Defeating and destructive

IN DUMAGUETE City, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) initiated an indirect contempt charge against the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agents. These agents were involved in misleading the court, for making untruthful statements in their affidavits, and for directly impeding and degrading the administration of justice.

It was claimed that certain persons were arrested as a result of a drug buy bust operation. They were arrested in the house of one of the accused. However, the defense presented a CCTV footage operated by the city government that they (accused) were picked up by PDEA agents near a traveler’s lodge. There were forced to go inside an AUV.

The court ruled that the accused were illegally arrested, that the court has no jurisdiction over the accused, and that the evidence supposedly obtained from them were inadmissible.

The issue raised in this case is the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The right of a person is protected by the Bill of Rights under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution. It states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

Before a police officer can arrest or search a person, he must validly first secure a warrant of arrest or search warrant. Without it, any evidence that can be obtained by such shall become inadmissible evidence in court.

A valid warrant of arrest or search warrant should have the following requisites:

1. There should be probable cause.

2. It must be personally determined by a judge.

3. It should be examined under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce.

4. The place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized should be particular, not general.

The exceptions to these are the three circumstances mentioned in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court:

1. When, in the presence of the policeman, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This is the “in flagrante delicto” rule.

2. When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it. This is the “hot pursuit” arrest rule.

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.

In the present case, we can say that the agents’ purpose was to eliminate the drug menace in their place. However, that purpose should be equal to the purpose of the Constitution. Law enforcers should uphold and defend the Constitution when fighting illegal drugs. They should not trample on the rights of the people because if it is the contrary, then the fight is self-defeating and self-destructive.

As of this writing, the PDEA will have its own investigation. And I hope that everyone has the wisdom to choose the proper remedy on this issue./PN