Request for Clarification on Whether Drug Courts Should be Included in the Regular Raffle

October 11, 2005

EN BANC

A.M. No. 05-9-03-SC

RE: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER DRUG COURTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE REGULAR RAFFLE

RESOLUTION

May special courts for drug cases be included in the raffle of civil and criminal cases other than drug related cases?

This is the subject of several queries received by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) specially from members of the bench who preside over courts designated as special courts for drug cases. 1 The OCA observed that conflicts of opinion on the matter are straining relations among some judges.

The OCA is of the opinion that Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, " allows drug courts to take cognizance of non-drug cases. 2 However, the Court has a policy exempting the special courts from the raffle of non-drug related cases. On this basis, the OCA recommends that special courts for drug cases should continue to be exempted from the raffle of non-drug cases until further orders from this Court. 3

The Court agrees with the interpretation and recommendation of the OCA.

Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

SEC. 90. Jurisdiction. — The Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this Act. The number of courts designated in each judicial region shall be based on the population and the number of cases pending in their respective jurisdiction. aSIHcT

The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act.

xxx xxx xxx

Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not later than sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the information. Decision on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of submission of the case for resolution. (emphasis supplied)

The phrase "to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this Act " means that, as a rule, courts designated as special courts for drug cases shall try and hear drug-related cases only, i.e., cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165, to the exclusion of other courts.

The very title of Article XI of R.A. No. 9165, the article where Section 90 is included, reads: "Jurisdiction Over Drug Cases. " It provides for the forum where drug cases are to be filed, tried and resolved: Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) designated by this Court as special drug courts. The jurisdiction of the designated courts is exclusive of all other courts not so designated.

In our resolution in A.M. No. 00-8-01-SC on August 1, 2000, certain branches of the RTCs were designated as special courts for drug cases. They were tasked to hear and decide all criminal cases in their respective jurisdictions involving violations of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, " as amended, 4 regardless of the quantity of drugs involved. Among the guidelines issued to implement such designation was a directive to Executive Judges of the RTCs concerned to exclude the designated courts from the raffle of other cases subsequent to the assignment or transfer of drug cases to them.

Even after the passage of R.A. No. 9165, the designated courts under A.M. No. 00-8-01-SC remained as special courts for drug cases. The resolution is still in effect insofar as it is not inconsistent with the new law. The fact that A.M. No. 00-8-01-SC has not been abandoned is evident in resolutions subsequently issued by the Court adding or replacing drug courts in different jurisdictions. 5 These resolutions expressly state that the guidelines set forth in A.M. No. 00-8-01-SC should be observed, if applicable.

The rationale behind the exclusion of drug courts from the raffle of cases other than drug cases is to expeditiously resolve criminal cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165 (previously, of R.A. No. 6425). Otherwise, these courts may be sidelined from hearing drug cases by the assignment of non-drug cases to them and the purpose of their designation as special courts would be negated. The faithful observance of the stringent time frame imposed on drug courts for deciding drug related cases and terminating proceedings calls for the continued implementation of the policy enunciated in A.M. No. 00-8-01-SC. EIcSTD

The Court is mindful of a relevant provision in the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court in connection with the assignment and raffling of cases. It mandates Executive Judges of RTCs to exclude designated special courts from the raffle of other cases, criminal and civil, whenever in their judgment the caseload of these courts prevents them from conducting a daily trial of drug cases. However, it should not be interpreted as a blanket, albeit implied, authority for Executive Judges to include drug courts in the raffle of non-drug related cases. Should they deem that the load of drug courts can accommodate non-drug related cases, or if it becomes necessary to include drug courts in the regular raffle to decongest the caseload of other branches, Executive Judges concerned should first make the corresponding recommendation to this Court.

WHEREFORE, Executive Judges and presiding judges of special courts for drug cases shall hereby observe the following guidelines:

1. Pursuant to Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165, only courts designated by this Court as special courts for drug cases can take cognizance of violations of R.A. No. 9165.

2. Drug courts shall strictly adhere to the periods imposed on them under Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165. Trial of all drug cases assigned to them shall be terminated within 60 days from the date of filing of the information. Decisions on these cases shall be rendered within 15 days from the date of submission of the case for resolution.

3. While special courts for drug cases are not prohibited from hearing non-drug related cases, Executive Judges shall continue to exempt them from the regular raffle, i.e., from the raffle of cases which do not involve violations of R.A. No. 9165, until further orders from this Court.

4.If, in the opinion of Executive Judges, the caseload of certain drug courts allows their inclusion in the regular raffle without adversely affecting their ability to expeditiously resolve the drug cases assigned to them and their inclusion in the regular raffle becomes necessary to decongest the caseload of other branches, the concerned Executive Judges shall recommend to this Court the inclusion of drug courts in their jurisdiction in the regular raffle. The concerned drug courts shall remain exempt from the regular raffle until the recommendation is approved. HIAEaC

5.The guidelines provided under A.M. No. 00-8-01-SC shall continue to remain in force and effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with this resolution.

Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Court Administrator, the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, the Judicial and Bar Council, the Philippine Judicial Academy, the Secretary of Justice, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Presidents of the Philippine Judges Association, Philippine Trial Judges League, Inc. and Metro and City Judges Association of the Philippines, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other entities concerned.

Footnotes

1.These especially designated courts for drug cases are also known as "drug courts. "

2.August 23, 2005 Memorandum of the OCA.

3.Id.

4.This law was repealed by R.A. No. 9165.

5.See June 17, 2003 Resolution in A.M. No. 03-4-238-RTC: Re: Designation of Additional Special Courts for Drug Cases and Family Courts in Makati City.