Buencamino is a fellow of Action for Economic Reforms. This piece was published on January 7, 2009 in page A6 of the Business Mirror.
In September 2008, agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) arrested and charged Richard Santos Brodett, Jorge JordanaJoseph, and Joseph Ramirez Tecson for the use, possession, and sale ofillegal drugs.
The PDEA saw it as an “open and shut” case. Prosecutors from theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) agreed. But not in the way the PDEAexpected.
The DOJ’s prosecutors threw out the drug case on the grounds that thePDEA agents acted illegally, carrying out warrantless arrests andsearches.
Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno explained what happened, “Thecar’s rear compartment was forcibly searched. Therefore, any objectseized during the search is inadmissible for having been unlawfullyobtained.”
He cited two other grounds for dismissing the case:
1. The suspects were arrested indiscriminately, thus illegally.2. The confession of one of the suspects was made without his counsel.
A lawyer for the suspects added, “It was a buy-bust, yes, but anillegal buy-bust. Even if they have evidence, that becomes inadmissibleif the evidence was obtained illegally.”
PDEA director Dionisio Santiago could only say, “That’s always their reason. They will cite you on a technicality.”
Well, Mr. Director, technicality is what due process is all about. Dueprocess is what prevents our society from becoming a police state. It’sunfortunate you don’t put too much value on due process and the rule oflaw.
You showed your disdain for the rule of law when you admitted toreporters in May 2008 that your agents engage in “farming,” policejargon for planting evidence on suspects.
You even justified the illegal practice.
You said:
“We sometimes do this although this is against the rule of law.Definitely we only apply this matter to some cases, like a subject whois publicly known to be peddling drugs but always escapes arrest. Thisis when we enter the picture.
“But PDEA operatives make sure that they (known drug traffickers) won’tknow that we put planted evidence. We are doing this because we want toneutralize big personalities engaged in the illegal drug trade whichdestroys the future of the youth.
“This is a remedy that we sometimes undertake so that we can put torest some people. Kesa naman patayin natin e di plantingan na langnatin para mabilanggo. Alam niyo to kill a cat there are so many ways,pero hindi naming gagawing very obvious ang planting. (Rather thankilling them let’s just plant evidence so they go to jail. You know tokill a cat there are so many ways, but we won’t make very obvious theplanting.)”
Although a few days later you said you only made the remarks in jest,the damage has been done. Henceforth, any drug case you file willbecome suspect. There might even be reasonable doubt for all yourprevious cases. Sadly, your agency was made inutile by your frivolousremarks.
There’s no doubt Director Santiago’s intentions are good but goodintentions are no substitute for adhering to due process and the ruleof law. Law enforcers should always remember that they are agents ofthe law not the law unto themselves.
Comments