The Manila International Airport is planningnto install come 2012 full body scanners to our airports. This is to bolster up the security in relation to the worlwide spread of terrorism. But the question we must ask is legal? Would it be tantamount to an illegal search and therfoeer nullify the right of the people against unreasinable searches and seizures enshrined in our very own Constitution.
Our 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 provides 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 shall be inviolable.... This curtailment to the power of the state is furthermore enshrined in our Rules of Court providing for the procedure in so far as to the what would be a legal search and seizure.
I am not saying that the MIAA has no reason at all in trying to push with the purchase of the said equipment, the intent is noble enough for the security of the people. But i would like to quote Rep. Rufus Rodriguez in saying that " that the primary asset to be safeguarded and trerasured is the person and his integrity,.
Imagine a machine that would scan you and would produce a picture of you naked or something out of a x-ray, and the worst part of it is that behind that device there is a person watching you., if it would be a computer which would sort out the results then i guess there is no problem, but in this case another would be watching. In some other jursidictions strip searching has been declared unconstitutional for its violation to the persons honor and integrity specially to the women, and other religious sects? Is the full body scanner would just be a en mass strip search.?
Second point would be that, is everyone should undergo the scanner or those people who security personnel in airports deems it necessary.Again is it not a violation against unreasonable searches. In our jurisdiction for a person to be subjected to a valid serach a judge must first issue a search warrant this right enshrined in our constitution, second would be id a person is commiting a crime, then maybe he couldnbe validly searched. granting arguendo that stopmand frisk is a valid search but is the same would strip search and the so called scanner machine. this is a question that must be answered.
Another good point to tackle is thus concerning our brother and sister who are islams, in thier religion, their bible enshrines that both men and women should cover their private parts. if they would be subjected to this there would be a conflict intheir religious belief , again it runs contrary to the constitutonal grant of that "no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession, shall be forever be allowed. no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights..
My last point would be the threatnof those machine in thw health of those who would be undergoing in it. a group in america IAEA released a research that the scanners raises the percentage ofmpregnancyn illness and causes a high risk of acquiring cancer.. is it not provided for in Article II of our constitution in relatin to sections 15 that the state shall protect the right to health of the people and instill health consciusness amng them
Disclaimer... I am not a lawyer, what have been written is just the opinion of the writer... And for the purposemofncmplyong a requirement in school...
In our jurisdiction for a person to be validly searched there must be a search warrant issued by a judge, or when a person is committing a crime. Given arguendo that
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento