7/24/2019 Guanzon vs. Devilla Case Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guanzon-vs-devilla-case-digest 1/2

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 rudelyrouse from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of their

houses. The residents were at the point of highpowered guns and

herded li!e cows. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for

the police to eamine their tattoo mar!s. The residents complained

that their homes were ransac!ed# tossing their belongings and

destroying their valuables. $ome of their money and valuables had

disappeared after the operation. The residents also reported incidents

of mauling# spotbeatings and maltreatment. Those who were detainedalso suffered mental and physical torture to etract confessions and

tactical information. The respondents said that such accusations were

all lies. %espondents contend that the &onstitution grants

to government the power to see! 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 theactual operation and that local and foreign media 'oined the operation

to witness and record such event.

Issue: 

7/24/2019 Guanzon vs. Devilla Case Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guanzon-vs-devilla-case-digest 2/2

hether or ot the saturation drive committed consisted of violation of 

human rights.

Held:

 *t 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" .+ased 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 ob'ectives sought to

be attained by the "aerial zoning" could not be achieved even as therights of the s,uatters and low income families are fully protected.

-owever# the remedy should not be brought by a tapayer suit where

not one victim complaints and not one violator is properly charged. *n

the circumstances of this tapayers suit# there is no erring soldier or

policeman whom the court can order prosecuted. *n the absence of 

clear facts no permanent relief can be given.

*n the meantime where there is showing that some abuses werecommitted# the court temporary restraint the alleged violations which

are shoc!ing to the senses. /etition is remanded to the %T& of Manila.