URSULA I.

CALIPAYAN (LLB 1)

A one page summary Republic Act No. 9165- The Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002
Audience: College Students majoring in Dentistry

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or Republic Act No. 9165 was
signed into law on January 23, 2002. It derives its purpose from the states responsibility to take
care of its citizens especially the minors from the dangers of dangerous drugs that would be
detrimental to their well being.
The major unlawful acts under the said Act are the ff:
Importation of Dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals
The act of selling, trading, distributing, transferring, delivering or acting as broker of
prohibited items mentioned in the preceding paragraph
The said RA gives the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) the responsibility in the policy and
program making on drug prevention and control. It also creates the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) which will be the implementing arm of Dangerous Drug Board (DDB).
To the future practitioners of Dentistry, it must be duly noted that this act confers some
responsibilities and duties that a dentist must do. This is to ensure that the end goal of this Act
will be achieved.
Below are the responsibilities and duties as expressly stated in the said RA:
Under Section 18 A dentist who prescribes unnecessary dangerous drugs shall be
imprisoned ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) and his/her license shall be subject for revocation. Unnecessary prescription
shall be determined by the DDB after consultation with recognized competent experts.
Under Section 40, a dentist authorized to prescribe any dangerous drug shall issue the
prescription therefore in one (1) original and two (2) duplicate copies. The original, after the
prescription has been filled, shall be retained by the pharmacist for a period of one (1) year from
the date of sale or delivery of such drug. One (1) copy shall be retained by the buyer or by the
person to whom the drug is delivered until such drug is consumed, while the second copy shall
be retained by the person issuing the prescription. Failure to comply with this requirement shall
have a penalty of imprisonment ranging from from one (1) year and one (1) day to six (6) years
and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00). Additional penalty maybe the revocation of the license.
Also, all prescriptions shall be made using the forms exclusively issued by the Department of
Health or DOH. It must contain important information as may deem by DOH. The exception to
this requirement is when there is an emergency case and in the sake of public interest, the
dentist may make prescriptions not accomplished in the required forms. However, the dentist
shall inform the DOH in writing within three (3 days) from the issuance of prescription.
Under Section 81, dentists are required by the DDB to submit a report regarding all related
matters on dangerous drugs, precursors and essential chemicals that the dentists have been
working on for statistics and research purpose.
Under Section 84, dentists are required to submit a report to PDEA regarding all dangerous
drugs, precursors and essential chemicals related cases that dentists have encountered for data
and information purposes.
For strict compliance.
 A one page summary Republic Act No. 9165- The Comprehensive Dangerous Act
of 2002
Audience: PDEA AND PNP officers and employees
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or Republic Act No. 9165 was
signed into law on January 23, 2002. It derives its purpose from the states responsibility to take
care of its citizens especially the minors from the dangers of dangerous drugs that would be
detrimental to their well being.
The major unlawful acts under the said Act are the ff:
Importation of Dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals
The act of selling, trading, distributing, transferring, delivering or acting as broker of
prohibited items mentioned in the preceding paragraph
The said RA gives the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) the responsibility in the policy and
program making on drug prevention and control. It also creates the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) which will be the implementing arm of Dangerous Drug Board (DDB).
To PDEA and PNP officers and employees, it must be duly noted that this act confers some
responsibilities and duties that PDEA and PNP officers and employees must do. Below are
highlights of such duties:

The PDEA shall take charge in the custody and disposition of the unlawful items as
prescribed this act. Within 24 hours from receipt, PDEA shall destruct said items.
The PDEA shall implement programs for the active and effective implementation to
control and prevent drug cases with the help of other government agencies such as the
Philippine National Police or PNP. This includes arresting violators and confiscating
proceeds from the crimes. Thus, enforcement agents may possess firearm in
accordance with existing laws.
The PDEA shall establish forensic laboratories in each PNP office in every province and
cities. Both PDEA and PNP shall hasten the destruction of the unlawful items.
The PDEA and PNP shall maintain a drug intelligence system especially to apprehend
the big time drug lords.
The Narcotics Group of the PNP is already abolished however, PNP shall continue with
the performance of their tasks together with the PDEA until such time that PDEA is
already sufficient in terms of people to do the task themselves. When that time comes,
personnel affected may request for the integration with PDEA.
The PNP shall practice its investigative powers in respect to their original duties as PNP.
If found that there is a violation in the said investigation, the PDEA shall be the lead
agency. In this case, PNP must maintain close coordination with PDEA.
The treatment and rehabilitation centers for drug dependents shall be maintained and
operated by the NBI and PNP with the coordination of Department of Health or DOH.
The chief of PNP , together with the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) shall be the permanent consultants and must attend all the meeting conducted by
the Dangerous Drug Board (DDB).

For strict compliance.

 A one page summary Republic Act No. 9165- The Comprehensive Dangerous Act
of 2002
Audience: Members of homeowners association

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or Republic Act No. 9165 was
signed into law on January 23, 2002. It derives its purpose from the states responsibility to take
care of its citizens especially the minors from the dangers of dangerous drugs that would be
detrimental to their well being.
The major unlawful acts under the said Act are the ff:
Importation of Dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals
The act of selling, trading, distributing, transferring, delivering or acting as broker of
prohibited items mentioned in the preceding paragraph
The said RA gives the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) the responsibility in the policy and
program making on drug prevention and control. It also creates the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) which will be the implementing arm of Dangerous Drug Board (DDB).
To members of homeowners association, it must be duly noted that this act confers some
responsibilities and duties that a member of homeowners must do. Below are highlights of such
duties:

Under Section 41, it is recognized that the family is the basic unit of the society. In line
with this, the family is responsible for the education and awareness of its members on
the negative effects of dangerous drugs. The head of the family must closely monitor
each member to ensure each is not using drug/s.
Any protector or coddler meaning who prevents the arrest, prosecution and conviction of
the violator, shall be imprisoned from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
All members of homeowners association who may apply for firearms license and permit
to carry firearms must undergo drug testing first.
Under Section 52, any place or premises which have been proved used on two or more
occasions as the site of the unlawful sale or delivery of dangerous drugs may be
declared to be a public nuisance, and such nuisance may be abated.
An administrative Board may receive complaints regarding the nuisances and the owner
of the said premises may defend his/her property by presenting evidence. However, if
proven, the place may be declared as a public nuisance. This would mean that the
premises would be prohibited to conduct, operate or maintain any business or activity
which is susceptible to such unlawful activities. This will expire after 1 year unless the
administrative board will request for a permanent injunction.
Under Section 73, a parent, spouse or guardian who without valid reason, refuse to
cooperate with the concerned agencies in the treatment and rehabilitation of a minor
drug dependent may be cited with contempt by the court.
Under Section 74, The parent, spouse, guardian or any relative within the fourth degree
of consanguinity of any person who is confined under the voluntary submission program
or compulsory submission program shall be charged a certain percentage of the cost of
his/her treatment and rehabilitation. The guidelines will be computed by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development ( DSWD) after taking into consideration
the economic status of the family.

For strict compliance.

Major arguments relied by the Supreme Court in resolving issue brought before it.
1. Lacanilao vs. Deleon, 147 SCRA 286

The court ruled in favour of the petitioner. The respondent was hereby disallowed in
discharging functions of a Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC.

Although respondent showed proof that we was recommended by the Vice President
and Minister of Foreign Affairs, such recommendation must be accepted by the
whole SEAFDEC council. A department Chief must be recognized and acceptable by
both host member country and the Council of the SEAFDEC. In this case, it was the
petitioner (not the respondent) who received the acceptance of the Council.
Though in the past, the Council has accepted recommendations of the host country,
this does not mean SEAFDEC Council cannot reject such nomination. This was also
stated in their constitutional document.

Furthermore, petitioner is entitled to the position of Chief of SEAFDEC for the

duration of his term as conferred to him or until the term has ended in consonance
with the applicable law or the regulations of the SEAFDEC.

Lastly, recommendation of the respondent is legally ineffective since there was no

vacancy of the position to which he was appointed. His nomination clearly did not
have the effect of removing the petitioner from his position as Chief of SEAFDEC.
The power to remove and appoint is conferred to the Council of SEAFDEC.

2. DECS vs. San Diego, 146 SCRA 4464

The court ruled in favour of the petitioner. The state has the responsibility to secure
the health and safety of the general community. Thus, the requirement to take and
pass first the medical board examinations before practicing medicine has long been
recognized a valid exercise of governmental power. Its objective is the upgrading
the selection of applicants and improving the quality of medical education in the
country.
The court ruled that the state can protect the public from potentially deadly effect of
incompetence and ignorance of medical practitioners. Thus, the right to quality
education cannot be invoked since the constitution also provides "every citizen has
the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and
equitable admission and academic requirements.
Since the respondent already failed more than three times, he must yield to those better
prepared since medical schools are already crowded. No depreciation of the ability of the
respondent is intended but the person must be for another profession or calling other
than the medical profession. The state shall also improve education by directing the
students to their correct course otherwise, the state will be swamped with mediocrity.

Lastly, there is no unequal protection since it requires equality among equals which is not
the case for the respondent. He cannot be equal with those who have passed the exam.
3. Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

The president in appointing Mison without submitting the nomination the Commission
on Appointments (COA), acted within the constitutional authority conferred to the
president. Thus, Mison has the full authority to exercise the functions of his office.

The court ruled that under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 constitution , there are
4 groups of officers whom the president can appoint. These are the ff:

1st group - , Appointment of executive departments and bureaus heads,

ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers with the consent and confirmation
of the COA.

2nd group - All other Government officers whose appointments are not otherwise
provided by law;

3rd group - Those whom the President may be authorized by the law to appoint;

4th group - Low-ranking officers whose appointments the Congress may by law vest
in the President alone.

Only the first group is clearly required of the approval of the COA as stated in the
constitution.
By following the accepted rule in constitutional and statutory construction, express
enumeration of subjects excludes others that are not enumerated. Thus, the
appointment of Mison does not require the approval of the COA.

Is there a difference between legal writing from creative writing?

There is a difference between legal writing and creative writing. One difference is
the style since in legal writing, main purpose is to inform, persuade often with the use
of technical terms. While in creative writing, purpose is to entertain thus, use of
flowery words may be applicable.

Clearly, legal writing is not creative writing. The latter is direct and precise with the
intent to be understood and not cause confusion especially in the form of contract. In
Creative Writing,
One may use use different styles to put creativity into his work. Furthermore, legal
writing is never a fiction. It uses references to support its statements while creative
writing maybe fictional and derived only from the imagination of the writer.
Diagnostic Exercise:
Which sentences below contain errors in subject and verb agreement?
Answer: The sentences in red fonts are those with errors.
1. The two opposing sides have presented their arguments. Is either argument tenable?
2. If I was the judge, I would rule in the negative.
3. There are currently one eyewitness and some documentary evidence to support their
argument.
4. Each of the three credible witnesses have signed the instrument.
5. Dr. Francisco, along with Atty. Lacuata and Mrs. Francisco, are on our deposition list.
6. The totality of injury that my client has suffered-the sleepless nights, the mental anxiety,
the pain, and the anguish-is not soon forgotten.
7. The father-in-laws deny the allegations in the complaint.
8. Lockhard and Gradner are a fictional law firm in a drama series.
9. Our bread and butter is the law.
10. Give and take is essential to a successful compromise, he said.
11. One of the defendants maintain that his signature was forged.
12. His stuttering as well as his inconsistencies are hurting the weight of his testimony.
13. What is needed is a few more corroborating witnesses.
14. The problem with his theory is its many loopholes.
15. The only sign of truth is the facts that can be shown in court.