Dear PAO,
I have a question regarding the actions of the law enforcers toward me while I was riding a bus to Biñan, Laguna. They asked if I could open my bag for inspection. I hesitated because I was just traveling from work to home at the time. I am confused as to why they wanted to inspect my bag, especially since it was only my bag they were checking and not those of the other passengers. I later learned that they had received a tip via text message containing an exact description of my clothing that day, along with a claim that such person was transporting illegal drugs. The message also included the plate number of the bus I was riding at that time. My question is, do they have the right to inspect my bag? I believe this may violate my right against unlawful search. Yanna
Dear Yanna,
In the Philippines, the right against unlawful search and seizure is enshrined in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

“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 shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
As a rule, a search and seizure operation conducted by the authorities is reasonable only when a court issues a search warrant after it has determined the existence of probable cause, through the personal examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses presented before the court, with the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized particularly described. (People v. Sapla, GR 244045, June 16, 2020, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa)

There are, however, instances wherein searches are considered reasonable even in the absence of a search warrant, taking into account the “uniqueness of circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.” (Ibid.)
The known jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures are as follows:

(1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. (People v. Jumarang, GR 250306, Aug. 10, 2022, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez)
As early as 1988, the Supreme Court had ruled that an extensive warrantless search and seizure conducted on the sole basis of a confidential tip is tainted with illegality. In People v. Aminnudin, GR 74869, July 6, 1988, penned by Associate Justice Isagani Cruz, the authorities acted upon an information that the accused would be arriving from Iloilo on board a vessel, the MV Wilcon. The authorities waited for the vessel to arrive, accosted the accused, and inspected the latter’s bag, wherein bundles of marijuana leaves were found. The Court declared that the search and seizure was illegal, holding that, at the time of his apprehension, Aminnudin was not “committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. x x x To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension.”

In the case of People v. Sapla, GR 244045, June 16, 2020, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the Supreme Court discussed that:

“The Court has already held with unequivocal clarity that in situations involving warrantless searches and seizures, ‘law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped information. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion.”

Regarding your situation, considering the foregoing discussion, the law enforcers cannot randomly search your bag without probable cause, a warrant, or your consent, unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify such actions. While a tip may justify an investigation, it is not sufficient to warrant a search. If you were not arrested, not caught in the act of committing a crime, and if the search was based solely on a text message without further verification or evidence, then their actions violated your right against unlawful search.
We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]