Political Law and Public International Law

XII. The Bill of Rights

D. Arrests, Searches, and Seizures

The topic of arrests, searches, and seizures is governed primarily by Article III, Section 2 and Section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which outlines the fundamental rights of individuals against unreasonable governmental intrusion. These constitutional provisions are rooted in the protection of the people’s rights to privacy, liberty, and security, while balancing the need for law enforcement to maintain public order and safety.

1. Constitutional Basis

Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

This provision guarantees the right to privacy and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The issuance of search warrants and arrest warrants is subject to stringent requirements to ensure that these are not issued arbitrarily.

2. Warrant Requirement: General Rule and Exceptions

A. General Rule: No warrantless arrest, search, or seizure is valid, and any evidence obtained in violation of this rule is inadmissible in court as "fruits of the poisonous tree" (exclusionary rule).

The requirements for the issuance of a valid warrant are:

Probable Cause – This is a necessity for both an arrest warrant and a search warrant. Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested or the place to be searched is connected to the crime.
Determined Personally by a Judge – A judge must personally evaluate and determine the existence of probable cause through examination of the complainant and any witnesses.
Particularity of Description – The warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. General warrants are prohibited as they give wide latitude to law enforcement, which could lead to abuses.

B. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

There are recognized exceptions where law enforcement may conduct arrests or searches without a warrant:

Warrantless Arrests (Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court): a. In flagrante delicto – When the person is caught in the act of committing a crime. b. Hot pursuit – When an offense has just been committed, and the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested committed the crime. c. Escape of prisoner – When a person who has been lawfully arrested escapes.
Warrantless Searches: a. Search incident to a lawful arrest – The arresting officer may search the person and immediate surroundings to ensure that the person is not armed and to prevent the destruction of evidence. b. Plain view doctrine – If an officer is lawfully present in a location and immediately perceives evidence in plain view, the seizure of that evidence does not require a warrant. c. Consent – If a person voluntarily consents to a search, the search is lawful even without a warrant. d. Stop and frisk (Terry search) – When there is reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous, a limited search for weapons may be conducted. e. Exigent circumstances – In emergencies where immediate action is necessary to prevent loss of life, destruction of evidence, or escape of a suspect, a search or seizure may be conducted without a warrant. f. Customs and police checkpoints – Routine searches in these areas are allowed, although they are subject to restrictions to avoid being deemed unreasonable.

3. Jurisprudence on Searches and Seizures

Philippine jurisprudence has developed doctrines to interpret the constitutional provisions on arrests, searches, and seizures. Some important cases include:

People v. Marti (193 SCRA 57, 1991) – A private individual is not bound by the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, evidence obtained by a private person in violation of another’s right to privacy may be admissible if handed over to the authorities.
Valmonte v. de Villa (178 SCRA 211, 1989) – A military or police checkpoint is not per se illegal as long as it is limited to the "visual search" of vehicles and not intrusive. When conducted properly, these are reasonable measures to protect public safety.
People v. Aminnudin (163 SCRA 402, 1988) – Warrantless arrest cannot be justified simply because law enforcement had prior knowledge of a crime being committed. A warrant is still necessary unless the arrest falls within the exceptions.
People v. Burgos (144 SCRA 1, 1986) – An arrest based merely on suspicion or reports without actual personal knowledge of the officer is invalid. Probable cause must be substantiated.

4. Right to Privacy and Exclusionary Rule

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution adds:

"(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding."

The right to privacy in communication and correspondence is explicitly recognized and is protected against undue interference by the government. This right extends to all forms of communication, including electronic correspondence, and is a vital aspect of an individual’s right to security and liberty.

The exclusionary rule reinforces this right by ensuring that any evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures, or in violation of the right to privacy, is inadmissible in any proceeding. This ensures that the government cannot benefit from its own unlawful acts.

5. Remedies for Violation of Rights

Persons whose rights have been violated by unlawful arrests, searches, and seizures can avail of legal remedies, including:

Motion to Quash the Warrant – If the warrant was improperly issued, a person can file a motion to quash it before the court.
Motion to Suppress Evidence – If evidence was obtained through illegal search or seizure, a person may file a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that it was obtained in violation of their constitutional rights.
Filing of Cases for Damages – Victims of unlawful arrest or search may file criminal, civil, or administrative cases against the erring officers for violation of their constitutional rights.

6. Public International Law Context

The Philippines, as a signatory to various international human rights treaties, is also bound by obligations under public international law to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest, search, and seizure. These treaties include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which emphasizes the right to liberty and security of persons and the protection against arbitrary interference with privacy.

Article 9 of the ICCPR echoes the principles found in the Philippine Constitution, reinforcing that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention and that all individuals deprived of their liberty are entitled to judicial review.

Conclusion

The provisions of the Philippine Constitution regarding arrests, searches, and seizures reflect a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of public order. The warrant requirement stands as a critical safeguard against abuse, while the exceptions allow flexibility for law enforcement under appropriate circumstances. However, the exclusionary rule ensures that violations of these protections will not be tolerated, promoting accountability and upholding the sanctity of the rule of law.