the confusely theorized search

Edward Hopper. A Room in New York. National Gallery of Art. Right-clicked from www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2007 searched thru www.artcyclopedia.com

    [Update: As  of 4:11 pm or after i wrote the following post, NBI denied it conducted a search and said only one NBI agent was sent to the former office of ZTE deal witness Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada to deliver a letter asking for his papers such as his 201 file (– from ABS-CBN News Channel.) In any case, no independent determination has been made regarding the news report that a raid was conducted.]          

       The  only way that the warrantless search (“raid”) of the former office of ZTE deal witness Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada  conducted by the operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation could be legally justified is: if it were consensual, i.e., the lawful owners/ possessors/ occupants consented to the warrantless search. Of course, since he is no longer the president and CEO of Philippine Forest Corporation, someone else (an OIC or the corporate vice president or the building administrator or whoever is authorized by the articles of incorporation to succeed if no one has yet been appointed) has the authority to give that consent. If that consent was not given on the spot when the warrantless search was conducted, it would be fairly easy to “convince” that person in charge to say that the search was consensual (or to ratify it; or to not file any complaints against the NBI).   

        The rules require a warrant in case of a search by law-enforcement authorities; exceptions are: consensual searches, checkpoints (Valmonte vs. De Villa with three dissents), border searches (ports of entry, etc.); “stop-and-frisk” on probable cause; and search incident to a lawful arrest.      

       The DOJ Secretary said in an interview (www.abs-cbnnews.com) that he did not order the NBI to conduct such a warrantless search, but, he said, in any case , no warrant was necessary in that search because, he said, “a crime was being committed” (presumably in the office seached?) and therefore the law-enforcement authorities can  conduct a warrantless search; and that it was a public office and therefore no warrant was required.       

          What crime was being committed inside when the NBI broke into the premises and entered and searched the papers and effects? What crime?     

      If indeed a crime was being committed inside (what crime) who are the  malefactors?  Or those who are committing the crime. Who were committing the crime inside?  The employees? The officer-in-charge? Or, is it a crime that has no human malefactors? The crime was happening by itself without any malefactors? Geez, help me out here, maybe there’s such a thing: It was a crime that was happening by itself without any malefactors. The objects were moving by themselves and causing a crime to happen, don’t you get it?      

         Or maybe,  since what was searched was Mr. Lozada’s papers and effects (the DOJ secretary presumed so),  the DOJ secretary theorized that a crime was happening inside  because,  he thinks that Mr. Lozada was in the process of committing a crime when his papers and effects continue to be inside the building. What crime was that? The table drawers’s illegal possession of the papers and effects of Mr. Lozada. Yes, that’s the crime. Except that i don’t know whether the table  and drawers  were mirandized  before they/ these were arrested then searched.     

       Even the search for contrabands  (or drugs or illegally possessed guns) require a search warrant  UNLESS the contraband or drugs or gun are in plain view, under the “plain-view doctrine” , or they are on the surface and readily seen without a search.    

           Presumably, the papers and effects are not contraband; maybe the DOJ thinks they are evidence of something; but evidence of something, especially papers and effects, does not  a contraband  make (unless maybe if they were counterfeit money, but you still need a warrant for that unless as i said they were in plain view.)     

        (To summarize: I think the DOJ secretary is confusing “search incident to a lawful arrest”; and  breaking enclosures to effect a valid arrest (you have to make the lawful arrest before  the  search); and  the “plain-view doctrine.” I could just have said that in the beginning, you know,  instead of following through his convoluted logic and confused procedure by writing hyperboles  but i thought it was funny.)     

         What is probably hilarious is the DOJ secretary shooting his mouth off, again, for the nth time, without checking how in fact  the raid was conducted, and presuming the NBI agents went over his head, and accepting it was alright, because it involved Jun Lozada, it was  fine to bypass him; just like (if the testimony of Jun Lozada were true), when Lito Atienza last month assured Jun Lozada that he had talked to the Immigration Commissioner to just let him in without alert; the Immigration Commissioner being under the supervision and control of the DOJ secretary. But who cares  anyway if a powerful person  bypassed the DOJ secretary here and there and always went over his head?