The Role of Elected Public Officials in Anti-Drug Operations

DRUGS AND CRIMES

Under the Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, specifically Section 21 therein, requires the conduct of Physical Inventory and Photography in all anti-drug operations, whether the seizure is warrantless (example is by bust operation or checkpoint) or by virtue of the implementation of a search warrant.

A physical inventory is the documentation of the seizure, recording the name of the person from whom the illegal drugs were seized, the estimate and description of the drugs seized, to be witnessed by:

1. Any elected public offiicials.
2. Representative of the Department of Justice.
3. Representative from the media.

The elected public officials referred to are general and not specific, therefor a barangay councilor from another barangay where the seizure was conducted could witness the physical inventory, as long as they are elected public officials.

The officials could be elected officials from the barangay, city, municipality, district, province or national like a senator.

The common subject of argument is: when is the presence of the elected public officials required during the conduct of physical inventory.

The law is clear on this, and this has been resolved by the Supreme Court, thus saying: the presence of the witnesses, like the elected public officials are only during the conduct of the physical inventory. Meaning, the elected public officials and the other witnesses, are not required to be present during the conduct of the search or during the buy bust operations. The elected public officials, mentioned under Section 21 of the law, are witnesses of the physical inventory. They are not witnesses for the search and seizure under Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

This should be emphasized, as there are elected public officials who opines that they should not be witnesses of the physical inventory, simply because they were not present during the buy bust or the implementation of the search warrant. An elected public official who is required to witness the inventory is a witness ONLY to the physical inventory.

He/she should not worry, for the event that requires his/her presence during the conduct of preliminary investigation by the public prosecutor or trial before the court, he/she could only be asked questions on the conduct of the inventory and not on matters where he was not present, like during the buy bust operation or the implementation of the search warrant.

The reason why the law does not require the presence of the elected public officials who are witnesses of the physical inventory is based on practical reasons. It would be comical, hilarious and impossible for a drug pusher to sell or peddle drugs to a poseur buyer (law enforcement officer who acts to buy drugs) in the presence of the witnesses mentioned in the law.

Sometimes it is ignorance of the law for elected public officials who refuse to act as witnesses believing that they are not qualified to witness because they were not present during the buy bust operation. This is excusable and what is needed is enlightenment of the law.

But sometimes, there are elected public officials who refuse to perform their duties because the subject of the seizure are their friends or relatives, this time it is not in good faith, but simply with malice.

About the Author: Clarence Paul V. Oaminal is a lawyer and author of ‘The Textbook on The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002’. He is the former vice-chairman of Cebu City Dangerous Drugs Board and is the current adviser and presiding officer of Cebu City Anti-Drug Abuse Council. He also hosts the local advocacy program ‘Krimen ug Drugas’ in CCTN Channel 47.