The great raid

Our law enforcement agencies apparently do not care at all to help clear the air of distrust and cynicism currently enveloping the entire country. Worse yet is that they even give enough reasons for people to be more skeptical about the government’s repeated avowals that the last presidential elections were generally clean and honest despite the opposition charges to the contrary. The body English coming out of these agencies gives a rather unsavory impression of a sinister attempt to suppress the truth. Somehow, I have a feeling that these agencies are out to sabotage this administration.

I am referring to the recent "raid" conducted by the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) and government Intelligence Agency (ISAFP) at San Mateo Rizal. This is another serious blunder that has given the opposition a potent and useful weapon to further erode the people’s dwindling belief in the genuineness and validity of the last presidential election. There seems to be no rhyme or reason at all in undertaking that unfortunate caper and seizing the copies of the election returns which are given to all contending parties pursuant to the election law itself. Confiscating these election returns rightfully belonging to the opposition is the most bizarre if not scary move so far done by our law enforcers. It has all the earmarks of martial law regime simply because of its blatant disregard of a very basic constitutional precept which, by the very nature of their job, our law enforcers are expected to know by heart and to observe more closely.

The privacy and sanctity of every person and of his house and other belongings rank high in the hierarchy of rights in a democratic State. Hence our Constitution protects such right from arbitrary intrusion by State officers, by declaring as "inviolable" 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" (Section 2 Article III). Generally, searches and seizures are unreasonable if conducted without arrest or search warrants issued by a judge after personally determining the existence of a probable cause that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested; or that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

In the San Mateo case, it is undeniable that the break-in and the seizure of the election returns were done without any search warrant issued by a judge. It is even clearer and openly admitted that the person involved, Segundo Tabayoyong, a former NBI document examiner, has not committed any crime. No charges have been filed against him at all. He was only being suspected of possessing spurious election returns and an alleged firearm stored in the premises which turned out to be false. The CIDG and the ISAFP had nothing to work on and to rely upon in justifying a break-in except its claim that the owner of the house herself who rented the place to Tabayoyong, has requested and consented to it. Such consent of the owner however does not justify the search and seizure of the election returns in the house. The fact remains that the house to be searched is occupied by Tabayoyong while the objects to be seized are under his control. As held in Burgos, Sr. vs. AFP Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, even if the property to be searched is owned by another person, a search warrant is still necessary as long as the property is under the control and possession of the person sought to be searched. Indeed under the law, even a person who allegedly entered the property of another by force, strategy or stealth cannot be ousted from the place without any court order. In effect, what happened here is a plain and simple raid and seizure conducted upon orders of the house owner rather than of a judge who alone is empowered to issue search or arrest warrants. Some people have taken the law into their own hands.

That there was an illegal seizure committed here is admitted by the law enforcers themselves. In the case of Castro vs. Pabalan L-28642, April 30, 1976, illegally seized articles are required to be returned unless possession of said articles is prohibited by law. In this case, the CIDG and the ISAFP returned the seized election documents to the opposition. Such return only means that the seizure was done illegally. For if the seizure was legal, the documents should not have been returned.

To erase the perception that it is behind this shady operation, the administration should therefore take the initiative of investigating this caper and imposing the necessary discipline on those involved. It should not wait for another Congressional investigation "in aid of legislation". This is the best move to prove its sincerity in upholding the "rule of law" that it has repeatedly espoused.

E-mail: [email protected]