|
ARE rice
traders objecting to the raids and inspections of the
National Food Authority (NFA) because they have no
warrant?
The
Department of Justice said their objections are on a
very shaky ground. In its legal opinion, it affirmed the
authority of the NFA to inspect warehouses and order the
seizure and public sale of hoarded rice even without a
warrant issued by the court.
Justice
Secretary Raul Gonzalez, in response to a request of the
NFA, said in the opinion that the NFA’s power to seize
hoarded rice stocks is recognized not just under
Presidential Decree 4, as amended, but also under
Republic Act 3452, or “An Act to Stabilize the Price of
Palay, Rice and Corn,” and RA 7581, the law against
hoarding and price manipulation.
Acknowledging the constitutional provision against
unreasonable searches and seizures, so that the general
rule is that a court warrant should be first procured,
he said a search-and-seizure warrant is not necessary,
however, when the search and seizure is incidental to a
lawful arrest, or is contemporaneous with an arrest.
Gonzalez
said the arrest could be carried out with an arrest
warrant or without warrant if the situation justifies
such detention, such as when a person is caught in the
act of committing a crime.
With the
NFA vested with authority to inspect and take records of
rice stocks, and to enter warehouses—for which there is
no need for judicial warrant—then if in the course of
such an inspection they discover hoarded rice, the hoard
can be justifiably seized without warrant with the
application of the “plain view” doctrine, according to
the justice secretary.
“It is
thus submitted that when the NFA, in the exercise of its
authority to enter, inspect and take records of rice
stocks, inadvertently comes upon rice under such
circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe the hoarding and/or other related
offenses has been committed, then it would be legally
possible for the NFA to arrest the offender for the in
flagrante commission of hoarding and/or other related
offenses, to forthwith seize the hoarded rice as
discovered, for use as evidence of the crime and
disposal in the manner provided for by law,” added the
legal opinion he issued.
In
further response to the request of NFA Administrator
Jessup Navarro, the DOJ opinion defined what constitutes
hoarding, and said the National Bureau of Investigation,
under a memorandum of agreement dated April 1, 2008, is
lawfully deputized by the NFA to assist in the
implementation of PD 4 against hoarding, inspect
warehouses and file criminal cases against violators.
Based on
the Revised Rules and Regulations on Grains Business,
Gonzalez said there is prima facie evidence of hoarding
when a person has actual stocks which are 50 percent
higher than his usual inventory, and there is
unreasonable refusal or failure to sell these stocks to
the general public.
He added
that possessing rice stocks without a license from the
NFA will also point to rice hoarding. “Thus, a person’s
actual possession of rice stocks without the necessary
NFA authority should logically merit probable cause to
believe the person is committing the offense of rice
hoarding under PD No. 4, as amended, and should be
arrested therefore.” |
