GUANZON VS. DE VILLA [181 SCRA 623; G.R.

80508;
30 JAN 1990]
Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts:
The 41 petitioners alleged that the "saturation drive" or "aerial target
zoning" that were conducted in their place (Tondo Manila) were
unconstitutional. They alleged that there is no specific target house to
be search and that there is no search warrant or warrant of arrest
served. Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and
without nameplates or identification cards. The residents were rudely
rouse from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of their
houses. The residents were at the point of high-powered guns and
herded like cows. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for
the police to examine their tattoo marks. The residents complained
that their homes were ransacked, tossing their belongings and
destroying their valuables. Some of their money and valuables had
disappeared after the operation. The residents also reported incidents
of mauling, spot-beatings and maltreatment. Those who were detained
also suffered mental and physical torture to extract confessions and
tactical information. The respondents said that such accusations were
all lies. Respondents contend that the Constitution grants
to government the power to seek and cripple subversive movements
for the maintenance of peace in the state. The aerial target zoning
were intended to flush out subversives and criminal elements coddled
by the communities were the said drives were conducted. They said
that they have intelligently and carefully planned months ahead for the
actual operation and that local and foreign media joined the operation
to
witness
and
record
such
event.

Issue:

Whether or Not the saturation drive committed consisted of violation of

human
rights.

Held:
It is not the police action per se which should be prohibited rather it
is the procedure used or the methods which "offend even hardened
sensibilities" .Based on the facts stated by the parties, it appears to
have been no impediment to securing search warrants or warrants of
arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused from
sleep were arrested. There is no showing that the objectives sought to
be attained by the "aerial zoning" could not be achieved even as the
rights of the squatters and low income families are fully protected.
However, the remedy should not be brought by a taxpayer suit where
not one victim complaints and not one violator is properly charged. In
the circumstances of this taxpayers' suit, there is no erring soldier or
policeman whom the court can order prosecuted. In the absence of
clear
facts
no
permanent
relief
can
be
given.
In the meantime where there is showing that some abuses were
committed, the court temporary restraint the alleged violations which
are shocking to the senses. Petition is remanded to the RTC of Manila.