Re: Letter of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta on the Suggested Plea Bargaining Framework Submitted by the Philippine Judges Association (SGD.) ERWIN D. IGNACIOCity Prosecutor 14

April 2, 2019

EN BANC

A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC

RE: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ON THE SUGGESTED PLEA BARGAINING FRAMEWORK SUBMITTED BY THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedAPRIL 2, 2019, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC(Re: Letter of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta on the Suggested Plea Bargaining Framework Submitted by the Philippine Judges Association). — In the Agenda of February 26, 2019, the Court resolved to note the Letter 1 dated December 19, 2018 of Atty. Dennis G. Dagohoy, in behalf of his client, Sherwin P. Felonia, charged with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, pending before Branch 15, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, denominated as Criminal Case No. 17-03548-CR, for allegedly selling Nalbuphine Hydrochloride, stating, among others, that this client would have qualified to avail of probation if not for the fact that under Supreme Court Administrative Circular A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018 (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases), said drug is not mentioned therein, but only shabu and marijuana.

Atty. Dagohoy claims that Nalbuphine Hydrochloride is not dangerous per se and not as harmful as shabu and marijuana. He avers that, according to the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Nalbuphine Hydrochloride is a good analgesic option in a balanced anaesthesia technique as it provides intra-operative and post-operative analgesia and good haemodynamic stability with less side effects. Medically, said drug is primarily used for pain relief, including anaesthesia. Its other medical uses include suppression of diarrhea, replacement therapy for opioid use disorder, reversing opioid overdose, suppressing cough, and suppressing opioid-induced constipation. That is the reason why under R.A. No. 9165, this particular drug is excluded as dangerous drug but merely added as such upon recommendation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). It is only when Nalbuphine Hydrochloride is used indiscriminately that it will have side effects, necessitating its administration only by a trained medical practitioner. Verily, it is only a regulated drug. 2

In view of the foregoing, Atty. Dagohoy requests the Court to include Nalbuphine Hydrochloride in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018, in addition to shabu and marijuana, as it is ironic that his client could not plea bargain, while others who were caught with shabu and marijuana could. He implores that the inclusion of said drug would give his client and those similarly situated, the chance to avail of probation and, thus, start a new life. 3

The reasons cited by Atty. Dagohoy to include Nalbuphine Hydrochloride in the coverage of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018, that may be subject of plea bargaining, like illegal sale of minuscule quantities of shabu and marijuana, fails to persuade.

Contrary to his claim that Nalbuphine Hydrochloride is only a regulated drug, Atty. Dagohoy would do well to remember that the inclusion of said drug in the list of dangerous drugs was made upon the initiative of the PDEA and the Department of Health (DOH) after a series of public hearings conducted by the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) on February 10, 2006, March 28, 2007 and May 6, 2009, 4 in accordance with Section 93, 5 Article XI of R.A. No. 9165. CAIHTE

The whereas clauses of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2010, 6 explain why Nalbuphine Hydrochloride was included in the list of dangerous drugs. Despite the wide use of said drug as to cure moderate to severe pain, it is found to have serious side effects, requiring its administration only by a trained medical practitioner with valid S-2 license. Studies, likewise, show that said drug, when used or administered indiscriminately, has the capacity to produce dependence and is found to be the 5th most commonly encountered drug abused by victims seeking treatment and rehabilitation in various rehabilitation centers, per DDB 2009 admission reports. 7 There have also been numerous reports of abuse of said drug in major cities in the country, and its use as an injectable drug, with the attendant practice of needle-sharing, pose a serious public health and social problem, like the spread of HIV-AIDs, malaria and hepatitis. 8

For proper context, since the enactment of R.A. No. 9165 on July 4, 2002 until the promulgation of Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo9 on August 15, 2017, any person charged under any provision of R.A. No. 9165, regardless or the imposable penalty, are not allowed to avail of the provision on plea bargaining. Due to the far-reaching effect of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 having been declared unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it was not immediately clear as to what extent should the sound discretion of the trial court be exercised in terms of plea bargaining. At best, Estipona held:

The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The word may denotes an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accused to make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused.

Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the pre-trial, or even up to the point when the prosecution already rested its case. As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, the trial court's exercise of discretion should not amount to a grave abuse thereof. x x x 10

In view of Estipona, the Philippines Judges Association (PJA) submitted the Suggested Plea Bargaining Framework which was deliberated upon and discussed by the Court En Banc on April 3, 2018.

On April 5, 2018, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta met with the Officers of the PJA to discuss the revisions on the plea bargaining framework, which was made simpler and easier to understand, and addressed the concerns raised in the En Banc Agenda of April 3, 2018.

On April 6, 2018, a revised plea bargaining framework, which is more simplified, incorporated therein the suggestions of the members of the En Banc. On April 10, 2018, the plea bargaining framework was further deliberated upon and approved with modifications, regarding the exception to probation of offenses involving illegal drug-trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 of R.A. No. 9165, and clarifying the non-applicability of plea bargaining in cases where the penalty is life imprisonment or life imprisonment to death.

It bears emphasis that the main reason of the Court in stating in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018 that "plea bargaining is also not allowed under Section 5 (Sale, Trading, etc. of Dangerous Drugs) involving all other kinds of dangerous drugs, except shabu and marijuana" lies in the diminutive quantity of the dangerous drugs involved. Taking judicial notice of the volume and prevalence of cases involving the said two (2) dangerous drugs, as well as the recommendations of the Officers of the PJA, the Court is of the view that illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 0.99 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) is very light enough to be considered as necessarily included in the offense of violation of Section 12 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs), while 1.00 gram and above is substantial enough to disallow plea bargaining. The Court holds the same view with respect to illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 9.99 grams of marijuana, which likewise suffices to be deemed necessarily included in the same offense of violation of the same Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165, while 10.00 grams and above is ample enough to disallow plea bargaining.

In contrast, despite the various medical use of Nalbuphine Hydrochloride which should only be administered by a trained medical practitioner, the Court cannot see from Atty. Dagohoy's one-page letter request the compelling reason why said drug is similarly situated with the more ubiquitous shabu and marijuana, and why illegal sale thereof should be included as subject of plea bargaining.

Moreover, it is presumptuous for Atty. Dagohoy to claim that his client would be entitled to probation if allowed to plea bargain for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. As held in Estipona, "a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basic rights are infringed by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged." 11

Meanwhile, the Court resolves to note the Memorandum 12 dated March 12, 2019 from Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and Presidential Spokesperson Secretary Salvador S. Panelo re: List of Drug Cases Where Plea Bargaining Proposals of The Accused Were Approved by the Court without the Consent and Over the Objection of the Prosecution.

The Memorandum of the Office of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel refers to the Letter 13 dated February 28, 2019 of Roxas City Prosecutor Erwin D. Ignacio, addressed to Secretary of Justice Menardo I. Guevarra, submitting a List of Drug Cases (as of February 2019) where the "plea bargaining proposals" of the accused were approved by the court over the objection of the prosecution, and the action taken by the Office of the City Prosecutor (Roxas City) to defend the interest of the State and the People. City Prosecutor Ignacio's letter reads:

Courts in this jurisdiction tend to prioritize the disposal of (criminal) cases to illegal drug cases via the plea bargaining proposals of the accused over the objection of the Prosecution. (The herein list shows Motions for Reconsiderations of this Office in some courts were denied on the same date). And, this cannot even be justified by the guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases because the same is aimed to address backlogs of ALL CASES — long overdue pending cases "crying" for disposition by the courts — and NOT to illegal drugs cases alone, most of which are newly filed.

The mode of disposal by the courts of illegal drug cases is probably the reason why most, if not all, of respondents under inquest investigation refuse to sign a "waiver" of the provisions of Article 125, Revised Penal Code, perhaps on the advice of counsel that they will just avail of plea bargaining once the cases are filed in court. Consequently, this Office is always under time pressure to resolve illegal drug cases aforesaid within the reglementary period. DETACa

This is alarming and a direct affront to the government's intensified campaign against the "menace of illegal drugs" under President Rodrigo Roa Duterte because the courts concerned have, in effect, degraded the penalties provided by R.A. 9165 — particularly for violation of Section 5, Article II thereof — since the accused are allowed to plead guilty to violation of Section 12 only where the penalty is minimal and probationable. Section 5, Article II, of R.A. 9165 is being defanged/rendered toothless and the accused are merely given a "slap-on-the-wrist" by the courts concerned. And, the efforts of the police and the Prosecution will be gone to waste.

As of this writing, many of those charged of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and whose "Plea Bargaining Proposals" were approved by the courts in the attached list are now applying/preparing to apply for probation.

For your information and appropriate action remedial action.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ERWIN D. IGNACIOCity Prosecutor 14

To be sure, the Court takes judicial notice that there are cases pending review where the trial courts declared as unconstitutional and invalid Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 061, dated November 21, 2017 (Re: Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002") and DOJ Circular No. 027 dated June 26, 2018 (Re: Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002"), and other related issuances, for supposedly being in contravention to or undermining the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. In fact, City Prosecutor Ignacio attached to his letter dated February 28, 2019 the list of drug cases with petitions for certiorari endorsed to the Office of the Prosecutor General for endorsement to the Office of the Solicitor General. The Court will eventually delve with the said constitutional issue at the proper time.

Meantime, City Prosecutor Ignacio bewails that courts tend to prioritize the disposal of newly-filed illegal drug cases via the plea bargaining proposals of the accused over the objection of the prosecution, rather than the long overdue pending cases "crying" for disposition. Trial courts cannot be blamed for such tendency because Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that trial of drug cases shall be finished by the court not later than sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the information, and decision on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of submission of the case for resolution. In contrast, continuous trial of regular criminal cases shall in no case exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise provided by the Court, pursuant to Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which adopted in toto the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 or R.A. No. 8493, 15 whereas the Constitution requires three (3) months to decide cases from submission. 16 Keeping in mind the reglementary period to hear, try and decide cases — two-and-a-half (2.5) month-period to resolve drug cases and about ten (10) months for regular criminal cases — it is not difficult to see why trial courts give attention to drug cases which mostly involve poor offenders languishing in overpopulated detention cells.

The Court takes exception to the claim that allowance of plea bargaining over the objection of the prosecution, "is alarming and a direct affront to the government's intensified campaign against the 'menace of illegal drugs' under President Rodrigo Roa Duterte because the courts concerned have, in effect, degraded the penalties provided by R.A. 9165 — particularly for violation of Section 5, Article II thereof — since the accused are allowed to plead guilty to violation of Section 12 only where the penalty is minimal and probationable. Section 5, Article II, of R.A. 9165 is being defanged/rendered toothless and the accused are merely given a 'slap-on-the-wrist' by the courts concerned. And, the efforts of the police and the Prosecution will be gone to waste."17

The Court explained in Estipona that it is towards the provision of a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases in all courts that the rules on plea bargaining was introduced. Thus:

x x x As a way of disposing criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea bargaining is considered to be an "important," "essential," "highly desirable," and "legitimate" component of the administration of justice. Some of its salutary effects include.

x x x For a defendant who sees slight possibility of acquittal, the advantages of pleading guilty and limiting the probable penalty are obvious — his exposure is reduced, the correctional processes can begin immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are eliminated. For the State there are also advantages — the more promptly imposed punishment after an admission of guilt may more effectively attain the objectives of punishment; and with the avoidance of trial, scarce judicial and prosecutorial resources are conserved for those cases in which there is a substantial issue of the defendant's guilt or in which there is substantial doubt that the State can sustain its burden of proof. (Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 [1970])

Disposition of charges after plea discussions x x x leads to prompt and largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced idleness during pretrial confinement for those who are denied release pending trial; it protects the public from those accused persons who are prone to continue criminal conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by shortening the time between charge and disposition, it enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned. (Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261 [1971])

The defendant avoids extended pretrial incarceration and the anxieties and uncertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy disposition of his case, the chance to acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start in realizing whatever potential there may be for rehabilitation. Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce resources. The public is protected from the risks posed by those charged with criminal offenses who are at large on bail while awaiting completion of criminal proceedings. (Blackledge v. Allison, 431. U.S. 63, 71 [1977]) 18

As a result of Estipona declaring as unconstitutional the provision of R.A. No. 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining in drug cases, the Court adopted plea bargaining framework in drug cases to initially address the gap created thereby, which is susceptible to abuse and misinterpretation. Concededly a work in progress, the plea bargaining framework was intended to expedite criminal proceedings and declog court dockets, so also as not to affect the other equally-important cases (criminal, civil, commercial, special proceedings and special civil actions) that merit the trial court's limited personnel and logistical resources. Always bearing in mind the declaration of policy 19 under R.A. No. 9165, as amended, the Court carefully chose to allow plea bargaining, for instance, in illegal sale of marijuana and shabu in trifling quantities [e.g., 0.01-1.00 gram of shabu and 0.01-9.99 grams of marijuana], because these are the offenses that are often committed and that really flood the court dockets, but get dismissed later not because the offenders are innocent, but because the cases are poorly built-up. With the heavy inflow of drug cases filed before courts, like in Roxas City, Capiz, of which Ignacio is a City Prosecutor, where there are only about six (6) organized RTCs, administration of justice will certainly suffer if the prosecution will insist on full-blown trial of every dangerous drug case. aDSIHc

Significantly, plea bargaining is always addressed to the sound discretion of the judge, guided by Court issuances, like A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018. If the objection to the plea bargaining is solely to the effect that it will weaken the drug campaign of the government, then the judges may overrule such objection because they are constitutionally bound to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Judges must decide cases based on evidence, law and jurisprudence, and they cannot just defer to the policy of another Branch of the government. However, if objections to the plea bargaining are valid and supported by evidence to the effect that the offender is a recidivist, a habitual offender, or known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, or one who has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times, or when the evidence of guilt of the charge is strong, courts should not allow plea bargaining, because that will not help keep law and order in the community and the society. And just because the prosecution and the defense agree to enter into a plea bargain, it does not mean that the courts will approve the same. The judge must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account relevant circumstances, such as the character of the accused.

City Prosecutor Ignacio further laments that many of those charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and whose "Plea Bargaining Proposals" were approved by the courts, over the objection of the prosecution, are now applying/preparing to apply for probation. This view underestimates the purpose of the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707. 20 It does not follow that once an offender applies for probation, the same will be granted by the court. In fact, there are strict criteria and exacting conditions for the grant of probation, thus:

Section 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. — In determining whether an offender may be placed on probation, the court shall consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources. Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:

(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or

(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or

(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

Section 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:

(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years;

(b) convicted of any crime against the national security;

(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00);

(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and

(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.

Section 10. Conditions of Probation. — Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring that the probationer shall:

(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified in the order within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order;

(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer.

The court may also require the probationer to:

(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;

(b) meet his family responsibilities;

(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior written approval of the probation officer;

(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and enter and remain in a specified institution, when required for that purpose;

(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;

(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on probation;

(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;

(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;

(i) permit to probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place or work;

(j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written approval; or

(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of conscience.

City Prosecutor Ignacio may have also overlooked that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018 provides that even if plea bargaining is allowed for illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 0.99 grams of shabu and illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 9.99 grams of marijuana, the accused shall still undergo drug dependency test, which may require rehabilitation for a period of not less than six (6) months, aside from the period of probation that may be granted by the court, or may serve his or her sentence of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day as the minimum, and 4 years as the maximum, * if probation is denied by the court.

WHEREFORE, the letter dated December 19, 2018 of Atty. Dennis G. Dagohoy requesting the Court to include the illegal sale of Nalbuphine Hydrochloride as subject of plea bargaining pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018 (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases), is DENIED for lack merit.

The Memorandum dated March 12, 2019 from Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and Presidential Spokesperson Secretary Salvador S. Panelo, re: List of Drug Cases Where Plea Bargaining Proposals of the Accused Were Approved by the Court without the Consent and Over the Objection of the Prosecution, is NOTED.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and Presidential Spokesperson, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the Secretary of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Public Attorney's Office, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, for their guidance and information." Jardeleza, J., on official business; Reyes, J., Jr., J., on official leave; Hernando, J., on leave. (adv5) ETHIDa

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Penalty for violation of Section 12, R.A. No. 9165, or for Illegal Possession of Equipment, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.

1. Rollo, p. 38.

2. Id.

3. Id.

4. Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2010, approved on December 16, 2010.

5. Section 93. Reclassification, Addition or Removal of Any Drug from the List of Dangerous Drugs. — The Board shall have the power to reclassify, add to or remove from the list of dangerous drugs. Proceedings to reclassify, add, or remove a drug or other substance may be initiated by the PDEA, the DOH, or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a national or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the Board, it shall immediately begin its own investigation of the drug. The PDEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon the information received from law enforcement laboratories, national and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information.

   The Board after notice and hearing shall consider the following factors with respect to each substance proposed to be reclassified, added or removed from control:

   (a) Its actual or relative potential for abuse;

   (b) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect if known;

   (c) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance;

   (d) Its history and current pattern of abuse;

   (e) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;

   (f) Risk to public health; and

   (g) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this Act.

   The Board shall also take into accord the obligations and commitments to international treaties, conventions and agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory.

   The Dangerous Drugs Board shall give notice to the general public of the public hearing of the reclassification, addition to or removal from the list of any drug by publishing such notice in any newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2) weeks.

   The effect of such reclassification, addition or removal shall be as follows:

   (a) In case a dangerous drug is reclassified as precursors and essential chemicals, the penalties for the violations of this Act involving the two latter categories of drugs shall, in case of conviction, be imposed in all pending criminal prosecutions;

   (b) In case a precursors and essential chemicals is reclassified as dangerous drug, the penalties for violations of the Act involving precursors and essential chemicals shall, in case of conviction, be imposed in all pending criminal prosecutions;

   (c) In case of the addition of a new drug to the list of dangerous drugs and precursors and essential chemicals, no criminal liability involving the same under this Act shall arise until after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the last publication of such notice;

   (d) In case of removal of a drug from the list of dangerous drugs and precursors and essential chemicals, all persons convicted and/or detained for the use and/or possession of such a drug shall be automatically released and all pending criminal prosecution involving such a drug under this Act shall forthwith be dismissed; and

   (e) The Board shall, within five (5) days from the date of its promulgation submit to Congress a detailed reclassification, addition, or removal of any drug from the list of dangerous drugs.

6. Id.

7. Id.

8. Id.

9. G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017, 837 SCRA 160.

10. Id. at 192-193.

11. Id. at 190-191.

12. Rollo, pp. 44-45.

13. Id. at 46-47.

14. Id.

15. AN ACT TO ENSURE A SPEEDY TRIAL OF ALL CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

16. Article VIII, SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

17. Rollo, p. 46.

18. Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo, supra note 9, at 188-189.

19. Section 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is the policy of the State 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. In view of the foregoing, the State needs to enhance further the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs, it being one of today's more serious social ills.

    Toward this end, the government shall pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances through an integrated system of planning, implementation and enforcement of anti-drug abuse policies, programs, and projects. The government shall however aim to achieve a balance in the national drug control program so that people with legitimate medical needs are not prevented from being treated with adequate amounts of appropriate medications, which include the use of dangerous drugs.

  It is further declared the policy of the State to provide effective mechanisms or measures to re-integrate into society individuals who have fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug dependence through sustainable programs of treatment and rehabilitation.

20. AN ACT AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "PROBATION LAW OF 1976," AS AMENDED.