Legal Bases: (Bodily Search and Inspection of Calculators and other Personal Belongings of

Examinees)

1. Section 7 (d) of RA No. 8981: On the power, function and responsibility of the
Commission to adopt measures to preserve the integrity and inviolability of licensure
examinations.
2. On the power, function and responsibility of the Commission to issue general
instructions to examinees, which could be the basis for the conduct of summary
proceedings, in case of violations, under Section 9 (e) of RA No. 8981.
3. Section 2 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides for the inviolability of 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.
4. The Constitutional guarantee does not prohibit all forms of searches and seizures. It is
only directed against those that are unreasonable. Conversely, reasonable searches and
seizures fall outside the scope of the prohibition and are not forbidden. xxx There is no
hard and fast rule in determining when a search and seizure is reasonable. In any given
situation, "[w]hat constitutes a reasonable ... search ... is purely a judicial question," the
resolution of which depends upon the unique and distinct factual circumstances. This
may involve an inquiry into "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." (Sapi v People of
the Philippines, GR No. 200370). When a search is "reasonable," Section 2, Article III
of the Constitution does not apply. As to what qualifies as a reasonable search, the
pronouncements of the U.S. Supreme Court, which are doctrinal in this
jurisdiction,26 may shed light on the matter (Saluday v People of the Philippines, GR
No. 215305, 03 April 2018)
5. The Court declared airport searches as outside the protection of the search and seizure
clause due to the lack of an expectation of privacy that society will regard as reasonable:
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their
persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation
of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such
recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. xxx (People v. Johnson, 401 Phil
51)

Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their
carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans.
Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical searches
are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little question that such
searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety
interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel.
Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs. and
notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any (sic) prohibited
materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure. These
announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections
against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures
(Ibid)
6. Similarly, the Court described seaport searches as reasonable searches on the ground
that the safety of the traveling public overrides a person's right to privacy. (Dela Cruz v
People of the Philippines, 776 Phil 653). The Court also justified a bus search owing
to the reduced expectation of privacy of the riding public (People of the Philippines v.
Breis, 766 Phil 653)
7. Concededly, a bus, a hotel and beach resort, and a shopping mall are all private
property whose owners have every right to exclude anyone from entering. At the same
time, however, because these private premises are accessible to the public, the State,
much like the owner, can impose non-intrusive security measures and filter those going
in. The only difference in the imposition of security measures by an owner and the State
is, the former emanates from the attributes of ownership under Article 429 of the Civil
Code, while the latter stems from the exercise of police power for the promotion of public
safety. Necessarily, a person's expectation of privacy is diminished whenever he or she
enters private premises that are accessible to the public. (Saluday v People of the
Philippines, GR No. 215305, 03 April 2018)
8. In both situations, the inspection of passengers and their effects prior to entry at the bus
terminal and the search of the bus while in transit must also satisfy the following
conditions to qualify as a valid reasonable search. First, as to the manner of the search,
it must be the least intrusive and must uphold the dignity of the person or persons being
searched, minimizing, if not altogether eradicating, any cause for public embarrassment,
humiliation or ridicule. Second, neither can the search result from any discriminatory
motive such as insidious profiling, stereotyping and other similar motives. In all
instances, the fundamental rights of vulnerable identities, persons with disabilities,
children and other similar groups should be protected. Third, as to the purpose of the
search, it must be continued to ensuring public safety. Fourth, as to the evidence seized
from the reasonable search, courts must be convinced that precautionary measures
were in place to ensure that no evidence was planted against the accused. (Saluday v
People of the Philippines, GR No. 215305, 03 April 2018)
9. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not
forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be
resolved according to the facts of each case.

Between the inherent right of the State to protect its existence and promote public
welfare and an individual's right against a warrantless search which is
however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail. (Valmote, et. al v De Villa
and NCR District Command, GR No. 83988, 29 September 1989)

Conclusion:

There are at least two (2) justifications that may be interposed to hold that the conduct of
bodily search and inspection of personal belongings (including calculators) of examinees is
within the purview of what are deemed reasonable searches and seizures:

(i) To ensure safety of the examinees and the examination personnel; and
(ii) To safeguard the integrity of the licensure examination.

Following though the requisites to further uphold the validity of searches and seizures, it is
advisable that the conditions mentioned in no. 8 be likewise complied with:

(i) That the least intrusive means of search is to be employed (visual inspection, metal
detectors, xray/scanners, weighing scale for calculators, et. al);
(ii) That there is no discriminatory motive or purpose in the conduct of the search;
(iii) The search must be pursuant to a valid exercise of police power; and
(iv) There are precautionary measures in place to rule out possibility of planted
evidence.
Notices should also be given to examinees that they are subject to search and that any
prohibited material found would be subject to confiscation or seizure as stated in no. 5. This
could be done by incorporating such a notice in the exam application forms and exam
programs.

I wish though to submit a personal comment insofar as the inspection of calculators is

concerned. While bodily inspection and checking of the examinees’ belongings may be
justified as reasonable, the manual opening of their calculators may be violative of the first
principle on the employment of the least intrusive means of search. It is my opinion that only
when there is a well founded belief or suspicion that the calculator is or will be used for illegal
purpose (e.g. if with tampered or broken seal, or if the same appears to be heavier than the
ordinary or with a unusual display or configuration) that the same may be subjected to
examination beyond mere visual inspection. An exception perhaps to this is when the
examinee himself knowingly consents to such inspection. Consented search, being one of
the jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures. (People of
the Philippines v. Cogaed, GR No. 200334, 30 July 2014). This could be done by asking
the examinee (i) to sign a consent / waiver statement in his exam application form; and (ii) to
give his consent prior to opening his calculator (on the actual day of examination).