REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
Third Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. 8313

Introduced by REPS. ENRICO A. PINEDA, MICHAEL ODYLON L. ROMERO, PhD.,
RICARDO “RJ” T. BELMONTE, SABINIANO S. CANAMA, RON P. SALO,
BENHUR B. LOPEZ, JR., TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, ANICETO BERTIZ,
TEODORO G. MONTORO, SALVADOR B. BELARO, JR., BENHUR B. LOPEZ, JR., VIRGILIO
S$, LACSON, MAKMOD D. MENDING, CARLOS ROMAN L. UYBARRETA, ORESTES T.
SALON, MANUEL LUIS T. LOPEZ, MYLENE GARCIA ALBANO AND RODOLFOT.
ALBANO II

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Philippines is one of the many jurisdictions with a low conviction rate and
such is attributed to the fact that not much evidence or tool for evidence gathering is
made available to our law enforcement officers. Apart from scarce equipment and
technology which is a farce compared to other advanced countries, the Philippines has a
legal environment that limits the capabilities and capacities of its able law enforcement
officers. There is a need to somewhat revisit our policy on evidence gathering and make
available to our law enforcement officers tools such as consensual recording which has
been proven effective in the United States of America (USA) in achieving their high
conviction rates and efficient crime prevention efforts.

In consensual recording, an officer who most often goes undercover or through an
informant, makes a telephone call or proceeds to a face to face meeting and personally
records his conversations with a certain person of interest without need of a court order.
In this type of evidence gathering, what is required is that the law enforcement officer or
the person under his authority makes the recording of a conversation of which they are
parties and in which a crime is being committed, discussed or at the very least alluded
to. This tool as used in the US justice system has proved to be an efficient tool to prosecute
or even prevent crimes such as drug trafficking, theft, public corruption and terrorism. It
has also helped protect the innocent as the recording, of the conversation would make it
difficult for law enforcement officers to misrepresent what had really transpired in the
conversation. Definitely, it would be a good means to prevent instances where law
enforcement officers allegedly plants evidence against suspected offenders.

It is believed that only with properly empowered law enforcement organization
focused and motivated of preserving peace and order could the country achieve a society
free from the dangers of crime. If they will be provided with this tool that has proved
effective in other territories, we may be on our way to achieve not only a high conviction
rate but more importantly, a low incidence of criminality.

Early passage of this bill is earnestly sought.

ENRICO A. PINEDA / MIC!
1-PACMAN

YYLON L. ROMERO, PhD
1-PACMAN


RICARDO “RJ” T. BELMONTE
SBP

KABAYAN vA

7

TOMASITO S. VILLARIN
AKBAYAN

4

TEODORO G. MONTORO
~ AASENSO 54

ene

ORESTES T. SALON
AGRI

MAKMOD D. MENDING, JR.
AMIN:

Mok d
Ast wey ao

Cae

RODOLFO T. ALBANO III
1* District, Isabela

SABINIANO S. CANAMA
COOP-NATCCO

4

BENHURB. LOPEZ, JR.
L YACAI

BERTIZ

ACTS-OFW C

7 -. 04
SALVADOR B. BELARO, JR.
1-ANG EDUKASYON

L.
VIRGILIQ S. LACSON
MANILA’ TEACHERS

CARLOS ROMAN L. UYBARRETA

1-CARE

MYLENE GARCIA-ALBANO
2nd District, Davao City _)


REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
Third Regular Session

HOUSE BILL No, _ 8313

Introduced by REPS. ENRICO A. PINEDA, MICHAEL ODYLON L. ROMERO, PhD.,
RICARDO “RJ” T. BELMONTE, SABINIANO S. CANAMA, RON P. SALO,
BENHUR B. LOPEZ, JR., TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, ANICETO BERTIZ,
TEODORO G. MONTORO, SALVADOR B. BELARO, JR., BENHUR B. LOPEZ, JR.,
VIRGILIO S. LACSON, MAKMOD D. MENDING, CARLOS ROMAN L. UYBARRETA,
ORESTES T. SALON, MANUEL LUIS T. LOPEZ, MYLENE GARCIA ALBANO AND
RODOLFO T. ALBANO III

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

AN ACT
ALLOWING FOR SINGLE PARTY CONSENSUAL RECORDING IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT

Section 1. Title. This act shall be known as the “Consensual Recording for Law
Enforcement Act of 2018”.

Section 2. Consensual Recording by Law Enforcement Officer. A law enforcement officer
is authorized to record an oral communication to which the officer or a person under the
direct supervision of the officer is a party. For purposes of this section, a person is a party
to an oral conversation if the oral communication is directed to such person or through
telephone or other similar means, or is made in the person’s immediate presence and is
audible to the person regardless of whether the communication is specifically directed to
such person.

Section 3. Admissibility of Consensual Recording. No recording made under this act
shall be admissible in court unless it is proven that the recording presented is of the entire
conversation free from any alterations. It shall be made part of the recording, a recitation
of the circumstances including the identity of the person making the recording, the date
time and place where the recording is made, the person or persons subject of the
recording, and the offense for which the recording is being made.

Section 4. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, executive orders, administrative orders or
parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended
or modified accordingly

Section 5. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act is held invalid or
unconstitutional, other provisions not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force
and effect.

Section 6. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its
complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspaper of general

circulation.

Adopted,