Hildawa v. Minister of Defense
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Isidro T. Hildawa and Ricardo C. Valmonte filed Special Civil Actions seeking the nullity of an alleged executive/administrative order creating "secret marshals" or "crimebusters" with authority to kill. They argued this violated constitutional provisions on due process, equal protection, presumption of innocence, right to be heard, right against self-incrimination, and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Procedural History: Respondents, including the Minister of Defense and police officials, denied the existence of any order authorizing secret marshals to shoot and disable suspected criminals, stating they were subject to the same laws as other peace officers and their formation was impelled by the proliferation of crimes. The Petition: Petitioners prayed for a restraining order against the fielding of these "crimebusters" and for a declaration nullifying the order creating them, arguing their absolute authority to kill was unconstitutional.
Issue(s)
Whether the creation and fielding of "secret marshals" or "crimebusters" with alleged authority to kill is violative of the New Constitution. Whether the respondents are directed to exercise strict supervision and control over these special operation teams and to ensure compliance with the law and constitutional rights.
Ruling
The Court directed respondents to exercise strict supervision and control over the special operation teams and ordered that members of these teams must not use unnecessary force, must comply strictly with the law, and must accord suspects all their constitutional rights. Further, in cases of death or injury resulting from apprehension, respondents are enjoined to immediately report the matter for investigation and appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality of special operation teams and the alleged authority to kill: The Court held that the creation and deployment of special operation teams to combat the resurgence of criminality are lawful. However, the alleged use of violence, specifically a "license to kill," is disagreeable and cannot be tolerated as it is violative of the fundamental law and universal human rights. The Court emphasized that violence does not find support in a democratic society where the rule of law prevails, and every person is entitled to due process, which requires an opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself. The Court noted that petitioners failed to present copies of the alleged executive or administrative order and admitted they had not seen one. The respondents denied such an order existed and stated the teams were subject to the same laws as other peace officers. The Court reiterated that while forming special teams is the police's basic job, killing "criminals" transforms law enforcers into prosecutors, judges, and executioners, which is unacceptable. The Court stressed that in making arrests, law enforcers should not use unnecessary force and must comply strictly with the law, according suspects all their constitutional rights, as provided in the Rules of Court. On the directive for supervision and compliance: The Court directed the respondents to exercise strict supervision and control over these special operation teams. Members of these teams were ordered to refrain from using unnecessary force, to comply strictly with the law, and to accord suspects all their constitutional rights during arrests. Furthermore, in instances where death or injury results from the apprehension of suspected criminals, respondents are enjoined to immediately report such incidents to their superior officers and the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) for investigation and appropriate action. The Court also emphasized that the National Police Commission should investigate such incidents to determine the assailant and the reason for the death, without waiting for a formal complaint. Once the identity of the killer is established and they admit authorship, a case must be filed in the proper court to determine if the killing was in self-defense, defense of relatives, defense of a stranger, or in the fulfillment of a duty, with the burden of proving justification resting on the assailant.
Main Doctrine
While the creation and deployment of special operation teams to counter criminality are lawful, the use of unnecessary force or granting a license to kill is violative of fundamental law and human rights, necessitating strict supervision and adherence to due process.