead of stopping at the checkpoint sign, made a reasonable belief for the police officers to suspect that accused-appellants might have committed some traffic violations or delivering something illegal. The police officers stopped them and, in the course, Amago intentionally slumped down the motorcycle he was riding causing his t-shirt to be lifted, thereby exposing the handle of a handgun that was tucked in his waistband. At the same time, Piñero saw a folding knife protruding from the left pocket of Vendiola who had fallen from the motorcycle. Due to the failure of Amago to produce any license to carry firearm and for the illegal possession of a bladed weapon by Vendiola, they were arrested.
Meanwhile, regarding the admissibility of the confiscated items- they fall within the exception of warrantless search. The search conducted incident to a lawful arrest under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states:
Section 13. Search incident to a lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
In the instant case, the shabu was found in a peppermint gum container inside the utility box of accused-appellant’s motorcycle that was within their immediate control. Therefore, it is within the permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly execute a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.
In People v. Uyboco, this Court declared that:
In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect but also in the permissible area within the latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase “within the area of his immediate control” means the are from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.”(People of the Philippines v. Joseph Solamillo Amago and Cerilo Bolongaita Vendiola, Jr.G.R. No. 227739. January 15, 2020)
Therefore, checkpoints when validly put-up are stations where the citizens must pass through and fear not unless they are concealing deadly or illegal weapons or items or they are hatching the commission of a crime. Anyway, as settled case law teaches, in check points, police officers are only allowed to conduct a “visual or routinary search” but not more intrusive searches, (ie, they cannot request that trunks, car doors or other parts of the motor vehicle be opened). The exception as held in People of the Philippines v. Joseph Solamillo Amago, is when the citizen’s actuation is rather odd as to arouse suspicion whereupon the police officers may proceed further and conduct a more extensive search and even arrest the citizen if he is in possession of an illegal item. So when the accused in People of the Philippines v. Joseph Solamillo Amago, “made an abrupt u-turn” that was interpreted by the SC as suspicious actuation which gave rise to probable cause to conduct a more thorough search.
(This is the end of part I. Watch out for parts II-IV in subsequent issues of this newspaper. Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
