House passes unconstitutional amendments to PH anti-drug law

By Tristan Montecillo

---

A bill amending the country’s anti-drug law that presumes drug suspects guilty until proven innocent has passed in the House of Representatives last March 2, Tuesday.

The House Bill No. 7814 was approved on its final reading, which turned some of its primary authors to withdraw support.

The bill states that a person can be presumed to be a holder or distributor of illegal drugs if he or she has any known connection to an importer or exporter and helps the latter evade arrest.

The bill presumes that a person is a drug financer if they "cause the payment, raises, provides or supplies money for or underwrites the importation of illegal drugs."

House Bill 7814 also states that anyone found to be in possession of documents (receipt, bill, etc.) related to the importation or exportation of illegal drugs is "presumed to have imported or exported” the illegal substances until proven otherwise.

Under Section 3, anyone spotted in the place where illegal drug transaction happens (sale, trading, dispensation, distribution, etc.) is assumed to be involved in said illegal activity "unless proven otherwise."

Deputy Minority Leader and Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Carlos Zarate has also said that the bill would shift the burden to the accused, who is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty", once it is passed as a law, according to an article by CNN Philippines.

A total of 188 lawmakers, most of who are allies of President Duterte, voted for the approval of the bill, with 11 people being against, while 9 abstained.

Majority of the House members who were against the bill or did not vote raised concerns over the House Bill 7184's provisions that presumes the guilt of drug suspects without a proper investigation.

According to Rappler, not only Muntinlupa Rep. Raffy Biazon voted against House Bill (HB) No. 7814, but he also moved to remove his name as a primary author.

This is because the approved version measure amending the Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was not what Biazon filed in 2019.

"The bill that I filed did not contain provisions that would institutionalize presumption of guilt, a proposal that I believe is a contradiction to the right of innocence until proven guilty enshrined in the Constitution," Biazon said as quoted by Rappler.

Rappler also noted in their report Biazon’s same course of action with the controversial Anti-terrorism law due to the House’s mere adoption of the Senate’s version, without allowing the members to amend.

Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate also withdrew his authorship of the measure.

“In this measure, the ordinary Filipino citizen who is accused, falsely or not, will have the state’s machinery as his enemy,” he said in Inquirer’s article.

Human rights chair for the House committee Jesus “Bong” Suntay was against the bill, claiming that it would lead to the accused being "convicted on mere presumptions."

"I am in full support of this administration's campaign against illegal drugs and in this respect, I would not want our country to be a transshipment destination of dangerous drugs. However, as a lawyer, I do not want to send the wrong message to the PDEA, to the police authorities and the prosecution that an accused may now be convicted on mere presumptions," Suntay said in a quote from Rappler.

Sen. Leila De Lima, who is currently detained, described the bill as "unconstitutional," as stated in an article by Rappler.

"Sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas, trabaho ng prosecution na magpakita ng ebidensya na gumawa ng krimen ang isang akusado. Hindi ang akusado ang kailangan magpatunay na siya ay inosente. Itong panukalang batas na isinusulong ng Kongreso ay labag sa ating Konstitusyon kaya hindi siya dapat maisabatas," De Lima argued.

(Under our Constitution, it is the job of the prosecution to show evidence that the accused committed a crime. It's not the accused who must prove that he or she is innocent. This bill that is being pushed in Congress violates our Constitution and should therefore not become law.)

"The primordial presumption that governs all others when it comes to criminal law is the presumption of innocence. Anything contrary to that is unjust, invalid, and unconstitutional," she added.

Last March 3, human rights activists called for the withdrawal of the bill, stating that it will set alarming legal precedents that violate not only the constitution, but also infringe on the country's legal obligation under international laws.

Butch Olano, Philippine section director of Amnesty International, said the bill is an "obvious violation of the principle of presumption of innocence and fair trial.”

Olano also mentioned that the proposed law could "encourage" the haphazard arrest of potential drug suspects due to its lack of judicial supervision.

“Arguments against the bill should have ended with the uniting principle of upholding due process and the right to equal protection of the law,” he said as quoted by The Inquirer.

While lawmakers from the Makabayan bloc have raised concerns over the bill, House committee on dangerous drugs chair Robert Ace Barbers thinks otherwise.

"Legal presumptions are not the same as presumption of guilt. Legal presumptions are used and allowed in our laws, embodied in judicial decisions and in international laws. Presumption of guilt...is illegal and has no place in modern society," Barbers said in a statement from The Inquirer.