Republic of the Philippines
House of Representatives
Quezon City

Sixteenth Congress
Second Regular Session

House Bil|No,__9839

Introduced by Representative VICENTE “VARF” BELMONTE

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 has for more than a decade provided our drug law
enforcement units the arsenal for the government's all-out war against the drug
menace. With the penalties and powers provided under RA 9165, drug law
enforcers have dismantled clandestine laboratories and drug dens; seized and
destroyed dangerous drugs and controlled precursors; cleared marijuana
plantations; and apprehended and convicted drug traffickers and drug couriers.

Despite the accomplishments in supply and demand reduction, drug syndicates
have become fearless and resourceful in plying their nefarious trade — convicted
drug lords operate within the secured confines of their detention facilities;
clandestine laboratories are set-up in exclusive villages and high rise
condominiums at the heart of Metro Manila; drug peddlers have grown in
numbers including children and senior citizens; last December 26, 2013 the joint
operations of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and the PNP Ant:-lliegal
Drugs Special Operations Task Force led to the discovery of the operations of
the Mexican Sinaloan drug cartel. The buy-bust operation of the National Bureau
of Investigation led to the arrest of convicted drug lord Ruben Tiu outside the
Sablayan Penal Colony.

In most anti-drug operations, only the small players are rounded up while the
drug lords remain scot-free. Many names ate in the watch list of the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency but with very little evidence, these drug lords can't be
pinned down. Hence, the need to urgently equip our drug law enforcers with the
capability to stop the drug menace at its very core, to cut the roots of the drug
syndicates and convict drug lords and not just the peddlers, There is a need to
elevate violations of the drug law as a threat to national security and amend
Republic Act No, 4200, the anti-wire tapping law.

In view of the foregoing, early passage of this bill is earnestly requested

Vicente “Vat” Belmonte


16

18
19
20
21

Republic of the Philippines
House of Representatives
Quezon City

Sixteenth Congress
Second Regular Session

5839

House Bill No

Introduced by Representative VICENTE “VARF" BELMONTE.

AN ACT AUTHORIZING WIRE TAPPING IN CASES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 AMENDING
FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE
TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF
COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

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

SECTION 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the
“Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the
Privacy of Communication, and for Other Purposes” is hereby amended to read
as follows

“SEC. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized
by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, [to
tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or
spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone
or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described:] SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WIRE, ORAL OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, TO
OVERHEAR, INTERCEPT, TAP OR RECORD SUCH
COMMUNICATION OR SPOKEN WORD IN ANY MANNER WITH
THE USE OF A DEVICE CAPABLE OF SUCH INTERCEPTION,
TAPPING, OVERHEARING OR RECORDING, OR BY ANY
MEANS UTILIZING ANY TECHNOLOGY.

ME HK x

SEC. 2. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the “Act
to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the
Privacy of Communication, and for Other Purposes’ is hereby amended to read
as follows:


"Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it
unlawful or punishable for any LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
OR ITS peace officer, AND/OR ANY TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY OR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER OR THEIR
EMPLOYEE, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to
execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two
preceding sections, In cases involving the crimes of treason,
espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy,
mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to
commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the
Revised Penal Code, VIOLATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 and violations of
Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other
offenses against national security: Provided, That such written
order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and
the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the
witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about
to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the
offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and
inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior
proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have
actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the
prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other
means readily available for obtaining such evidence.

“The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the Identity of the
person or persons whose communications, conversations,
discussions, or spoken words are to be overheard, intercepted, or
recorded and, in the case of telegraphic or telephonic
communications, the telegraph line or the telephone number
involved and its location; (2) the identity of the peace officer
ANDIOR THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OR
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER OR THEIR EMPLOYEE
authorized to overhear, intercept, or record the communications,
conversations, discussions, or spoken words; (3) the offense or
offenses committed or sought to be prevented; and (4) the period of
the authorization. The authorization shall be effective for the period
specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from
the date of issuance of the order. unless extended or renewed by


6

oe

10
i
12

13
14

15

16

the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in
the public interest.

x x

“The court referred to in this section shall be understood to mean
the [Court of First Instance] REGIONAL TRIAL COURT within
whose territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied
for are to be executed

mg x.

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. — Sections 1 and 3 of Republic Act 4200
otherwise known as “An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and other
Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for other Purposes” and
all other 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,