NINETEENTH CONGRESS   
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session  
 
) 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez 
House Bill No.  _____ 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
This amendment to Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) 9165, as amended by RA 10640, is sought 
on the grounds of conflict of interest, lack of personnel, lack of resources and the risks 
involved. Moreover, it is also sought to remove an operational hindrance to the effectiveness 
and efficiency of anti-drug operations conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency 
(PDEA) and Philippine National Police (PNP). 
The apparent conflict of interest arises because of the requirement that before cases are 
brought to court against those apprehended and/or those who are subjects of anti-drug 
operations, these cases are filed before the Offices of City and Provincial Prosecutors for 
inquest proceedings or preliminary investigation. Thus, requiring a representative of the 
National Prosecution Service (NPS) to be present during the physical inventory, conducted 
immediately after seizure and confiscation, and to sign the copies of the inventory seems to 
commit the Prosecution Office (under NPS) to the regularity of the anti-drug operation since 
the representative is an organic employee of the office. Respondents in these drugs cases 
can question the impartiality of the Office in the determination of the validity of the arrest in 
inquest proceedings or the finding of probable cause in preliminary investigations since an 
employee of the office is essentially a witness in the inventory of the drugs and/or other 
evidence seized, Incidentally, the presence of court employees in anti-drug operations has 
never been considered because of possible conflict of interest. 
The Prosecution Offices under NPS are also troubled by the lack of personnel to particularly 
focus on these anti-drug operations. Considering that some of these operations are conducted 
in far-flung areas in the provinces and prosecution offices are usually located in the provincial 
capital or a component city, it takes considerable travel time for an NPS employee to be 
present as a witness. The Prosecution Office is deprived of this precious time for the 
performance of equally important tasks by said NPS employee. Even in highly urbanized 
areas, the attendance of NPS employees as required by Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, 
requires significant travel time. 
Moreover, NPS personnel involved are not supplied with vehicles or transportation when they 
attend to the requirements of Section 21, RA 9165, as amended. Some of these anti-drug 
operations are conducted in the wee hours of the morning when it is very difficult to avail of 
public transport in many areas of the country. Aside from travel woes, there is also no 
corresponding allowance for these NPS personnel to answer for the expenses incurred as a 
result of attending to these "witness duties." 
Most importantly, NPS employees, who are not authorized to be armed during these "witness 
duties", are exposed to danger. These anti-drug operations are mostly conducted in areas 
where the subjects of the operations are residents and who are sometimes armed. Unlike the 
personnel of PDEA, PNP and other law enforcement agencies, NPS personnel are not trained 
in combat, are unarmed, and do not have safety gears, such as bulletproof vests and helmets. 
Thus, they participate in these operations at their peril. 
December 6, 2022
8:00 am
6499


Consequently, in relation to the foregoing, NPS personnel are hesitant to be present during 
anti-drug operations. This makes it difficult for PDEA, PNP or other law enforcement units to 
secure the presence of an NPS representatives thus, hampering the effectiveness and 
efficiency of planned anti-drug operations. 
In view of the foregoing, immediate approval of the measure is earnestly sought. 
RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ 


NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session 
) 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez 
House Bill No.  _____ 
AN ACT 
AMENDING SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC 
ACT 10640, BY REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRESENCE OF A 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DURING ANTI-DRUG 
OPERATIONS 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Republic of the Philippines 
in Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. Paragraph (1) of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the 
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, is 
hereby amended to read as follows: 
“SEC. 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 
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, 
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately 
after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized 
items 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, with an elected public official and a 
representative of [the National Prosecution Service or] the media who shall 
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: 
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted 
at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police 
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever 
is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That 
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as 
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly 
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and 
invalid such seizures and custody over said items 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
SEC. 2. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). – To implement effectively the provisions 
of Section 21, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) shall issue the necessary 
6499


guidelines on the IRR for the purpose in consultation with the Department of Justice (DO J) 
and relevant sectors to curb increasing drug cases. 
 
SEC. 3. Separability Clause. – If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, 
the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and 
subsisting. 
 
SEC. 4. Repealing Clause. – All laws, presidential decrees or issuances, executive orders, 
letters of instruction, administrative orders, rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent 
with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly. 
 
SEC. 5. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication 
in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
 
Approved,