“Drugs, Policy, and Society"

Early Legislative Policy and the Contemporary War on Drugs

Presented to
The Faculty of Public Management Department
MSU-Iligan Institute Technology
Iligan City

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Masters in Public Management

Mr. Khaled Magumpara

November 2019
Introduction

“Just Say No to Drugs” this has been the phrase that has widely

become the battle cry for the anti-drug policy across the globe. The

continuous effort to cut the supply of drugs during the 1900s has

resulted individuals to smuggle drugs from foreign illegal drug operations

called cartels in order to meet the demand domestically. This has been

the cycle of the illicit drug problems in the Philippines.

It is not surprising that crime is a major problem in the

Philippines, given its high level of poverty, under resourced and

corruption-prone law enforcement agencies, and glacially slows judiciary.

Criminal activities, in the form of smuggling, illegal gambling, drugs,

trafficking in persons, and money laundering, are significant features of

the Philippine political economy.

Thus, the government approved the Republic Act 6425 otherwise

known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972”. With the advent of the new

millennium which has truly brought a lot of changes including in the

field of drug prevention and control Republic Act 9165 or the

“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” repealed RA 6425. This is

the pivotal law which enforces against the illicit drug problem.

However, issues on contemporary war on drugs have skyrocketed

ever since President Rodrigo Duterte’s blatant approach on the existing

drug problem in the society. Since the early 2000s, there has been a

growing awareness of the problem of narco-politics, mostly involving

mayors and other local officials thought to be complicit in the drug trade.

However, it would be an exaggeration to assert that the Philippines is

becoming a narco-state, where state institutions have been penetrated by

the power and wealth of drug lords and the economy depends heavily on

the production or distribution of illegal drugs. Nevertheless, Duterte sees

it differently. Although he was not the first presidential candidate to run

against drugs and crime, he was the first to frame drugs as an existential

threat and to be explicit about the brutal approach he would use to solve

the problem.

Hence, this paper will aim to give macroscopic views on the early

legislative policy and the contemporary war on drugs. It will give us a

comparative analysis and understanding on the drug policies in the

Philippines as a society.

II. Body

A. Early Legislative Policy

In 1972, the drug problem was just at its incipient stage, with only

20,000 drug users and marijuana as the top choice among the users in

the Philippines. This was the drug scenario when Republic Act 6425,

otherwise known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” was approved on

March 30, 1972. Following the proclamation of Martial Law and the

promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 44, amending RA 6425, the late

President Ferdinand E. Marcos, organized the Dangerous Drugs Board

on November 14, 1972 under the Office of the President.

 The DDB was mandated to be the policy-making and coordinating

agency as well as the national clearing house on all matters pertaining to

law enforcement and control of dangerous drugs; treatment and

rehabilitation of drug dependents; drug abuse prevention, training and

information; research and statistics on the drug problem and the

training of personnel engaged in these activities. Since its creation, the

DDB has led the national advocacy against drug abuse by establishing a

responsive and dynamic partnership between the government and the

society.

In 1982, another procedural amendment to RA 6425 was made

through Batas Pambansa 179 which itemized prohibited drugs and its

derivatives. Narcotics preparations such as opiates, opium poppy straw,

leaves or wrappings, whether prepared for use or not were classified as

dangerous drugs. The number of methamphetamine hydrochloride or

shabu users was also seen to have increased in this decade. Given this,

the government with the help of other social agencies have also

heightened drug abuse prevention and information program.

With “pop” culture on the rise during the 90's, the need for creative

and innovative programs that can compete with the different messages

that seek to capture people’s interest and attention has become DDB's

main task.

In 2002, Republic Act 9165 or the “Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act of 2002” repealed RA 6425. RA 9165 expanded the

membership of the Board to include the agencies such as the

Department of the Interior and Local Government, Department of Labor

and Employment, Department of Foreign Affairs, Commission on Higher

Education, National Youth Commission, and the newly established

Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The law also streamlined the

functions of the Board and ushered in new programs and initiatives.

The principal statute for drug control in Philippines is the

“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”. In the Accomplishment

Report of the 12th Congress of the Republic of the Philippines (2003), the

amendment of the Dangerous Drugs Act is highlighted as one of the

reform measures under the section on “Promoting peace and order”. Both

the Senate and the House agreed to exempt drug-related offenses from

probation and imposed maximum penalty on a lowered volume of drugs

caught (from 200 grams to 5 grams), thus making it “the toughest anti-

drug law in Asia”. Towards the enactment of the amended Act, the

Standing Committees on Dangerous Drugs held 13 In-House Committee

Meetings, 5 Out-of-Town Public Hearings, 4 Ocular Inspections, 5

Bicameral Meetings, 12 Technical Working Group Meetings and filed 2

Committee Reports. Article XIII SEC. 95 of the Act further stipulated the

creation of a Congressional Oversight Committee composed of seven (7)

Members from the Senate and seven (7) Members from the House of

Representatives. The Committee shall be headed by the respective

Chairpersons of the Senate Committee on Public Order and Illegal Drugs

and the House of Representatives Committee on Dangerous Drugs.

In its Declaration of Policy, the Act enunciates a clear, overarching

goal for drug control -- namely, to reduce the harms to society arising

from the production, consumption, distribution, and control of drugs:

“Toward this end, the government shall pursue an intensive and

unrelenting campaign against the trafficking and use of dangerous drugs

and other similar substances through an integrated system of planning,

implementation and enforcement of anti-drug abuse policies, programs,

and projects” (supply reduction). In conformity with that goal and with

the legislative requirement of the Act it further articulates the role of the

State, thus: “It is the policy of the State to safeguard the integrity of its

territory and the wellbeing of its citizenry particularly the youth, from the

harmful effects of dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-

being, and to defend the same against acts or omissions detrimental to

their development and preservation. In view of the foregoing, the State

needs to enhance further the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs,

it being one of today's more serious social ills” (demand reduction) — but

in so doing the Act promises to maintain the balance between prohibition

for illegitimate use and permission and non-deprivation for legitimate use

– “The government shall however aim to achieve a balance in the national

drug control program so that people with legitimate medical needs are

not prevented from being treated with adequate amounts of appropriate

medications, which include the use of dangerous drugs.” It further

stipulates the role and commitment of the State in the societal re-

integration of drug users through programs for treatment and

rehabilitation, stated thus: “…the State (shall) provide effective

mechanisms or measures to re-integrate into society individuals who

have fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug dependence through

sustainable programs of treatment and rehabilitation.” (treatment,

rehabilitation and re-integration).

The Philippines therefore still adhere to the twin strategies of

Supply Reduction and Demand Reduction as conventional weapons

against illegal drugs. There will be no supply of illegal drugs if there is no

demand for them. The day the buying stops is the same day the selling

stops.

A.1 Assessment

The drug problem in the Philippines however, remains significant.

Philippine law enforcement authorities undertake sustained efforts to

disrupt major trafficking organizations and dismantle clandestine drug

laboratories and warehouses. Challenges remain in the areas of drug use

and production, law enforcement, corruption and drug trafficking.

B. Contemporary War on Drugs

Duterte’s principal priority has been a highly punitive approach to

illegal drug use, which he sees as an existential threat to the country’s

social fabric. His nationwide war on drugs has applied the approach that
he used in Davao City, giving the police free rein to deal with suspected

drug users and pushers with little concern for legal niceties. It also has

involved a lesser-noticed campaign against government officials allegedly

complicit in the drug trade. This approach has resulted in the deaths of

thousands of suspected drug users and pushers—mostly young males

living in poor urban neighborhoods—at the hands of the police or

unidentified assailants. This loss of life is the most horrific and

immediate consequence of the drug war. But the drug war itself is a sign

that the Philippine government has abdicated its responsibility to protect

human rights and respect the rule of law.

The network of anti-drug advocates and warriors also continue to

grow. Through the flagship program of the Board, the Barkada Kontra

Droga or Peer Group against Drugs, more and more Filipinos are tapped

as potent allies in the anti-drug campaign. Barkada Kontra Droga is a

peer-based program designed as a preventive education and information

strategy to counter the dangers and disastrous effects of drug abuse. It

aims to empower individuals to be catalysts within their peer groups in

advocating healthy, drug-free lifestyles through involvement in various

wholesome activities.

Under the administration of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, drug

prevention and control has become a top priority of the government. The

anti-drug campaign has been enhanced and strengthened through the

collaboration of national government agencies as well as the support of

non-government organizations, faith-based groups and the private

sector.

Several policies have been instituted under this administration

including the establishment of community-based treatment and

rehabilitation programs and services by local government units and the

institutionalization of Drug-Free Workplace Policies in all government

offices, including the conduct of authorized drug testing for elective local

officials and appointive public officers.

This regulation aims to promote the establishment and

institutionalization of drug-free workplace policies in all government

agencies and ensure that all public officers, both elective and appointive,

remain drug-free through the conduct of authorized drug testing

pursuant to the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or

Republic Act 9165. With this, the public will be ensured of effective and

efficient service from government workers who are free from the influence

and ill effects of illegal drugs.

During this administration, the national plan of action against

drugs was revisited and a new framework of action was established.

Known as the Philippine Anti-Illegal Drugs Strategy or PADS which has

been institutionalized by virtue of Executive Order Number 66, signed by

President Duterte on 29 October 2018, the plan of action sets our goal in

creating drug-free communities by 2022.

 This anti-illegal drug plan provides a roadmap for national

collaboration and was designed to harmonize drug initiatives with the

overarching Social Development Agenda and the National Security Policy.

It institutionalizes a convergence system for the implementation of anti-

drug programs and revitalizes the roles of government agencies. It spells

out diverse but complementary approaches that must be integrated to

deliver an effective anti-drug package of programs and reforms for the

country.

B.I Assessment

Duterte’s war on drugs has had less dramatic but significant

consequences for other aspects of governance in the Philippines,

including the justice system, public health, and local governance.

Impact on the Justice System

The war on drugs has further stressed the Philippines’

overburdened justice system. The volume of cases to be investigated,

prosecuted, and tried, as well as the number of alleged offenders

awaiting trial in detention facilities, has increased dramatically. A

comprehensive picture of the impact on the justice system is beyond the

scope of this working paper, but some of the available data point to these

burdens. In 2016, there were 28,000 drug arrests—a 44 percent increase

over 2015—and more than 47,300 drug-related cases were filed. During

the first 10 months of 2017, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency

conducted 34,744 drug enforcement operations, with 66,672 arrests. In

2017, about 70,700 drug-related cases were filed in court, and about

21,400 were reviewed. According to the Supreme Court, as of 2017 more

than 289,000 drug cases had been filed in the country’s lower courts.

As a result, drug suspects and convicts are crammed into the

Philippines’ already packed jails and prisons. According to the

Department of Justice’s Bureau of Corrections, in 2017 the national

prison system held 41,500 inmates, more than double its capacity. Data

from the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, which oversees

provincial and municipal jails, show an even more disturbing situation.

As of May 2018, there were over 141,000 detainees—of which about

70 percent were drug-related cases—held in jails that were 582 percent

overcapacity. Ultimately, the legal dimensions of the war on drugs will

test not only the capacity of the justice system, but also the

jurisprudence, values, and autonomy of the Philippine judiciary.

Impact on Public Health

The government’s punitive approach to reducing drug use also has

important consequences for public health. It has overwhelmed the

country’s paltry rehabilitation capacity and is having a negative effect on

drug-linked diseases. As of mid-2017, the Philippines had only forty-

eight drug rehabilitation facilities and only about fifty medical personnel

trained in addiction medicine. According to the Philippine Drug

Enforcement Agency, close to 990,000 “drug personalities” voluntarily

surrendered in 2016, and by May 2017 that number had grown to

1.2 million people. The war on drugs has had predictable negative effects

on drug-related public health problems.

Impact on Local Politics and Government.

Duterte’s almost singular focus on the drug war has far-reaching

consequences for the country’s local politics and governance. In many

respects, subnational government in the Philippines is highly

decentralized, but most local government units (LGUs) are dependent

upon central government funding and grapple with the challenge of

unfunded mandates. LGUs are key actors in the drug war, and local

officials need to juggle multiple and sometimes conflicting priorities,

including protecting their citizens, cooperating with local law

enforcement, and demonstrating results to central authorities.

There also is a darker dimension to the drug war at the local level. Peter

Kreuzer notes the pressure and intimidation experienced by local

officials:

It has become highly problematic for local political elites to evade

the president’s injunction to participate in the anti-crime killing

spree that is engulfing the Philippines. . . . The various reshuffles

are placing more hard-line police officers in command positions.

Furthermore, these officers are well aware that results measured in

dead bodies are expected of them. In addition, police officers and

politicians alike have been publicly denounced as supporting and

 profiting from drug crimes and thus threatened not only with being

indicted, but also with becoming victims of extrajudicial executions

themselves. Most officials then choose to fall in line with the

president.

III. Conclusion

The illicit drugs problem is experienced primarily at local and

national level, but it is also a global issue that needs to be addressed in a

transnational context.

The government of the Philippines has set the illicit drug problem

as a priority topic. Unfortunately, no one policy option seems effective

enough to solve the problem. Political considerations often play a greater

role in determining approaches to the drug problem than do

considerations of effectiveness. Political considerations also lead to an

emphasis on short-term as opposed to long-term solutions. In the

Philippines, as in other drug consuming countries, drug control laws are

preferred to the longer process of value change or socio-economic

structural change. It is therefore important to explore the complex

political dynamics and to know the logical and formal procedure to

manage the political aspects of public policy related to the illicit drug

problem in the Philippines.