Police ops not just about skills but also of cosmetics

An issue has arisen pertaining to the interpretation of certain provisions in Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 as amended by Republic Act 10640 or the Sotto Amendment to RA 9165. Senate president Vicente Sotto III, during a hearing of the proposed 2021 budget on Friday, said there had been a misinterpretation of the law during the conduct of anti-drug operations by the authorities.

Sotto said it has come to his attention that anti-drug operations currently require the presence of an elected official, a prosecutor and a member of the media, of which the absence of any one of them could potentially scuttle any possible case that may arise from the operation. This is wrong and should not be the case, Sotto said.

Sotto said this had been the issue with the original law, RA 9165, of which he was the principal author, prompting him to introduce an amendment, RA 10640, which hereafter clarified that the presence of an elected official or a member of the media, plus a prosecutor and a representative of the suspect if he or she is not around, is required only during an inventory of any material evidence seized after an anti-drug operation.

Such a presence is required so there will be witnesses to the inventories. But Senator Panfilo Lacson said he has read a Supreme Court ruling that said otherwise, that the three aforementioned individuals have to be present during the operation itself. Not so, said Sotto, along with Senator Sonny Angara, who both said the Supreme Court subsequently issued a clarificatory note sustaining the amendment contained in RA 10640.

With that clarified, the presence of an elected official or a member of media, plus a prosecutor and a representative of the suspect, is required only during an inventory of any evidence seized after an operation. They no longer have to be with the operation itself.

It makes a lot of sense that they do not take part in an operation. A drug raid is a dangerous thing. The three required witnesses may only be endangering their lives needlessly. Besides, unsteeped in police or law enforcement operations, they can only be a bother to the smooth and swift conduct of such an action. They may even spoil the element of surprise so crucial to the activity.

But then here is the rub to limiting witnesses to just the inventory in the aftermath of an operation. Law enforcement operations against illegal drugs have almost always been hobbled and tainted by allegations of extrajudicial killings and planted evidence. One way of ensuring the integrity of such operations is to require the presence of legal and credible witnesses.

An operation botched or made cumbersome by the presence of too many "unessential" warm bodies can be more than compensated by winning the greater trust of the public that everything has been done above-board. There is always a next time to a failed operation. But a tarnished image does not get that many second chances at redemption. Police operations are not just about skills and success. They also have to look good to be great.