BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW

REVISITING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF

SECTION 21, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
“COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002” IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS OF DRUG-RELATED CRIMES IN THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

JURIS DOCTOR 4-A
FOR THE THESIS CLASS

SUBMITTED BY:

CAPISONDA, CLAIRE IRIS J.

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Page

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Over many decades, illicit drug trade as well as its use has grown exponentially. This
wicked phenomenon that initially took its shine during the world’s period of colonization as a
mode to increase performance and fighting capabilities of soldiers, has now become a social
dilemma that placed the society at the face of destruction and accordingly, morphed into one
of the biggest headaches of governments, as in the case of the Philippines.

Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972

This was the very situation that pressed the Philippine Legislature to enact Republic Act
No. 6425 otherwise known as “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” to address and combat this
unfaithful menace. During this time, the drug problem was just at its initial stage, with only
20,000 drug users and among them, marijuana as the top choice. Acts penalized under this law
include use, possession, sale, importation, manufacturing of dangerous drugs etc.

The late President Ferdinand Marcos, following the proclamation of Martial law and the
promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 44, amending certain sections in R.A. 6425, organized
DDB or the Dangerous Drugs Board under the Office of the President. In the said decree, the
Board, constituting seven (7) national agencies in the country, was created under a mandate
that it shall be the policy-making and coordinating agency as well as the national clearing
house on all matters pertaining to law enforcement and control of dangerous drugs, treatment
and rehabilitation of drug dependents, and research and statistics on the drug problem.

In 1982, through Batas Pambansa 179, another procedural amendment was made to
the prevailing drugs law. It itemized prohibited drugs and its derivatives, and narcotics
BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Page

equipment whether prepared for use or not were classified as dangerous drugs. During the
same span, the rise on the number of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu users was
seen which prompted the government to heighten its fight against drug abuse.

However, as the years passed by, the official number of drug users in the Philippines,
as released by DDB, still continued to escalate. In 1999, it was estimated that 3.4 million of the
Filipino population are drug users.

Years prior, a number of legislators, including then Senator Robert Z. Barbers, have
recognized the necessity to repeal existing drugs law in order to address the demand of the
current Philippine drug situation and make it more standardized to the international trends in
battling this threat.

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

On June 7, 2002, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law the
“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” more generally known as R.A. No. 9165.
Nevertheless, its enactment encountered tough sailing. The push to amend R.A. 6425 can be
traced back from the Eighth Congress, and after an unavoidable decade of being shelved as
the Legislature during that time turned its attention to other equally important concerns, it
finally came through during the term of the Twelfth Congress senators.

Essentially, it should be noted that R.A. 9165 is a consolidation of fourteen (14) bills
related to illegal drugs that were filed in the Senate. The contents and provisions of these bills
have been merged into one to provide extensive approach to eradicate dangerous drugs. The
bills that formed part of the consolidation are the following:

1. Senate Bill No. 880 filed by Senator Barbers;

2. Senate Bill No. 99 introduced by Sen. Juan Flavier, which sought to include
certain drug preparations as dangerous drugs;
BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Page

3. Senate Bill No. 225 filed by Sen. Sergio Osmena III, which sought to reduce
the quantities of prohibited drugs for the application of penalties;

4. Senate Bill No. 472 introduced by Sen. Vicente Sotto III on the creation of a
Presidential Drug Enforcement Agency;

5. Senate Bill No. 474, filed as well by Sen. Sotto III which called for the
compulsory confinement, treatment and rehabilitation of drug dependents;

6. Senate Bill No. 501 of Sen. Sotto III, to prohibit the importation, sale,
distribution and cultivation of opium poppy;

7. Senate Bill No. 581, introduced by Sen. Loren Legarda-Leviste sought the
forfeiture of property from the distribution of and manufacture of dangerous
drugs;

8. Senate Bill No. 596, also by Sen. Legarda-Leviste which sought to the creation
of PDEA;

9. Senate Bill No. 679, again by Sen. Legarda-Leviste which sought to penalize
law enforcers in the planting of evidence for drug cases;

10. Senate Bill No. 888, introduced by Sen. Robert Barbers on the institutional
responsibility of law enforcers to give testimony in drug cases;

11. Senate Bill No. 1016 by Sen. Manuel Villar, Jr. which sought to ensure
standards in the quality assurance of drug problems;

12. Senate Bill No. 1217 by Sen. Ramon Revilla on the application of penalties
regardless of quantity and purity of dangerous drugs;

13. Senate Bill No. 1260 introduced by Sen. Luisa Ejercito Estrada which required
random drug testing within government law enforcement agencies; and

14. Senate Bill No. 1612 introduced by Vicente Sotto III on the inclusion of shabu
in the definition and classification of dangerous drugs.

Salient Features of R.A. 9165

There are several new salient features contained in R.A. No. 9165. For one, as compared
to R.A. 6425, the new law has a provision on the Declaration of Policy, in order to highlight and
rationalize the State’s determination to solve the drug problem and this is embodied in Section
2 which provides that:
BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Page

“It is the policy of the State to safeguard the integrity of its territory and
the well-being of its citizenry particularly the youth, from the harmful effects
of dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-being, and to defend the
same against acts or omissions detrimental to their development and
preservation…”

In addition, it also imposes heavier penalties and lowers the threshold amount for the
possession of illicit drugs, and contains provisions that deny from the accused probation and
plea-bargaining, together with the classification of the same as a non-bailable offense. It
introduces, furthermore, the imposition of maximum penalties on members of law
enforcement agencies found to be guilty of planting evidence, those involved in illegal drugs
or those who refuse to testify in cases where they are instrumental to the arrest.

Another noticeable feature in the said law are the expansion of membership of the
Board to embrace the agencies such as the Department of Interior and Local Government,
Department of Labor and Employment, Department of Foreign Affairs, Commission on Higher
Education, National Youth Commission, and the newly created Presidential Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) which shall be its implementing arm and where all operating
units existing law enforcement agencies involved in the movement against illegal drugs is
centralized.

Implementation of R.A. 9165

Based on the yearly statistics provided by the Board, even upon the passage of R.A.
9165, the number of drug users nationwide intensified from 3.4 million in 1999, to 5.8 million
in 2002, and further increased in the year 2004 with 6.7 million. However, in
BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Page

2012, the figure has dramatically dropped to 1.3 million – or a total decline of 81% in eight
years. DDB attributed the sharp decline to supply and demand reduction efforts of the law
enforcement agencies.

Notably, the number of drug-related raids and arrests in 2014 were also the highest
since 2004. In the similar year, the number of admissions into drug rehabilitation confinements
likewise increased to 10,000 as compared to year 2008 which only had 2,000.

In spite of all these glorious numbers which signified accomplishments and victory on
the part of the Government in its battle against dangerous drugs, loopholes or problems

Problems that eventually arose

Thorough discussion of Sec. 21 & its defects
PDEA
Implementing Rules and Regulations Amending Sec. 21
PROBLEM, such IRR did not address the other defects or loopholes, this thesis, to identify
remedies

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Page

This study attempts to answer the primary question: The implementation

This resolve this main issue, sub-question were formulated, to wit:

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

SCOPE AND LIMITATION

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Concepts
PDEA and IRR passed t
US and other countries
Seizure
Agencies or institutions mandated to implement such law
Statistics of drug use
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/144331-data-drug-problem-philippines

Past Presidents and current president fight against drugs. How were they?

How drugs affect national security/health state

How drugs are obtained/distributed
Buy bust operations history/development

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

 BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Page

When problem on drugs started

Drug Situation of the Phil before passage of Drugs Act
Passage
Agencies or institutions mandated to implement such law

In 1972, the drug problem was just at its incipient stage, with only 20,000 drug users and
marijuana as the top choice among the users in the Philippines. This was the drug scenario when Republic Act
6425, otherwise known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” was approved on March 30, 1972.

Following the proclamation of Martial Law and the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 44, amending RA
6425, the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos, organized the Dangerous Drugs Board on November 14, 1972
under the Office of the President.

The DDB was mandated to be the policy-making and coordinating agency as well as the national clearing house
on all matters pertaining to law enforcement and control of dangerous drugs; treatment and rehabilitation of
drug dependents; drug abuse prevention, training and information; research and statistics on the drug problem
and the training of personnel engaged in these activities.

Seven national agencies in the country formed part of the Dangerous Drugs Board. These are the Department
of Health, Department of Social Service and Development, Department of Education, Culture and Sports,
Department of Justice, Department of National Defense, Department of Finance and the National Bureau of
Investigation.

In the same year, Presidential Proclamation No. 1192 declaring every second week of November of every year
as Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Week, was promulgated. This, we celebrate every year along with our
anniversary.

Since its creation, the DDB has led the national advocacy against drug abuse by establishing a responsive and
dynamic partnership between the government and the society.
 BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Page

From law enforcement to preventive education and treatment and rehabilitation – the seventies have been
witnessed to a number of programs launched by the Board in partnership with other agencies and
organizations.

In 1982, another procedural amendment to RA 6425 was made through Batas Pambansa 179 which itemized
prohibited drugs and its derivatives. Narcotics preparations such as opiates, opium poppy straw, leaves or
wrappings, whether prepared for use or not were classified as dangerous drugs.

The number of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu users was also seen to have increased in this decade.
Given this, the government with the help of other social agencies have also heightened drug abuse prevention
and information program.

The new millennium has truly brought a lot of changes including in the field of drug prevention and control. In
2002, Republic Act 9165 or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” repealed RA 6425.

RA 9165 expanded the membership of the Board to include the agencies such as the Department of Interior
and Local Government, Department of Labor and Employment, Department of Foreign Affairs, Commission
on Higher Education, National Youth Commission, and the newly established Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency. The law also streamlined the functions of the Board and ushered in new programs and initiatives.

Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them. c ralaw