MENDIOLA, Reyzen Paul Unite

1G

Closet Justice

“The law is reason free from passion. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals,
but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.”

Aristotle

Season 3, episode 19 of the legal drama The Practice tested our moral compasses. As
much as we want to sympathize with Ms. Helen, even with her roommate Ms. Linday, as
much as we want to believe her convictions, the existence of the constitutional provision on
rights against unreasonable search and seizures safeguards the felon Kingston from
conviction. Truth be told, being a 1 st year student of law, I was not expecting for an ethical
dilemma to arise this early. Respect for law in this case causes tears of despair.

An unreasonable search and seizure is a search and seizure by a law enforcement

officer without a search warrant and without probable cause to believe that evidence of a
crime is present. In the US, an unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional as it
violates the Fourth Amendment. This evidence is referred to as fruit of the poisonous tree.
In Mapp v Ohio, the Supreme Court held that exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained
from an unreasonable search and seizure.

Even in the Philippines, the right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined by

implication in our Constitution. It has many dimensions. One of its dimensions is its
protection through the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures in Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution. In People v Cogaed, the Court iterated, ‘Evidence obtained
through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence because it is "the only practical
means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and
seizures." It ensures that the fundamental rights to one’s person, houses, papers, and
effects are not lightly infringed upon and are upheld.’

There are instances, however, when searches and seizures are not deemed
unreasonable even in the absence of a search warrant. In the case of People v Tudtud, the
Court enumerated: (1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest (Sec. 12, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Court); (2) Search of evidence in plain view; (3) Search of a moving vehicle; (4)

1
MENDIOLA, Reyzen Paul Unite
1G

Consented warrantless search; (5) Customs search; (6) Stop and frisk; and (7) Exigent and
emergency circumstances.

In the show, Judge Hiller must choose between allowing illegally obtained evidence
to be used in a murder case, or refusing it thus following a precedent set by the Supreme
Court concerning warrant requirements. Deciding against the use of evidence obtained in a
warrantless search would not only challenge case law, but would immediately put an end
to the trial at hand, freeing Kingston. Her decision therefore concerns the threat of danger
Kingston presents to society were he to be set free.

This now presents us the question ‘What good is legal knowledge if it is used to free
a crook?’ This question is shown to be a moment of impasse, of crisis, of both personal and
professional conflict, a dilemma both the prosecuting attorney, Ms. Helen, and the defense
counsel, Ms. Lindsay, feels. As I have stated earlier, I sympathize with both of them.

However, even if a corpse that was stabbed thirty times was found inside Kingston’s
closet, applying the exemptions of right against unreasonable search and seizures, such is
not admissible and cannot be used against him. It should be noted that midway through the
show, the facts of the case at hand stated that the woman found by the police officer who
responded to 911 is not a resident of the place and when he pried the closet open, there
was no emergency circumstance. It is therefore neither consented nor was there an exigent
or emergency circumstance.

This brings us now to the quote ‘The law is reason free from passion.’ Ms. Lindsay is
disgusted by the fact that she was assigned to defend Kingston. Judge Hiller made a very
difficult and controversial decision. Even I was at the edge of my seat, rooting for Ms. Helen,
rooting for the Judge’s decision to be rendered in favor of the nuns. However, that’s not
what the law says. The law is often perceived by the public as technical, efficient and cold.
The question of what is right in today’s ever more rapidly changing world subjects
everyone, without exception, to evaluative judgment. The law is harsh but it is the law and
to exclude Kingston from the safeguards of the law violates his rights. Sure, it is disgusting
he mutilated a nun, maybe even in cold blood, but it does not give us the right to exclude
him from the protection of the law.

2
MENDIOLA, Reyzen Paul Unite
1G

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in the case of Olmstead v U.S., said, ‘It is desirable
that criminals should be detected, and to that end that all available evidence should be
used. x x x x x I think it a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the
government should play an ignoble part. It is simply not allowed in free society to violate a
law to enforce another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself.’ The Bill of
Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their
rights as human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes
meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights, contained as it is in Article III of the
Constitution, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law way above the articles
on governmental power.

I could feel that you feel the judge should have rendered a different decision. It’s
what I feel. However, being a practitioner of law, we should always remember that we are
bound by its rules. We should set aside our personal principles and always be objective
with our choices. Should we choose to disregard it, we are then nothing more than a vile
beast, incapable of comprehending reason. For justice to be served, we should always be
impartial. And as a student of law, this could be a start for me.

Bibliography:

1. Masson, Antoine and O’Connor, Kevin (2007). Representations of Justice. Brussels,

Belgium: Peter Lang.
2. People v Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037. September 26, 2003
3. Valdez v People, G.R. No. 170180. November 23, 2007
4. People v Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334. July 30, 2014
5. Olmstead v U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 470. 1927
6. Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643. June 19, 1961
7. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex