What do we make of House Bill No. 7814 which proposes amendments to the Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002?
The House of Representatives last week passed on final reading HB 7814. House Committee on Dangerous Drugs chairman Rep. Robert Ace Barbers said the bill is designed to give more teeth to RA 9165.
But for the Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC), HB 7814 is a blatant violation of the basic human and constitutional right to be presumed innocent. That presumption is found in Article 3 Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved… xxx”
HB 7814 creates a series of presumptions that automatically labels a person as importer, financier, or protector/coddler of those involved with illegal drugs. “The amendments also relieve the government of its duty to first establish a prima facie case before filing a criminal complaint,” the AHRC said in a statement.
“For instance, HB 7814 establishes a presumption that persons who happen to be within the immediate vicinity of an area of distribution or sale of drugs are involved in such activities. Likewise, if an instrument or paraphernalia deemed “suitable” for the use of drugs is found in a resort, that resort is presumed to be used for illegal drug activities and that the operator of the said resort is presumed to permit such illegal activities.”
For Barbers, the burden of proving that a drug suspect is guilty of a crime still rests on the prosecution. “What is now on the accused is the burden of evidence. Burden of evidence and burden of proof are two different animals," Barbers told Rappler.
So what is the good congressman trying to say? That the prosecution need not first establish a prima facie (at first view) case against the accused before the latter is even burdened with the duty to provide evidence in his defense? Because that is exactly what presumptions do. Allegations against the accused are taken to be true on its face without the accuser even lifting a finger to present any evidence.
I say that it would make no sense for the House of Representatives, the supposed house of the people, to pass a bill that would make it more convenient for the state to prosecute drug suspects, but overlook centuries of legal history and progress in democratic-republicanism.
Legal scholars assert that procedure is the central part of any legal system. The principle of presumption of innocence took form through reforms in the procedure of determining guilt or innocence. “A society's sense of justice is intimately linked to its modes of proof.” It’s a hollow claim to say you respect the presumption of innocence yet roll back on centuries of progress on modes of proof and just decide “okay let’s just presume this and that fact and require the accused to disprove them.”
The bedrock principle of presumption of innocence was established in order to protect the public from the bigger danger of the far-reaching powers of the state. In the old days, it was to protect the ordinary subjects from the arbitrariness of an evil prince or king. Those entrusted with legal power and state resources are not infallible. We should learn from the hard lessons of history.
Besides, and let me state this in our own language: Storya ta’g tinuod. The drug problem persists because of systemic corruption, not because of a drug law that lawmakers claim lacks bite.