A.C. No. 7024 - Somosot vs. Lara

Isidro T. Hildawa and Ricardo C. Valmonte filed special civil actions questioning the formation and fielding of secret marshals, also called "crimebusters," who were allegedly given absolute authority to kill suspected criminals such as thieves, holduppers, robbers, pickpockets, and slashers.
Petitioners argued that these operations violated the 1983 Constitution provisions on due process, right to counsel, presumption of innocence, prohibition against deprivation of life without due process, and the right against self-incrimination (Art. IV, Secs. 1, 17, 19, 20, 21).
They requested a preliminary injunction to restrain respondents from deploying such teams and prayed to have any executive or administrative order creating these secret marshals declared null and void.

Respondents, including the Minister of Defense, Chief of Staff, and the Chief of the PC Metrocom & Metropolitan Police Force, denied the existence of any executive or administrative order authorizing secret marshals or crimebusters to kill suspected criminals.
They maintained that these teams are subject to the same laws and immunities applicable to peace officers and that their deployment was a response to increasing crimes, particularly robbery/holdups against public transport passengers.
Petitioners failed to produce any tangible copy of the alleged order. Respondents emphasized that special police teams are lawful to combat crime and should observe constitutional rights in carrying out arrests and operations.

The Court acknowledged the necessity and lawfulness of forming special operation teams to control crime but condemned any “license to kill” as contrary to the Constitution and human rights.
It noted reports by the Solicitor General evidencing that between May 4 and 9, 1985, fifteen suspected holduppers were killed by policemen; cases have been filed with the Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAGO) against the policemen involved, who have been ordered released pending investigation.
The Court instructed the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) to proactively investigate killings by these special teams without waiting for formal complaints.

The secret marshals were first organized in August 1982, reportedly killing 106 alleged holduppers and arresting 128 others before being deactivated. They were reactivated in June 1984 to combat a rise in robberies targeting public transportation.
Their operations resulted in multiple deaths, including incidents involving excessive use of force—e.g., the shooting of detainee Juan P. Anunciacion during a court escort.
The violent tactics employed by these groups raised public, religious, and government officials’ concerns, including condemnation from the Catholic Bishops Conference and city officials such as the Manila Mayor and Metro Manila Vice Governor.

The Court recognized the difficulty of police work but emphasized that no person should be deprived of life without due process.
It highlighted that alleged killings often involved brutality inconsistent with the lawful functions of police forces.
It underscored the requirement that efforts to combat crime must still accord suspects their constitutional rights and must not resort to summary executions or unnecessary use of force.

Whether the formation and fielding of secret marshals or crimebusters with alleged authority to kill suspected criminals violate constitutional provisions on due process and the right to life.
Whether there exists any valid executive or administrative order authorizing the deployment of secret marshals with authority to use lethal force without due process.
Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the petition for the nullity of any such order and the special civil actions filed by petitioners.
Whether the respondents must be enjoined to recall these special teams and restrained from deploying them further.