Facts: The 41 petitioners alleged that the "saturation drive" or "aerial target zoning" that were

conducted in their place (Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional. They alleged that there is no
specific target house to be search and that there is no search warrant or warrant of arrest
served. Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and without nameplates
or identification cards. The residents were rudely rouse from their sleep by banging on the walls
and windows of their houses. The residents were at the point of high-powered guns and herded
like cows. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for the police to examine their tattoo
marks. The residents complained that they're homes were ransacked, tossing their belongings
and destroying their valuables. Some of their money and valuables had disappeared after the
operation. The residents also reported incidents of maulings, spot-beatings and maltreatment.
Those who were detained also suffered mental and physical torture to extract confessions and
tactical informations. The respondents said that such accusations were all lies. Respondents
contends that the Constitution grants to government the power to seek and cripple subversive
movements for the maintenance of peace in the state. The aerial target zoning were intended to
flush out subversives and criminal elements coddled by the communities were the said drives
were conducted. They said that they have intelligently and carefully planned months ahead for
the actual operation and that local and foreign media joined the operation to witness and record
such event.

Issue: Whether or Not the saturation drive committed consisted of violation of human rights.
Held: It is not the police action per se which should be prohibited rather it is the procedure
used or the methods which "offend even hardened sensibilities" .Based on the facts stated by the
parties, it appears to have been no impediment to securing search warrants or warrants of arrest
before any houses were searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested. There is no
showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the "aerial zoning" could not be achieved
even as th rights of the squatters and low income families are fully protected. However, the
remedy should not be brought by a tazpaer suit where not one victim complaints and not one
violator is properly charged. In the circumstances of this taxpayers' suit, there is no erring
soldier or policeman whom the court can order prosecuted. In the absence of clear facts no
permanent relief can be given.
In the meantime where there is showing that some abuses were committed, the court temporary
restraint the alleged violations which are shocking to the senses. Petition is remanded to the RTC
of Manila.
In Guanzon v. de Villa. 181 SCRA 623. the Supreme Court
uphefd. as a valid exercise of the military powers of the President, the conduct of
areal target zoning or saturation drive/s. [NOTE: In this case, the validity of the
search was not directly questioned; raised in issue were the alleged abuses
committed by the military personnel who conducted the saturation drives. In the
absence of complainants and complaints against specific actors, no prohibition
could be issued. However, the Court temporarily restrained the alleged banging of
walls, kicking of doors, herding of half-naked men for examination of tattoo marks,
the violation of residences, even if these are humble shanties of squatters, and the
other alleged acts which are shocking to the conscience. The Supreme Court
remanded the case to the trial court for reception of evidence on the alleged
abuses.]