RA9165

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

johnambas
jd1b
 1 2 3 4
overview criminal acts chain of custody other provisions
Articles 190-193 of the Revised Penal code
were repealed by RA 6425, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1927, it was amended
by PD 1683 and further amended by Ra 7659.

OVERVIEW
RA 9165, known as the “Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”, which took
effect on July 4, 2002 repealed RA 6425 and
amended RA 7659

OVERVIEW
To safeguard the integrity of its territory and the well-
being of its citizenry particularly the youth, from the
harmful effects of dangerous drugs on their physical and
mental well-being, and to defend the same against acts
or omissions detrimental to their development and
preservation.

OVERVIEW
APPLICABILITY

Section 98 of RA 9165 expressly

states that the provisions of the RPC
shall not apply to the provisions of
this Act
except in the case of minor offenders.
Where the offender is a minor, the
penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided
herein shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.
 Unlawful Acts
and Penalties

Sec. 4 – Importation Sec. 6 – Maintenance of

of Dangerous Drugs a Den, Dive, or Resort

Sec. 7 – Employees and

Sec. 5 – Sale, Trading,
visitors of a Den, Dive, or
Administration…
Resort
SECTION 4
Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals

Importer of any dangerous drugs

Life imprisonment to Death, 500k-10M PHP
Importer of any controlled precursor
12y1d– 20y, 100k-500k PHP
Importer (using diplomatic means)
Max penalty, 10M PHP
Financier
Max penalty, 100k-500k PHP
Protector/ Coddler
12y1d– 20y, 100k-500k PHP
 Dangerous
Drugs

Include those listed in the Schedules annexed to the

1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as
amended by the 1972 Protocol, and in the Schedules
annexed to the 1971 Single Convention on
Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the
attached annex which is an integral part of this Act.
 Controlled
Precursors and
Essential
Chemicals

Include those listed in Tables I and II of the 1988 UN

Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the
attached annex, which is an integral part of this Act.
 Financier

Any person who pays for, raises or supplies money

for, or underwrites any of the illegal activities
prescribed under this Act.
 Protector/
Coddler

Any person who knowingly and willfully consents to

the unlawful acts provided for in this Act and uses
his/her influence, power or position in shielding,
harboring, screening or facilitating the escape of any
person he/she knows, or has reasonable grounds to
believe on or suspects, has violated the provisions of
this Act in order to prevent the arrest, prosecution
and conviction of the violator.
• Sale SECTION 5
• Trading
• Administration Any dangerous drugs
• Dispensation (including any and all species of opium
poppy regardless of quantity and purity)
• Delivery
Life imprisonment, 500k-10M PHP
• Give away to
another
• Distribution
• Dispatch in
Transit Any controlled precursor and
• Transportation essential chemical
• Or act as a 12y1d-20y, 100k-500k
PHP
(if done within 100 meters from the school
broker
= max penalty)
• Sale SECTION 5
• Trading
• Administration ELEMENTS:
• Dispensation
• Delivery Identity of the buyer and
• Give away to the seller, the object,
another the consideration 1
• Distribution
Delivery of the thing sold
• Dispatch in
Transit
2 and the payment thereof
• Transportation
• Or act as a
broker
• Sale SECTION 5
• Trading
• Administration Use of minors and mentally incapacitated
• Dispensation (in dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals trade)
• Delivery
Max penalty
• Give away to
another
• Distribution
• Dispatch in Victim of the offense is minor or
Transit mentally incapacitated individual
• Transportation (or dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors
• Or act as a and essential chemicals involved provided the
broker proximate cause of death of a victim)
Max penalty
• Sale SECTION 5
• Trading
• Administration Organizer, Manager, Financier
• Dispensation of such activities
• Delivery Max penalty
• Give away to
another
• Distribution
• Dispatch in
Transit Acts as a protector/ coddler of any
• Transportation
violator of the provisions of Sec. 5
• Or act as a
12y1d-20y, 100k-500k PHP
broker
SECTION 6
Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort

Maintenance of DDR for dangerous drugs

Life imprisonment to Death, 500k-10M PHP
Maintenance of DDR for controlled precursor
12y1d– 20y, 100k-500k PHP
Caters to Minor Clients
Max penalty
Proximate cause of the death of person
Life imprisonment, 1M-15M PHP
(imposed on the owner/operator)
 Den, Dive,
or Resort

A place where any dangerous drug

and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical is administered, delivered,
stored for illegal purposes, distributed,
sold or used in any form.
SECTION 6
Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort

If den, dive or resort is owned by a 3rd person

it shall be confiscated in favor of gov’t
(NOTE)
Financier
Max penalty
Protector/ Coddler
12y1d– 20y, 100k-500k PHP
 SECTION 7
Penalty:
Imprisonment Any employee of a den, dive or
ranging form 12 resort, who is aware of the nature
years and one of the place and such
day to 20 years
and
Fine ranging
Any person who, not being
From 100k to
included in the provisions of the
500k pesos
next preceding paragraph, is
aware of the nature of the place
as such and shall knowingly visit
the same
 Employee of
Den, Dive,
or Resort

The caretaker, helper, watchman, lookout, and

other persons working in the den, dive or resort,
employed by the maintainer, owner and/or operator
where any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical is administered,
delivered, distributed, sold or used, with or without
compensation, in connection with the operation
thereof.
 F

I R

Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board

GR 157870
In these kindred petitions, the constitutionality of
Section 36 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it
requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for
F
public office, students of secondary and tertiary
schools, officers and employees of public and
private offices, and persons charged before the
I R
prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among
other personalities, is put in issue. As far as
pertinent, the challenged section reads as
follows:
Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board
GR 157870
SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing.—Authorized
drug testing shall be done by any government
forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing
laboratories accredited and monitored by the
DOH to safeguard the quality of the test results.
F
x x x The drug testing shall employ, among
others, two (2) testing methods, the screening
test which will determine the positive result as
I R
well as the type of drug used and the
confirmatory test which will confirm a positive
screening test. x x x The following shall be
subjected to undergo drug testing:
Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board
GR 157870
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools.—Students
of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the
related rules and regulations as contained in the school’s
student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a
random drug testing x x x;

(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices.— F

Officers and employees of public and private offices,
whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to
undergo a random drug test as contained in the company’s I R
work rules and regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing
the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found
positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with
administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or
termination, subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the
Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service
Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board
Law;
GR 157870
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutor’s
office with a criminal offense having an
imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less F
than six (6) years and one (1) day shall
undergo a mandatory drug test;
I R
(g) All candidates for public office whether
appointed or elected both in the national or
local government shall undergo a mandatory
drug test.
Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board
GR 157870
(Pimentel v. COMELEC | G.R. No. 16158)
On Dec. 23, 2003, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6486,
prescribing the rules and regulations for the mandatory drug
testing of candidates for public office in connection with the May
2004 elections. Pimentel claims that Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 and
COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 illegally impose an additional
qualification on candidates for senator. He points out that,
subject to the provisions on nuisance candidates, a candidate for F
senator needs only to meet the qualifications laid down in Sec. 3,
Art. VI of the Constitution, to wit: (1) citizenship, (2) voter
registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and (5) residency. Beyond
these stated qualification requirements, candidates for senator
I R
need not possess any other qualification to run for senator and
be voted upon and elected as member of the Senate. The
Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these
qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or weaken
the force of a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the
Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board
Constitution.

GR 157870
(SJS v. DDM & PDEA | G.R. 157870)

In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner Social

Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, seeks to
prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing paragraphs
(c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that F
they are constitutionally infirm. For one, the provisions
constitute undue delegation of legislative power when they
give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to I R
determine the manner of drug testing. For another, the
provisions trench in the equal protection clause inasmuch as
they can be used to harass a student or an employee deemed
undesirable. And for a third, a person’s constitutional right
against unreasonable searches is also breached by said
provisions.
Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board
GR 157870
(Atty. Laserna v. DDB & PDEA | G.R. 158633)

Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as citizen and

taxpayer, also seeks in his Petition for Certiorari and
F
Prohibition under Rule 65 that Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), and (g)
of RA 9165 be struck down as unconstitutional for
infringing on the constitutional right to privacy, the right I R
against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right
against self-incrimination, and for being contrary to the
due process and equal protection guarantees.

Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board

GR 157870
1) Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional
qualification for candidates for senator?
Corollarily, can Congress enact a law prescribing
qualifications for candidates for senator in F
addition to those laid down by the Constitution?
2) Are paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA
9165 unconstitutional? Specifically, do these I R
paragraphs violate the right to privacy, the right
against unreasonable searches and seizure, and
the equal protection clause?

Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board

GR 157870
1) 1) YES, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional
qualification for candidates for senator. NO,
Congress CANNOT enact a law prescribing
qualifications for candidates for senator in F
addition to those laid down by the Constitution.
2) 2) The Court held that, paragraphs (c) and (d) are
CONSTITUTIONAL; while paragraphs (f) and (g) I R
are UNCONSITUTIONAL. Only paragraphs (f) and
(g) violate the right to privacy, the right against
unreasonable searches and seizure, and the
equal protection clause.

Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board

GR 157870