SPONSORSHIP SPEECH

Mr. President, Honorable colleagues:

I seek approval of Senate Bill No. 2273 under Committee Report No. 45 entitled "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002". It has been more than 12 years now since we passed the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, and our experience requires certain adjustments so that we can plug the loopholes under our existing law. The statistics of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency show that there have been 1,538 drug-related cases that were either dismissed or resulted in acquittals. Pinpointed as the basis of these court actions is Section 21 of RA 9165, which reads as follows:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

The failure to preserve the integrity of the seized illegal drugs is linked closely to the failure to follow the procedure laid down in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 concerning the inventory, custody and control of seized illegal drugs.

Former Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) Undersecretary Clarence P. Oaminal has estimated that approximately 70 to 80 percent of the drug-related cases filed in courts tend to be dismissed on account of above provision. There are prosecutors and judges who interpret the law liberally and others who construe it very strictly. To avoid further confusion, it is better that the law be amended to ensure standard implementation of the law, specifically Section 21 (a) of RA 9165.

Numerous drug trafficking activities can be traced to operations of highly organized and powerful local and international syndicates. The presence of such syndicates that have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault to apprehending law enforcers makes the requirement of Section 21 (a) impracticable for law enforcers to comply with. It makes the place of seizure extremely unsafe for the proper inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs. Section 21(a) of Republic Act No. 9165 needs to be amended to address the foregoing situation where the safety of the law enforcers and other persons required to be present in the inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs and the preservation of the very existence of seized illegal drugs itself are threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of drug syndicates at the place of seizure. The place where the seized drugs may be inventoried and photographed has to include a location where the seized drugs as well as the persons who are required to be present during the inventory and photograph are safe and secured from extreme danger.

It is proposed that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of seized illegal drugs be allowed to be conducted either in the place of seizure or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending law enforcers. The proposal will provide effective measures to ensure the integrity of seized illegal drugs since a safe location makes it more probable for an inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs to be properly conducted, thereby reducing the incidents of dismissal of drug cases due to technicalities.

Non-observance of the prescribed procedures should not automatically mean that the seizure or confiscation is invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforcement officers could justify the same and could prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are not tainted. This is the effect of the inclusion of the phrase "justifiable grounds" in the proposed amendment. There are instances wherein there are no media people or representatives from the DOJ available and the absence of these witnesses should not automatically invalidate the drug operation conducted.

Our proposal to plug this loophole in our laws conveys our message to our society and to the world as we move towards a drug-resistant Philippines. This representation does not agree with the new wave of tolerance and accommodation towards marijuana and other mind blowing altering substances sweeping few countries in Europe and the United States.

We stand firm on this matter and this proposal will prove our resolve to stay our course. Thank you, and good afternoon.