November
25, 1984, a contingent of more than two hundred Philippine marines
raided the compound occupied by Rizal Alih and his group at Gov. Alvarez
street, Zamboanga City, in search of loose firearms, ammunition and
other explosives. The soldiers could have easily obtained a search
warrant from any of the ten civil courts then open and functioning in
Zamboanga City. But they instead simply barged into the beleaguered
premises on the verbal order of their superior officers.
*****
The military operation was commonly known and dreaded as a "zona," which was not unlike the feared practice of the kempeitai during
the Japanese Occupation of rounding up the people in a locality,
arresting the persons fingered by a hooded informer, and executing them
outright (although the last part is not included in the modern
refinement).
*****
The initial reaction of the people inside the compound was to resist
the invasion with a burst of gunfire. No one was hurt as presumably the
purpose was merely to warn the intruders and deter them from entering.
Unfortunately, as might be expected in incidents like this, the
situation aggravated soon enough. The soldiers returned fire and a
bloody shoot-out ensued, resulting in a number of casualties. The
besieged compound surrendered the following morning, and sixteen male
occupants were arrested. The military also inventoried and confiscated
nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle grenades, and several rounds
of ammunition found in the premises.
*****
As a consequence, Rizal Alih and his group sued the soldiers in the
Supreme Court (Rizal Alih, et al. vs. Maj. General Delfin C. Castro, et
al., G.R. No. L-69401, June 23, 1987). Their purpose was mainly to
recover the articles seized from them and to prevent these from being
used as evidence against them. They demanded the return of the arms and
ammunition on the ground that they were taken without a search warrant
as required by the Bill of Rights.
*****
The soldiers, while admitting the absence of the required search
warrant, sought to justify their act on the ground that they were acting
under superior orders. There was also the suggestion that the measure
was necessary because of the aggravation of the peace and order problem
generated by the assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco where Rizal Alih
was allegedly a suspect.
*****
In its Decision, the Court held that "superior orders" cannot
countermand the Constitution. Too, the fact that the petitioners were
suspected of the Climaco killing did not excuse the constitutional
short-cuts the soldiers took. The Court reminded the defense: "The
Constitution is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in
peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men,
at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more
pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that
any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great
exigencies of government." The precarious state of lawlessness in
Zamboanga City at the time in question certainly did not excuse the
non-observance of the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
searches and seizures. There was no state of hostilities in the area to
justify, assuming it could, the repressions committed therein against
the petitioners. It is so easy to say that the petitioners were outlaws
and deserved the arbitrary treatment they received to take them into
custody; but that is a cynical argument. It is also fallacious. Its
obvious flaw lies in the conclusion that the petitioners were
unquestionably guilty on the strength alone of unsubstantiated reports
that they were stockpiling weapons.
*****
The Supreme Court further said that even if it were assumed for the
sake of argument that Rizal Alih, et al. were guilty, they would not
have been any less entitled to the protection of the Constitution, which
covers both the innocent and the guilty. This is not to say, that the
Constitution coddles criminals. What it does simply signify is that,
lacking the shield of innocence, the guilty need the armor of the
Constitution, to protect them, not from a deserved sentence, but from
arbitrary punishment. Every person is entitled to due process. It is no
exaggeration that the basest criminal, ranged against the rest of the
people who would condemn him outright, is still, under the Bill of
Rights, a majority of one. Every individual is entitled to the full
protection of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights can stand as a
stolid sentinel for all, the innocent as well as the guilty, including
the basest of criminals.
*****
In acting as they did, the soldiers also defied the precept that
"civilian authority is at all times supreme over the military" so
clearly proclaimed in the Constitution. Here, the soldiers simply
by-passed the civil courts, which had the authority to determine whether
or not there was probable cause to search the petitioner's premises.
Instead, they proceeded to make the raid without a search warrant on
their own unauthorized determination of the petitioner's guilt.
*****
As the search of the petitioners' premises was violative of the
Constitution, it follows that all the firearms and ammunition taken from
the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of the
proceedings against the petitioners. These articles are "fruits of the
poisonous tree." 
0 comments:
Post a Comment