me are = “Ga.
3 Receivep
* one, DEC 13 2016
TIME: M

Republic of the Philippines
House of Representatives
Quezon City

SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

First Regular Session

House Bill No. 4671

Introduced by Representative Jose Enrique S. Garcia III

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The all-out war unleashed by President Rodrigo R. Duterte against illegal drugs
has exposed the extent of the scourge which the President himself has estimated to
involve a staggering 3.7 million drug personalities.

This brings into question the efficacy of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002
(RA 6195) in fulfiling its avowed policy ‘to safeguard xxx the citizenry, particularly the
youth, from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-
being.” More than a decade after its passage, what was once regarded in the law as
‘one of today’s more serious social ills,” has worsened to become the most serious
problem which, according to the President, is out to “destroy” the country unless
decisively addressed.

On hindsight, it is not really difficult to know the reason why the campaign against
drugs has not been succeeding despite the comprehensive measures that the law
prescribes. Two (2) areas have been identified: the exceedingly slow grind of the
wheels of justice and the perceived lack of vigor and dedication in the prosecution of
drugs cases.

A noted former Director of Public Prosecutions in Victoria, Australia once
declared: “Do not imagine for one moment that longer and more punitive sentences are
the panacea to the troublesome crime rate. | am firmly convinced that the greatest
deterrent to crime is the certainty of detection coupled with the speedy dispensation of
justice. Over 3000 years ago, the wisest of all men, King Solomon wrote - "It is because
the sentence for wrongdoing is not executed quickly that men are encouraged to do
evil." Speedy justice as a deterrent is no new concept. “

It was precisely for such purpose that RA 9165 mandates in Section 90 thereof
that trial of cases involving violations of its provisions shall be finished not later than sixty
(60) days from the date of filing of information and the decision to be rendered within
fifteen (15) days from submission for resolution

|s this being observed and followed?


The said provision notwithstanding, a random search through the records of the
Supreme Court shows that the courts trying the cases governed by RA 9165 still take

some three (3) years or more to render their decisions.

To address this problem, the designation of special courts to exclusively try drugs.
cases should be required not only in each judicial region, as originally provided in the
law, but in every province and city where such cases comprise at least sixty (60) percent
of the total number of cases pending. The same requirement will be imposed on the
Department of Justice in the designation of special prosecutors,

On the other hand, Section 92 of the law is sought to be amended in order to
instill upon the law enforcement agents and prosecutors the distinct possibility of their
being held criminally answerable if they would bungle the prosecution of their cases.

This is in response to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of
People v. Joel Ancheta, et al, G.R. No. 197371, June 13, 2012

“The disposition of this case reminds us of our observation in People v.
Garcia, in which we took note of the statistics relating to dismissal and acquittal
in dangerous drugs cases. There we mentioned that [uJnder PDEA records, the
dismissals and acquittals accounted for 56% because of the failure of the police
authorities to observe proper procedure under the law, among others. We then
noted an international study conducted in 2008, which showed that out of
13,667 drug cases filed from 2003 to 2007, only 4,790 led to convictions (most
of which were cases of simple possession); the charges against the rest were
dismissed or the accused were acquitted. Our own data on the cases filed with
us from 2006 to 2011 show that, out of those in which this Court made
acquittals and reversals, 85% involved failure of the prosecution to establish the
arresting officers’ compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in
Section 21 of RA. 9165.

“It is truly distressing how courts are constrained to make acquittals,
dismissals, or reversals because of the inadvertent failure of arresting officers
and the prosecution to establish compliance or justify noncompliance with a
statutory procedure. It is even more troubling when those cases involve
apparently known or long-suspected drug pushers. Congress was clear in its
declaration on the eradication of the drug menace plaguing our country. Yet,
also firm and stringent is its mandate to observe the legal safeguards under
R.A. 9165, This is the reason why we have emphasized countless times that
courts must remain vigilant in their disposition of cases related to dangerous
drugs. Also, we have already called on the police, PDEA, and the prosecution to
reinforce and review the conduct of buy-bust operations and the presentation of
evidence.”

In view of the foregoing, immediate passage of this bill is earnestly sought.
)
J] .
Gila

REP. JOSE ENRIQUE S. GARCIA Ill
Second District, Bataan


Republic of the Philippines
House of Representatives
Quezon City
SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

467

House Bill No,

Introduced by Representative Jose Enrique S. Garcia Ill

AN ACT TO FURTHER EXPEDITE THE DISPOSITION OF JUDICIAL CASES
INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO, 9165, ENHANCE ITS
EFFICACY AGAINST DANGEROUS DRUGS, AND AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE SECTIONS 90 AND 92 THEREOF

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

SECTION 1. Section 90 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is hereby amended, to read as
follows:

“Section 90. Jurisdiction. - The Supreme Court shalll designate special courts
from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to exclusively
try and hear cases involving violations of this Act. The number of courts designated
in each judicial region shall be based on the population and the number of cases
pending in their respective jurisdiction.

ONE SUCH SPECIAL COURT SHALL BE DESIGNATED IN EVERY PROVINCE
AND CITY WITH MULTIPLE BRANCHES WHERE CASES INVOLVING
VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT COMPRISE AT LEAST SIXTY (60%) PERCENT OF
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES PENDING THEREIN.

The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving
violations of this Act. IN EACH PROVINCE AND CITY WHERE CASES
INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT COMPRISE AT LEAST SIXTY (60%)
PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES BEING HANDLED BY THEIR
RESPECTIVE OFFICES, THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR AND THE CITY
PROSECUTOR SHALL BE SO DESIGNATED.

THE DESIGNATION SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR AS LONG AS THE
SUPREME COURT AND THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SHALL DEEM THE SAME TO BE NECESSARY.


The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be terminated within
a period of thirty (30) days from the date of their filing.

When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor and a
probable cause is established, the corresponding information shall be filed in court
within twenty-four (24) hours from the termination of the investigation. If the
preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and a probable cause is found to
exist, the corresponding information shall be filed by the proper prosecutor within
forty-eight (48) hours from the date of receipt of the records of the case.

Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not later than sixty
(60) days from the date of the filing of the information. Decision on said cases shall
be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of submission of the
case for resolution.

FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE
PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE SHALL RENDER
THE PROSECUTOR OR JUDGE ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE.”

SECTION 2. Section 92 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section 92. Delay and Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases. — Any
government officer or employee tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases
under this act, who, through patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay
or deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal of the said drug
cases, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years without prejudice to his/her prosecution under the
pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

THE COURT WHICH HAS ORDERED THE DISMISSAL OF ANY DRUG-RELATED
CASE SHALL FURNISH THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
A COPY OF THE DECISION AND PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE RECORDS
OF THE CASE FOR A DETERMINATION OF POSSIBLE LIABILITY UNDER THE
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH AND FOR THE INSTITUTION OF THE
CORRESPONDING CRIMINAL ACTION IF SO WARRANTED.”

SECTION 3. All laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and
administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 4. If any part or provisions of this Act shall be held to be
unconstitutional or invalid, the other parts or provisions hereof which are not affected
thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.

SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication in
the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of national circulation.

Approved.