REVISTA
, No. 8, 2011.
In comparison to the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
Republic Act 7659 was stiffer as it covered more drug offenses potentially punishable by death.
Republic Act 9346: Re-abolition of the Death Penalty
Capital punishment was re-abolished via Republic
Act No. 9346 signed into law on June 24, 2006. Once again, the penalties of life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua (indeterminate sentence, 30-year minimum) replaced the death penalty.
Present Drug Policy: Republic Act 9165
The present Philippine policies on drugs are contained in Republic Act 9165 also known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 passed by the Philippine
Congress on June 7, 2002. The Act views the campaign against drug abuse from a wider perspective. In the preamble, drug abuse is seen as “a threat to the territorial integrity of the State and to the well-being of its human resources.” It upheld a two-pronged policy approach with respect to the drug abuse problem – on the one hand, a hard-line approach, “an intensive and unrelenting campaign” towards drug traffickers and users and, on the other, the social “re-integration” of the drug dependents whom it views as “victims”. The hard line approach is reflected in its acceptance of the “heinous crimes” provision of Republic Act 7659, adopting its death penalty provision for certain drug offenses, such as the following:
• Importation of dangerous drugs (Art. II, Sec. 4)
• Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution of dangerous drugs (Art. II,
Sec. 5)
• Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort (Art. II, Sec.
6)
• Manufacture of dangerous drugs (Art. II, Sec. 8)
• Possession of defined quantities of dangerous drugs (Art. II, Sec. 11)
• Cultivation of plants classified as dangerous drugs or are sources thereof (Art. II, Sec. 16)
• Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs (Art. II,
Sec. 19)
• Misappropriation, misapplication, failure to account by any public officer or employee for confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/ paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment including the proceeds or properties obtained from the unlawful acts
• Attempt or conspiracy to import, sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, distribute, transport, manufacture dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; to maintain of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form; to cultivate or culture plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
• “Planting” any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as evidence.
The law also restructured the Philippine drug law enforcement system. While the Dangerous Drug Board
(DDB) remained as the policy-making and strategyformulating body in the planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control, it created the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA), under the Office of the President, to serve as the implementing arm of the Board, responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on dangerous drugs. It abolished the National
Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating
Center, Philippine National Police Narcotics Group (PNP
Nargrp), National Bureau of Investigation Narcotics Unit
(NBI NU), and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Office
(CNIO).
Applying the Typology
Where can the Philippine drug policies be located in the typological framework?
During the Spanish period the government attitude towards drug addiction (particularly opium addiction) straddled between prohibition and regulation. For the natives, the prohibitionist policy prevailed. For the
Chinese community, the policy applied was regulation rather than prohibition. This dual policy was probably shaped by existing realities during that time. On the one hand, the regulatory attitude was dictated by two realities: the reality that opium use was somewhat of an aspect of Chinese life and culture and the reality that the trade in opium offered a rich opportunity for economic gain. On the other hand, the prohibitionist policy for the natives was defined by the fact that opium was alien to the Filipino indigenous culture and the Spanish course of action was its protection.
During the American period, government policy became largely prohibitionist in orientation. In 1903, an
Opium Control Commission was created by the Colonial
132