Zones of privacy
are recognized and protected by our laws. [1] Within these zones, any form of intrusion is
impermissible unless spared by law and in accordance with customary legal
process. The meticulous regard this Court accord to these zones arises not only
from the conviction that the right to privacy is a “constitutional right” and
“the right most valued by civilized men,”[2]
but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
mandates that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy” and “everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks.”[3]
To sanction disrespect and disregard for the Constitution in the name of
protecting the society from lawbreakers is to make the government itself
lawless and to subvert those values upon which our ultimate freedom and liberty
depend.[4]
The 1987 Constitution
guarantees freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures under Article
III, Section 2 which 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. In
Sales v. Sandiganbayan, et al.[5]
quoting Allado v. Diokno[6],
the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights guarantees the preservation of our natural
rights, viz: “The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people
against arbitrary and discriminatory use of political power. This bundle of rights guarantees the
preservation of our natural rights which include personal liberty and security
against invasion by the government or any of its branches or instrumentalities.
The sacred right
against an arrest, search or seizure without valid warrant is not only ancient.
It is also zealously safeguarded. The Constitution guarantees the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures.[7]
Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding. Indeed, while the power to search and seize may at
times be necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the
law implemented without contravening the constitutional rights of the citizens,
for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify
indifference to the basic principles of government.[8]
Among
deprivation of rights, none is so effective cowing a population, crushing the
spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the
first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary
government. And one need only briefly to
have dwelt and worked among a people possessed of many admirable qualities but
deprived of these rights to know that the human personality deteriorates and
dignity and self-reliance disappear where homes, persons and possessions are
subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police.[9]
[1]
Marquez vs Desierto, G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001, 359 SCRA 772
[2]
Morfe vs Mutuc No. L-20387, January 31, 1968, 22 SCRA 424
[3] Article
12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See also Article 17 (1) and
(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[4] Dissenting
opinion of Justice Brennan in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49
L. Ed. 2d 1067, 1105 [1976]
[5] G.R.
No. 143802, November 15, 2001
[6] 232
SCRA 192 (1994)
[7] 1987
CONST., Art. III, Sec. 2
[8] People
v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 (1998).
[9] Dissenting
Opinion, J. Jackson, in Brinegar vs. United States, 338 U.S. 2084 (1949)
No comments:
Post a Comment