Download Chain of Custody and Airport Searches: United States and Philippine Legal Precedents and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
tlbilippineg tbe of 3Republic
<!Court ~upreme
fflanila
DIVISION THIRD
COP'1 TRUlt: CEllTIFIED ~ A· oov:LA · 1 Cou o Clerk Division hi·rd ZG19 1 0 MAR ·~,.. P•~tt THE OF COURT SUPREME ...(., INFORMATION PUBLIC
PHILIPPINES, THE OF PEOPLE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
229071 G.R. No.
O'COCHLAIN, EANNA
Present:
J., Chairperson, PERALTA,
LEONEN,
GESMUNDO,
J., JR., and REYES,
JJ. HERNANDO,
Promulgated:
x-------------------~~~-~~~-:'-~~~~::-------------~~~--x
DECISION
J.: PERALTA,
Decision 2016 9, February the is appeal On 1 2016 21, July and Resolution 2 No. 36412, which CR in CA-G.R. (CA) Appeals of the Court of Decision affirmed the November 22, 2013 3 the Regional Trial Court of 15585-13, finding Branch 13, Laoag City, in Criminal Case No. (RTC), violating Section 11, of guilty (Eanna) accused-appellant Eanna O'Cochlain No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous (R.A.) Republic Act of Article II
- of Drugs Act and Zalameda V. Rodi! Justices Associate with Villon, E. Sesinando Justice Associate by Penned 3-26. pp. rollo, concurring; Corales B. Pedro ~ 237. p. rollo, CA 2 / (/ 116-133. pp. Records,
229071 G.R. No. - 2 - Decision Irish national Eanna was a 53-year old his arrest, of At the time Barangay Aring, Badoc, !locos Norte. in married to a Filipina and residing Information an In 4 illegal with charged was he 2013, 15, July dated marijuana, committed as follows: of possession Laoag of July 2013 in the City of day 14th That on or about [the] above-named Court, the Honorable this of within the jurisdiction and accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his dried Marijuana Leaves, of possession, custody and control: two (2) sticks 0.3824 grams, without any of a dangerous drug, with an aggregate weight 5 the aforesaid law.^ of^ license or authority to possess, in violation a of and in the presence de parte a counsel of With the assistance in his arraignment. GUILTY" "NOT public prosecutor, Eanna pleaded 6 He was allowed to post bail for his temporary liberty, but a hold departure order and his passport was Philippines issued to prevent him from leaving the 'Nas the proceedings. of to the court for its custody in the course surrr:;dered 7 the Prosecution of Version other intended witnesses, of Aside from the sworn statements 8 the Suguitan Officer Dexter Screening Security of testimonies in open court Erald POI and Javier), (P03 Officer 3 Joel Javier Police (SSO Suguitan), reveal as follows: 1 Terson) (PO Terson SSO 14, 2013, p.m. on July 7:00 While on his break time around Transportation of Office - Transportation of the Department of Suguitan the of assigned at the initial security screening checkpoint (OTS), Security CAAP by told was Airport, International City Laoag 9 and Security the of that the parking space in front Tamayo) (CS! Intelligence Flor Tamayo He suspected marijuana"). sa ("agat depmiure area smelled like marijuana that Eanna was the one who smoked the illegal drug, recounting that at parking area at the Caucasian male a ce1iain saw he p.m. 6:35 around CSI lighting something unrecognizable as he was covering it with his palm. 1-2. at Id I. at Id 43-45. at Id 44-45. 40, 31, at Id as a witness for the prosecution was dispensed with after the Tamayo Flor CS! of The presentation parties stipulated that the affidavit he previously executed would be his direct testimony and admitted that 23- pp. 2013, September 11, (TSN, Eanna and on his luggage of he did not witness the search on the person Inspector Amiely Ann Luis Navarro were no longer Police John Edwin Padayao and P03 25). Likewise, pp. 2-3). 2013, 20, presented as witnesses after their proffered testimonies were admitted (TSN, August of and Police Inspector Navarro have no personal knowledge Padayao P03 The prosecution admitted that ). 3-4 pp. 2013, 20, (TSN, August 2013 S, the specimens they received on July 1 of the specific source Philippines the of Civil Aviation Authority 9 oV
G.R. No. 229071 - 4 - Decision the on placed were leaves marijuana dried of sticks rolled two the investigation table where everybody could look but not touch. Eanna was Javier then P03 the table, while the others guarded him. of front in seated dried marijuana leaves and of prepared the inventory. The two rolled sticks Eanna was also of other seized items were listed. The check-in baggage inspected, but it only contained clothes and other personal belongings. The SSO and Javier P03 by signed were receipts confiscation/inventory Laoag City Barangay Araniw, of officials (2) two as as well Suguitan, Kagawad Barangay and Bumanglag Edilberto Chairman (Barangay Benjamin Teodoro) and an ABS-CBN cameraman (Juanito Badua), who Javier marked P03 Eanna, of acted as witnesses. In their presence, as well as and, "E0-2" and "E0-1" dried marijuana leaves as of rolled sticks 0 L the of thereafter, placed them inside a Ziploc re-sealable plastic bag. The guard 1 Terson, took pictures during the inventory and PO office, PNP-ASG the Apias prepared the requests for the medico-legal P/Supt. marking, while the two rolled of laboratory examination Eanna and the of examination and inventory, physical marking, The leaves. marijuana dried of sticks P02 and Jr. Manadao, POl witnessed by likewise were photographing Javier. P03 Arrest with of Caole, Jr., who executed a Joint Affidavit Ablan, R. Subsequently, Eanna was brought to the Governor Roque Javier P03 examination. medico-legal his for Hospital Memorial Sr. Crime Laboratory Office to submit Provincial proceeded to the Ilocos Norte dried of the request for laboratory examination and the two rolled sticks P03 marijuana leaves. The request and the specimens were received by examination qualitative the on Based custodian. evidence the Padayao, Inspector Amiely Ann Luis Navarro Police conducted by Forensic Chemist specimens were the into writing, which was reduced Navarro), (Pllnsp. marijuana. of found to be positive for the presence the Defense of Version Eanna was with his wife at the 2013, p.m. on July 14, 6:30 At around flight bound for Pacific Laoag City International Airport for their Cebu the x-ray machine operator at the initial security screening Since Manila. was not yet around, he left his wife in the line and smoked his pre-rolled meters away. Ten minutes 30 tobacco and Marlboro cigarette outside, about passed, he went back to the initial security checkpoint carrying his check-in and cabin luggage, camera bag, and some shopping bags. The airport police he Afterwards, belongings. examined his and search a body conducted proceeded to the final security check where he was inspected by a male wearing a brown shirt. As a result, a red Marlboro officer" "immigration flavored tobacco, of rolled paper of cigarette pack, containing two pieces ell
G.R. No. 229071 - 5 - Decision was found in his possession. 12 of was shown to him while he was in front It his of one of his wife. The cigarette pack was then put on the desk, on top cables, connecting camera, Sony a (containing A camera bag luggage. Marlboro) was of player, cigarette paper, and a pack MP3 headphones, an also searched. The officer got some tiny grains after sticking his fingers into The latter vvere. the bag. He showed them to Eanna and asked what they replied that they were flavored tobacco, which he has been smoking for the years. Despite the claim, the officer directed an airport police to 30 past meters away. 0 15 the police station that was about to bring Eanna six to Together with his wife, Eanna was escorted by about five office, his camera bag and other luggage PNP-ASG airport police. At the the table of minutes later. They were placed on top 20 arrived approximately minutes before the police started to search the 30-45 and stayed there for the seized items, of to the inventory Prior contents and catalog the items. Eanna and his wife repacked their luggage as the latter still proceeded with Javier, Eanna P03 of her scheduled flight. Thereafter, with the permission went outside the office to smoke as he waited for his Batac-based Filipino relatives who arrived approximately after two hours. While smoking outside, any, to his luggage and camera bag. if he could not see what was happening, p.m. An asset :00 11 arrived at almost ABS-CBN of The camera crew called Badua and (PDEA) Drug Enforcement Agency Philippine from the office. He went with an off-duty security PNP-ASG told him to come to the ABS-CBN Laoag City. There, he was allowed to cover the incident, of guard a television news report. of which became the basis the alleged marijuana were shown to Eanna thrice - once of The sticks the second instance, he was On at the airport and twice at the police station. of the table in front of shown two thin rolled sticks that were placed on top the third time, however, he saw a thin and a fat rolled sticks made On him. paper that were different from what he was using. of
Ruling RTC
the of fa/lo the crime charged. The of After trial, Eanna was convicted
Decision states: 2013 November 22, hereby pronounced is accused Eanna O'Cochlain WHEREFORE, of illegal possession of the charge of beyond reasonable doubt GUILTY Eanna contended that it was actually one rolled paper containing flavored tobacco that was broken 12 one almost full, Marlboro boxes, red 36-38). There were two pp. 2013, October 2, into two (TSN, p. 2013, cigarettes, and the other one contained pre-rolled crushed tobacco (TSN, October 2, 19 containing 19). d
Decision ,.., G.R. No. 229071 - I - the illegal drug seized, the RTC of custody of Finally, as to the chain was satisfied that the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and ruled: It the subject marijuana. of evidentiary value of In this case, the Court does not doubt a bit that the two sticks marijuana of sticks same the are evidence in presented marijuana There was not only compliance by the the accused. confiscated from the law and its of 21 Section of the requirements of airport authorities the of implementing rules and regulations, there is a complete account marijuana that negates any of the two sticks of custody of complete chain doubt that their integrity and evidentiary value have been preserved. As it the arrest of has been established by the prosecution, upon being informed of had confiscated the two [sticks] Suguitan SSO the accused, after of Joel Javier, the duty police investigator P03 marijuana from the accused, at the airport at [the] time who was at the ramp outside the departure tem1inal was called and when he arrived at the place where the accused the accused, he took of the arrest of was accosted and was informed marijuana which were then on the screening of the two sticks of custody PNP-CAAP the of desk or table and invited the accused to the office the airport not far of Group located within the premises Security Aviation of Javier marked the two sticks P03 from the departure terminal. There, Barangay two of arrival the Upon E0-2. and E0-1 with marijuana Kagawad and Bumanglag Edilberto Chairman Barangay ofiicials, Barangay Araniw, Laoag City which has territorial of Benjamin Teodoro of the media in the person of jurisdiction over the airport, and a member also Javier P03 Laoag, ABS-CBN, of cameraman a Badua, Juanito marijuana of the two sticks of conducted the required inventory not only the accused contained in his luggage. In the of but the other belongings PNP- the of Erald Terson, also a member POI the inventory, of course the seized items as he was of Group, took pictures Security viation A as the accused was later, Sometime by their superior. do to directed Javier was the one who brought the P03 brought for medical examination, marijuana together with the prepared letter request to the of two sticks Crime Laboratory Office for examination. And to Provincial Ilocos Norte complete the chain, the prosecution established that at the said crime lab, who thereupon turned them Padayao P03 the two sticks were received by Inspector Amiely Ann Navarro. As the Police over to the forensic chemist, the case, the two sticks were of Court takes judicial notice from the record court on July 19, 2013, received by the Branch Clerk to finally submitted con:esponding the issued who Espejo[,] Bernadette Atty. Court, of Acknowledgment Receipt therefor. custody and as would have of Significantly relative to the chain equally done by the other concerned witnesses such as forensic chemist the of Inspector Navarro who issued her written chemistry reports Police P03 and specimens, the on conducted she examinations qualitative who discovered the two Suguitan[,] SSO the crime lab, of both Padayao, marijuana[,] identified the same in open court, pointing in the of sticks that he witnessed to have E0-2 and E0-1 process the respective markings Javier[,] which, after P03 been placed by the investigating police officer, Javier P03 latter placed in a plastic bag (Ziploc). the inventory, the marijuana. of sticks himself also identified the two rJ
229071 G.R. No. - s- Decision the fact that in his of not oblivious is Court the At this point, over the two initially claimed that he turned Suguitan SSO testimony 1 Manadao, Jr. But actually[,] as it can be clearly PO marijuana to of sticks that he said over Suguitan, the turn SSO of appreciated from the testimony the table at of top on marijuana of the two sticks of was merely the placing 1 Manadao and the accused. In fact, PO of the final screening area, in front marijuana of Javier, the two sticks P03 corroborated Suguitan SSO as a tray and on were thereafter placed desk the screening on which were still as the thereof Javier was the one who then actually took custody P Security Aviation PNP-CAAP the of accused was invited to the office it was if asked by the defense was Javier himself, when he P03 Group. 1 Manadao who turned over the specimens to him, categorically said, PO Suguitan." sir, Mr. Dexter "No, of cannot be amiss to point out that the two sticks Court Also, the contaminated or have been switched with another not marijuana could Javier. While admitting that there were P03 of while it was in the custody many things that they prepared while they were already in their office, he testified in effect that no such [thing] happened. The people there at the looking and not just office were not examining the specimens, they were holding it. P03 at this point cannot but express its observation that Court The was He credible. equally was Suguitan, SSO like just Javier, straightforward, consistent and candid in his testimony that it cannot in 15 be considered suspect.^ way^ any Eanna moved to reconsider the RTC judgment, but it was denied; appeal was filed. of hence, a notice 16 Ruling CA of fact and conclusions of Finding no cause to overturn the findings law, the CA affirmed the assailed RTC Decision. was there whether of issue the answered affirmatively CA The of Eanna and the seizure of search waiTantless probable cause to justify the appreciated the prosecution's version that CSI Tamayo It his belongings. the airport terminal. of smoking while outside the departure area 111m saw Although no smoke coming from his mouth was seen, CSJ Tamayo still to the RTC ruling, the warrantless Similar marijuana. of smelled the scent search and seizure was also valid because the search was conducted pursuant his gave voluntarily Eanna and procedure security airport routine a to consent thereto. 15 !<
- 132 66-h!s, pp rn//o, CA 129-131; pp. Records. 165-166. pp. Records. elf
229071 G.R. No. - () 1 - Decision The drug evidence was rendered susceptible to alteration, tampering 3. where it was placed was not sealed Ziploc and swapping because the by an adhesive tape or any means other than the natural, built-in re- the plastic bag. of sealable feature of sticks rolled two on the "JEP" the marking of The presence 4. alleged marijuana could not be explained and the marking made thereon compromised their integrity and physical appearance. official duty is of regularity in the performance of The presumption 5. the from deviated authorities police the because unavailing mandated procedure and offered no valid ground to show that their actuations were justified. Ruling Our conviction is affirmed. of The judgment a is search screening Airport reasonable constitutionally administrative search. an illegal drug during a routine airport of The search and seizure been has procedures aviation security to the pursuant made inspection cases. of sustained by this Court in a number 19 People of In the leading case Johnson, v. 20 we held: 19 the search and seizure clause by of lose the protection may Persons their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a of exposure which expectation society is privacy, of subjective expectation of lack implicit is recognition Such reasonable. as recognize to prepared airplane over concern increased With procedures. in airport security nation's the at security increased come has terrorism and hijacking airpo11s. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are these procedures suggest the Should routinely subjected to x-ray scans. to conducted are searches physical objects, suspicious of presence determine what the objects are. There is little question that such searches the safety of are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with through airport public notified often are travelers travel. Indeed, airline address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are v. People ); (2013 133 Phil. 703 People, v. Sales ); (2013 719 Phil. 538 Cadidia, v. People See 734 Phil. I 40 Johnson, v. People and (2002); 743 Phil. 442 Canton, v. People (2003); 146 Phil. 460 Suzuki, (2000) Id 20 (ff
G.R. No. 229071 - 11 - Decision any prohibited materials or substances are found, if search and, to subject subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers be such would warrantless against protections constitutional ordinary that notice on 21 searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures. secure in their persons, be the people to of Thus, while the right is searches and seizures unreasonable houses, papers, and effects against the 1987 Constitution, of 2, Article III Section guaranteed by 22 a routine security check being conducted in air 23 and sea 24 ports has been a recognized jurisprudence ruling that search of exception. This is in addition to a string and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained search instances: (1) following the in admissible be may therefrom a moving motor vehicle; (3) of search arrest; (2) a lawful to incidental consented (5) view"; "plain in evidence of seizure search; (4) customs and exigent (7) and search; frisk" and "stop (6) search; warrantless
circumstance. emergency the Constitution was patterned after of Article III 2, Section Notably, of States United the of Constitution the Amendment to Fomih the America. 26 Having been derived almost verbatim therefrom, the Court may State Court and Supreme Federal US the of the pronouncements to. turn iction. 1 juric;~ Appellate Courts, which are considered doctrinal in this 27 Like in our country, the circumstances under which a warrantless search, unsupported by probable cause, may be considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment are very limited and that exceptions thereto are few delineated. well and established specifically 28 the way, similar a In search was proving that a warrantless of burden government bears the People, v. Sales note 19, at 556; Cadidia, supra v. People in at 743, as cited id. Johnson, v. People 21 at 19, note Canton, supra v. People at 159-160; and 19, note Suzuki, supra v. People 140; at 19, note supra G.R. No. Gumilao, v. People 2018; 215305, April 3, No. G.R. People, v. Saluday also See 758-759. 653, 683 (2016). Phil. 653 People, v. Dela Cruz (Resolution); and 2016 5, October 208755, and papers, houses, persons, their in secure be people to the of The right 2. SECTION 22 be shall purpose any for and nature whatever of seizures and searches unreasonable against etfocts be cause to issue except upon probable arrest shall of warrant or and no search warrant inviolable, the complainant and the of determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation things to or witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons seized. be 19; note Suzuki, supra v. People 9; note I supra People, v. Sales 19; note Cadidia, supra v. People 23
- note Johnson, supra v. People note 19; and supra Canton, v. People note 21, at 683. People, supra v. Cruz Dela note 21, and Gumilao, supra v. People 24 (2012); 399, 411 Phil. 683 People, v. Luz 617 (2013); 609, Phil. 703 People, v. Martinez See 25 715-716 (1999); 703, Phil. 367 San, Chua Ho v. People (2007); 934, 949 Phil. 563 People, v. Valdez 462, 479 ( 1997). Phil. 347 CA, v. Malacat 595, 627-628 ( 1999); and Phil. 361 Doria, v. People note 21. supra People, v. Saluday 26 et Chairperson·L~mstantino-David, v. Pollo in 51, 57 (1991). as cited Phil. 271 Marti, v. People 27 225, 249 (2011). Phil. 675 al.. United (2010); 513 3d So. 54 State, v. Higerd O); (201 820 648 F.3d McCarty. v. States United See 28 (2007). 497 F.3d 955 Aukai. v. State~ UniteJ and (2009); 2d 857 Supp. F. 620 Fo/ana. v. States /I
229071 G.R. No. - 13 - Decision (weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices) that pose grave danger to carry-on luggage is no more of airplanes and air travelers; (2) the scrutiny achieve the to necessary is intrusive (in both its scope and intensity) than the screening process (that is, to ensure air travel safety); of legitimate aims (3) airline passengers have advance notice that their carry-on luggage will be subjected to these security measures, thus giving passengers the opportunity to place their personal effects in checked luggage; (4) all passengers are subject to the same screening procedures; and (5) passengers are aware that they can avoid the screening process altogether by electing not to board the plane. 37 its public nature. of Moreover, abuse is unlikely because 38 airport routine of As a permissible administrative search, the scope not limitless. is check 39 Airport screening procedures are conducted for two or carrying weapons from prevent passengers to first, primary reasons: even from deter passengers to and second, aircraft; explosives onto the attempting to do so. 40
Davis v. States United of The oft-cited case
41 sets the as searches screening airport evaluating for standards appropriate constitutionally reasonable administrative searches, thus: :n 38 J 1U (1973). 41 a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of conducted as part [S]earches a criminal investigation of an administrative purpose, rather than as part of Fourth the under permissible be may crime, of evidence secure to cause probable of showing a by supported not Amendment though directed to a particular place or person to be searched. passengers are airline of screening searches seen, have we As an of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of conducted as part weapons or of prevent the carrying to administrative purpose, namely, explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings. The essential or to detect weapons or explosives not to is scheme the of purpose such carrying deter persons to but carry them, who those apprehend material from seeking to board at all. course, routine airport screening searches will lead to discovery Of practical This violators. law of apprehension and contraband of the of consequence does not alter the essentially administrative nature x. screening process, however, or render the searches unconstitutional.xx of nonetheless, that the screening There is an obvious danger, passengers and their carry-on luggage for weapons and explosives will be this occurs, the If crime. of subverted into a general search for evidence courts will exclude the evidence obtained. 42 (Citations omitted.) (1999). 610 P.2d 988 Stale, v. Schaffer nore 31. Admin., supra Sec. Transp. v. Corbell note 28. Aukai, supra v. States United 893 482 F.2d Davis, v. States United citing (2005), n F.3d 6 410 Marquez, v. States Uniled Id. v. States United note 28; supra State, v. Higerd 28; note McCurty, supra v. States United also See 12 ·
- note Marquez, supra v. States United note 28; and Aukai. supra I
229071 G.R. No. - 4 l - Decision an airport administrative search require of The constitutional bounds that the individual screener's actions be no more intrusive than necessary to explosives that could result in harm to of determine the existence or absence The search cannot also serve unrelated law 13 aircraft.' the passengers and for check limited transforms a effectively it as purposes enforcement crime, of evidence for search general a into explosives and weapons passengers who travel through the of substantially eroding the privacy rights system. 44 the search warrant requirement, in other exceptions to the As screening program must not turn into a vehicle for warrantless searches for crime. of evidence 45 is improper that the search be tainted by "general law It such as uncovering contraband unrelated to that objectives" enforcement or evidencing general criminal crimes unrelated of or evidence purpose wrongdoing." ordinary criminal of activity or a desire to detect "evidence 46 Currency, U.S. $124,570 v. States United In 47 Appeals for of Court US the repeatedly has Court Supreme US the that noted Circuit Ninth the keeping criminal investigatory motives from of emphasized the importance coloring administrative searches. 48 Hence, an airport search remains a valid administrative search only so not exceeded; is the administrative search exception of long as the scope can no it a search is conducted for a criminal investigatory purpose, "once rationale." longer be justified under an administrative search 49 Where an is taken that cannot serve the administrative purpose, either because actiP'l or dismissed been search has administrative necessitating the threat the because the action is simply unrelated to the administrative goal, the action the permissible search. of clearly exceeds the scope 50 To the extent that airport administrative searches are used for purposes other than screening outside the explosives, they fall or luggage and passengers for weapons rationale by which they have been approved as an exception to the warrant should be search during such a obtained evidence and the requirement,
- I excluded.) 1240 F.2d 873 Currency, U.S. $124.570 v. States fJniled citing id., McCarty, v. Slates Uniled ·U ( 1989). id. Currency, U.S. $124,570 v. States United Sec 44 I (1968). U.S. 392 Ohio, v. Terry citing (1980). 245 P.2d 613 Sa/ii, v. Slate 45 note supra Currency, U.S. 570 $124, v. Slates Uniled note 28; supra Fof'ana, v. States Uniled See '1( id. Sa/it, v. Stale 43; and 523 U.S. 387 Municipal Courl, v. Camara ); 1971 ( 309 U.S. 400 James, v. Wyman citing Id., 47 1960). ( 217 U.S. 362 States, United v. he/ A ( 1967); and Sanof County & City v. Alexander 547 ( 1998); and F.3cl 154 Huguenin, v. States United also See 48 29 F.3d 1355 (1994). Francisco, supra Currency, U.S. $124,570 v. States United citing 28, note supra McCarty, v. States United 49 note 28. supra Fof'ana, v. States United note 28; and supra State, v. Higerd also See note 43. McCarty, id. v. States United 50 note 28. supra Fof'ana, v. States United 51 of
229071 G.R. No. - (1 - 1^ Decision being screened is group The used. be most efficacious that could the boarding aircraft. Metal of limited to persons with the immediate intention searches physical potential but rare and inspection, visual detectors, appear to this court to provide as much efficiency to the process as it could have. the judicial scales, the intrusion which the of the other side On is inconvenient It airport search imposes on the public is not insubstantial. and annoying, in some cases it may be embarrassing, and at times it can be incriminating. There are several factors, however, which make this search other in searches similar than person searched the to offensive less any stigma of such factor is the almost complete absence One contexts. attached to being subjected to search at a known, designated airport search context, search border the in it put has commentator one As point. their membership in a morally neutral of searched because '"individuals of In addition, the offensiveness '' class have less cause to feel insulted .... to somewhat mitigated by the fact that the person is the screening process be searched must voluntarily come to and enter the search area. He has every opportunity to avoid the procedure by not entering the boarding is search airport the which under circumstances the Finally, area. searches Unlike make it much less likely that abuses will occur. conducted conducted on dark and lonely streets at night where often the officer and under made are searches these only witnesses, the are subject the public. traveling the of scrutiny the from far not and supervision Moreover, the airlines, which have their representatives present, have a definite and substantial interest in assuring that their passengers are not unnecessarily harassed. The officers conducting the search under these Fourth the of solicitous be to likely more much are circumstances isolated, more in than public traveling the of Amendment rights unsupervised surroundings. relevant the of weighing tripartite this after conclusion, Our a person at the of initiating a search for standards is that the factors, boarding gate should be no more stringent than those applied in border search pre-boarding area where this critical the In crossing situations. started, reasonableness does not require that officers search only those nervousness or of passengers who meet a profile or who manifest signs to have would requirement a Such appear suspicious. otherwise who invariably they that or identifiable readily are hijackers that assume this by hazard at placed lives of number The traits. certain possess Judge As chances. deadly such taking forbid paranoia criminal Friendly has stated: the of what is reasonable requires a weighing of Determination the search is simply the of harm against the need. When the object past crime, probable cause to arrest is generally the of detection of appropriate test .... When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds property inherent in the of dollars of human lives and millions meets alone a large airplane, the danger of pirating or blowing up reasonableness, so long as the search is conducted in of the test preventing hijacking or like damage of good faith for the purpose given been has passenger the and scope reasonable with and his liability to such a search so that he can avoid of advance notice (Citations omitted.) air. by travel to choosing not by it ~
G.R. No. 229071 - 17 - Decision Aukai, v. States United According to 60 case law had erroneously US airport screening searches is dependent of suggested that the reasonableness upon the passenger's consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied opined: It consent. an airport screening search, however, does of The constitutionality at 315, and requiring that a U.S. 406 see Biswell, not depend on consent, allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport be potential passenger security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would airport penetrate to attempt to opportunities terrorists multiple afford detection until a vulnerable of on the cusp fly" not to "electing security by of found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method is portal that in airport security, knowledge detecting systematic vulnerabilities extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given be could the predicate to sense little makes it required, not is consent that an on search screening airport administrative an of reasonableness screening an airport consent theory. Rather, where implied irrevocable statutory to pursuant conducted and reasonable otherwise is search 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election § U.S.C. authority, 49 U.S. 406 Biswell, See an airport. of to attempt entry into the secured area and regulations TSA current Under 1540.107. § C.F.R. 315; 49 at walks passenger prospective a when occurs election that procedures, the x- of belt through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor ray machine. 61 (Citation omitted.) a of the view that the constitutionality of courts are US Currently, screening search does not depend on the passenger's consent once he enters Davis requirement in The an airport. of secured area the 62 allowing of passengers to avoid the search by electing not to fly does not extend to one who has already submitted his luggage for an x-ray scan. 63 a potential If placing before passenger chooses to avoid a search, he must elect not to fly his baggage on the x-ray machine's conveyor belt. 64 The right to abandon air commencing the screening procedures. Any to prior travel must be exercised whenever detection leave to hijackers would allow potential other rule seemed imminent and permit them to try again another day. 65 Santa v. Herrera and (2018); 32708 LEXIS Dist. U.S. 2018 Cho, v. Arrahim See note 28. Supra 60 (2013). 1191 2d Supp. F. 956 Sch., Pub. Fe 311 ( 1972). U.S. 406 Biswell, v. States United citing id., Aukui, v. United States 61 the persons and of screening searches "airport 40, note supra Davis, v. States United According to 02 potential passengers for weapons and explosives are reasonable under the Fourth of immediate possessions search." Amendment provided each prospective boarder retains the right to leave rather than submit to the prospective passenger has a choice: he may submit to a a constitutional laws, of a matter "as held that It around and tum he may or his person and immediate possessions as a condition to boarding; of search an option to leave or an of chooses to proceed, that choice, whether viewed as a relinquishment he leave. If it granting the government a license to do what ·consent,' a essenticilly is election to submit to the search, Gonzales, supra v. Gilmore also See Amendment." Fourth the by would otherwise be barred from doing note 55. note 53. suprc, Pulido-Baquerizo, v. States United 63 Pulido-Baquerizo, id. v. Stutes Uni1ed note 35, citing Hanson, supra v. State (> note 35. Hanson, supra v. Stat<! and 40; note Marquez, supra v. States United See cJY 65
G.R. No. 229071^ -^19 - Decision commandeering, hijacking, to civil aviation especially threats terrorist preventing and suppressing all as well as personnel aviation civil against directed facilities, violence airport and plane of sabotage in with the end terrorism of forms other all and citizens-at-large, the and/or riding public plane the of national interests, and (b) to develop and continue enhancing the level Philippine protecting of view local law enforcement agencies under jurisdiction and immediate supervision of operational effectiveness the NCCAS. of of view in No. 277 EU Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued President former 2004, 30, January On of and the responsibility interference unlawful of acts the urgent need to safeguard civil aviation against at aimed mem,ures all integrate and supervise control, direct, to plans formulating for NCCAS the OTS aviation. The executive order created an civil to threats terrorist all preventing and suppressing which shall be primarily responsible (DOTC), Transportation and Communication of under the Department NCCAS Convention on aviation security. Moreover, the !CAO the of 17 Annex of for the implementation of under the Chairmanship (NCASC) Committee Security was reconstituted as the National Civil Aviation the for responsible be shall NCASC the existing functions, its to addition In Secretary. DOTC the and shall: (NCASP) the National Civil Aviation Security Programme of implementation and maintenance the government, airport of Define and allocate tasks and coordinate activities among the agencies a. the for, responsible or with, concerned entities other and operators aircraft authorities, NCASP:, the of various aspects of implementation the government, airport authorities, aircraft of Coordinate security activities among the agencies b. various of operators and other entities concerned with, or responsible for, the implementation NCASP; the of aspects the of agencies among the NCASP the of implementation for the tasks allocate Define and c. government, airport authorities, aircraft operators and other concerned entities; Ensure that each airport serving international civil aviation shall establish and implement a written d. NCASP; the of airport security progran11ne appropriate to meet the requirements Arrange for an authority at each airport serving international civil aviation to be responsible for e. security controls; of coordinating the implementation airport security committee at each airport serving international an of Arrange for the establishment f. the of the coordination in paragraph (e) above, in civil aviation to assist the authority mentioned security controls and procedures; of implementation Critical Infrastructure under the of Security Coordinate and collaborate with the Task Force for g. and Security; Cabinet Oversight Committee on International such other functions as the President may direct. Perform h. It 2004. No. 311 on April 26, EO Macapagal-Arroyo issued President Barely three months after, the recent international and domestic events reminding that the nation must constantly be of took note and materials hazardous devices, or elements dangerous other vigilant to prevent weapons, explosives, not is which of brnring or carriage the and terrorism of act an commit cargoes, which may be used to was OTS from being introduced into and carried on board a public transport system. The authorized, the country, of the transportation systems of designated as the single authority responsible for the security land and infrastructure, maritime and transport sea aviation, civil to limited not but including, shall exercise the following powers and functions: OTS transportation, rail system and infrastructure. The No. 277 as well as all other EO of 4 Section in the NCASC enumerated of Assume the functions a. Order; the Executive of the NCASC subject, however, to Section 3 of powers and functions law enforcement agencies and of Exercise operational control and supervision over all units b. the transportation systems, except for motor in agency personnel providing security services to which the agenc.:ies the bureaus or of land transportation, jointly with the heads in vehicles units or personnel organically belong or are assigned; to, limited not but including, operations security transportation for responsibility Exercise c. passengers, baggage and cargoes, and hiring, retention, training and testing of security screening screening personnel; security of government, the of instrumentalities and/or dgencies appropriate the with coordination In d. policies, plans, security comprehensive implement and promulgate develop, formulate, of decisively deal with any threat to the security and ably h) measures, strategies and programs review, assess and upgrade such security plans, policies, continually transportation systems, and and enhance transportation security and ensure irnprovt: measures, strategies and programs. to secunty measures; these of the adequacy and equipment personnel, security transportation <lf perfonrnmLe the audit and Examine e. such for standards performance basis, continuing a on establish, thereafter, and, facilities, personnel; of personnel, equipment and facilities, including for the training and rules the prescribe shall which programme or plan manual/master a security Prepare f. all transportation systems, including standards of regulations for the efficient and safe operation of individuals for the issuance of profiling or for security screening procedures. prior screening er
229071 G.R. No. -- ,, (^) ,...,(.::.... - Decision Convention on ICAO the of 17 tasked to implement Annex is OTS the aviation security which seeks to safeguard civil aviation and its facilities unlawful interference, which include but not limited to: of against acts aircraft, of unlawful seizure 1. aircraft in service, an of destruction 2. hostage-taking on board aircraft or on aerodromes, 3. airport or on the at an aircraft, intrusion on board an forcible 4. aeronautical facility, an of premises a weapon or of introduction on board an aircraft or at an airport 5. criminal purposes, for material intended or device hazardous causing death, of for the purpose in service aircraft an of use 6. the or property to damage serious or injury, bodily serious environment, the jeopardize to as such information false of communication 7. passengers, crew, of aircraft in flight or on the ground, an of safety ground personnel or the general public, at an airport or on the a civil aviation facility. of premises 68 has to enforce R.A. No. 6235 or the Anti- OTS Among others, the Hijacking Law. 69 provides that an airline passenger and his hand-carried It and seizure of, prohibited materials or luggage are subject to search for, substances and that it is unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to ship, load or carry in any passenger aircraft, operating as a public utility within any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance Philippines, the
70. 1 matena.^ or
the of security clearances for personnel of levels of security access passes, and determination the government; of and its attached agencies. and other agencies DOTC the OTS. accordance with existing in Prescribe security and safety standards for all transportation systems g. laws. rules, regulations and international conventions; Security Transportation issue DOTC, the of Secretary the of approval the to Subject h. rules as may be necessary or revise such regulations or Regulations/Rules and amend, rescind the country; of the transportation systems of for the security or government-owned or any department, bureau, office, instrumentality, of Enlist the assistance 1. controlled corporation, to carry out its functions and mandate including, but not limited to. the their respective personnel, facilities and resources; of use any of the investigation and prosecution in Actively coordinate with law enforcement agencies .J. directed to any public transportation system; or unlawful interference committed at or illegal act this Executive of such other functions necessary to effectively carry out the provisions Perform k. DOTC. the of Secretary or as may be directed by the Order shall henceforth act as an advisory body to. and consultative NCASC the EO, the same Under NCASC matters relative to civil aviation security. For this purpose, the in Secretary DOTC forum for the shall continue to serve as the OTS and its composition was reconstituted. The DOTC was transferred to the NCASC. the of Secretariat interference unlawful_of_ Acts_ https://ext.eurocontrol. int/lexicon/index.php/ See 68 and 70.com/unlawful-interference/. (last accessed on December 5, 2018). ' .. https Purposes," Other For And Aviation, Civil To Jni111ical Acts Certai1; Prohibiting Act "An Entitled 9 <>
- 19, Approved on .lune states: 6235 R.A. No. of 5 Section '" d this Act in used As 5. SFC
