You're Going Where?

One of the known recreations to escape the buzzing metro is to travel either abroad or just to explore the different islands of the Philippines. And a popular transportation is through flying. It is considered as the fastest way in going to the chosen destination without the hassle of staying in long bus/ car rides or boat/ship travel. Though there are many advantages, there are also the disadvantages, one of which is the mandatory searches of the luggage of the passengers before one can be allowed to enter the airport let alone the aircraft. It takes more time than entering the plane depending on the number of people present, the destination and also the season. This is understandable, with the high percentage of high jacking threats and terrorism around the world. Airport search is required for the safety of the passengers and its crew as well as the airport of their destination.  But, other than the long lines and sometimes uncomfortable situations, there are times that a passenger may feel that such searches may go beyond their allowed limitations. So see you in my next ponder moment...

An example of a scenario is when the police authorities received information that a passenger coming from a particular country would be possessing let say, child pornographic materials that are prohibited in our country but there were no added specification as to the identity of the culprit. What the police authorities did with the help of the airport officials was to randomly check the passengers coming from such country and insisting that such passengers submit their laptops or gadgets to be opened and their hard drives to be searched for electronic documents that could support the information that they received. Question?  Are they allowed to perform such search? If so, can they go as far as asking the passenger to submit his laptop for its files to be searched for the alleged prohibited materials?

The 1987 Constitution, protects every individual against unlawful search and seizure as cited in Section 2, Article III of the Bill of Rights:

Section 2. 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 be inviolable, 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.

It stated that no person can be subjected to a search that has no lawful reason or what the law considers as probable cause. An officer must have a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and the person that would be arrested and incidentally searched might have been responsible for the crime. Also, in the same Article of the Constitution, Section 3 stated:

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

It reiterated the constitutional right of a person to his privacy; no one can violate such right, unless there is a lawful cause for such violation and it is for the common good of other people. Given the stated constitutional rights, one can also not ignore the exceptions of this law. There are several kinds of searches that not only the Congress but most especially, the Supreme Court in their decisions, that have been recognized. And one of which is the airport search which the Philippines has adopted from the United States. The need for such searches was mainly for the safety of its passengers and the people who are working in the airports and aircrafts. Also, with the high terrorism alert all over the world, one cannot just ignore such threats.

It is stated in the Republic Act no. 1973 Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines Book II Customs Law under Section 2210:

Section 2210: Right to search Vessels or Aircrafts and persons or articles conveyed therein.- it shall be lawful for any official or person exercising police authority under the provisions of this Code to go aboard any vessel or aircraft within the limits of any collection district and to inspect, search and examine said vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope on board and search any person on board the said vessel or aircraft underway, to use all necessary force to compel compliance and if it shall appear that any breach or violation of the customs and tariff laws of the Philippines has been committed, whereby or in consequence of which such vessels or aircrafts or the article or any part thereof, on board of or imported by such vessel or aircraft, are liable to forfeiture to make seizure of the same or any part thereof.

This justifies the search conducted by airport officials upon its passengers before entering the airport and the aircraft. But does this search give unlimited power to such officials to search passengers that have chosen to fly as a mode of their transportation? In the situation given, the police authorities had received a tip that child pornographic materials was in the possession of a passenger but the problem is only the country of origin is known by the police and that is it. No other indication of the true identity of the person having such illegal materials. Any officer cannot just RANDOMLY search passengers in the airport forcing them to submit their laptops or any gadget consisting of their files to be searched. The law and the Supreme Court, has long reiterated that for a person to be searched without a warrant, the officer or private citizen must have PROBABLE CAUSE, as cited in the Supreme Court decision People v. Aminnudin, the police authorities must have caught the person in flagrante committing a crime or has just committed a crime. They should have had personal knowledge that could justify such arrest and the search would be coincidental for such valid warrantless arrest. In our situation, the authorities cannot be said to have personal knowledge because there are no other circumstances that can support that their suspicion can be had. They just randomly pick individuals to be searched and making them submit their laptops and gadgets.

The checking of electronic documents of the passengers of an aircraft cannot be allowed unless there is a warrant for such purpose or there is probable cause that could justify the authorities to search it. Even if it could be said that a person when he chose to be a passenger of an aircraft, he had knowledge that there would be a mandatory search of his luggage and his laptop or other form gadgets are considered to be part of such luggage; he cannot be expected to not be surprised if the authorities would want to search the CONTENTS of his laptop because it is not an ordinary practice accepted in such kind of search. A reasonable passenger would just expect that his things that are in plain view as well as those inside his bags would be looked at but to go so far as being required to open his private files then it can be considered as a violation of his constitutional right and such attained personal files cannot be used against him in court. It is not the usual practice of the search process in the airport and can only be supported by a warrant for such effect. As what has been stated in the Constitution, these are the rights that are inviolable not being under the exceptional circumstances, which in this case it is not. The police authorities should have gathered more evidence and went under surveillance to prove with probable cause their actions.