The  case  at  bar  is  for  the  motion  for  partial  reconsideration  of  both petitioners and respondents of the SC’s decision that the questioned search warrant by petitioners is null and void, that respondents are enjoined from introducing  evidence  using  such  search  warrant,  but  such  personalities obtained  would  still  be  retained,  without  prejudice  to  petitioner  Aguilar-Roque.  Respondents contend that the search  warrant is valid and that it should  be  considered  in  the  context  of  the  crime  of  rebellion,  where  the warrant was based.  Petitioners on the other hand, on the part of petitioner Aguilar-Roque,  contend  that  a  lawful  search  would  be  justified  only  by  a lawful  arrest.    And  since  there  was  illegal  arrest  of  Aguilar-Roque,  the search  was  unlawful  and  that  the  personalities  seized  during  the  illegal search should be returned to the petitioner.  The respondents, in defense, concede that the search warrants were null and void but the arrests were not.  



"Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . . section shall be inadmissible for  any  purpose  in  any  proceeding"  (Sec.  4[2]).  This  constitutional mandate expressly adopting the exclusionary rule has proved by historical experience  to  be  the  only  practical  means  of  enforcing  the  constitutional injunction  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures  by  outlawing  all evidence illegally seized and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state  and  police  officers  to  disregard  such  basic  rights.  What  the  plain language of the Constitution mandates is beyond the power of the courts to change  or  modify.  All  the  articles  thus  seized  fall  under  the  exclusionary rule totally and unqualifiedly and cannot be used against any of the three petitioners.