Barbers explains bill: Legal presumptions not the same as presumption of guilt
This has reference to the article “Right advocates hit approved House bill presuming guilt of drug suspects” (3/4/21), by Julie Aurelio and Krixia Subingsubing.
The story was attributed to Butch Olano, Philippine section director of Amnesty International; former Akbayan representative Loretta Ann Rosales; and Quezon City Rep. Jose Christopher Belmonte, whom I think failed to fully comprehend the real motivations, intent, and purpose of the bill regarding the issue of legal presumptions.
For the information of everybody, House Bill No. 7814 is a product of long and tedious deliberation of experts in various fields including the Department of Justice, Commission on Human Rights, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the Philippine National Police, Dangerous Drugs Board, National Bureau of Investigation, the legal luminaries from the House of Representatives, and other concerned government agencies.
The concerns and apprehensions raised in the article seem to arise from distrust with our anti-drug law enforcers who, although not all, had transgressed the fundamental rights of some citizens of our country.
However, the bill also provides amendments to Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which addresses abuses of law enforcers such as, among others: the defense of planting of evidence is automatically treated as a criminal complaint against the arresting enforcers (Section 29), presumption against bungling by law enforcers (Section 92), and criminal liability of enforcers for using false/falsified or planted evidence in effecting search warrants (Section 29-A).
Neither through cursory nor in-depth reading of HB 7814 would one infer the so-called “presumption of guilt” of any of the “suspects” or would-be “accused” in violation of the amendments to RA 9165.
Legal presumptions are not the same as presumption of guilt. Legal presumptions are allowed in our laws, embodied in judicial decisions and in international laws. Presumption of guilt, on the other hand, is illegal and has no place in modern society.
For better understanding by a layman, allow us to illustrate by way of analogy. A man who shoots and kills another is presumed to be the killer. Is he presumed guilty? The answer is NO. The state will have to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt even if he was caught in the act of killing another man. Even if he has confessed to the killing and pleaded guilty to the charge, he still has to be proven guilty on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. If the evidence presented by the prosecution is found wanting, the accused will be set free. Such is the weight of evidence needed and imposed by our laws to protect the innocent and establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The same principle is embodied in the legal presumptions under the proposed amendments to RA 9165. The presumed perpetrators of the illegal acts mentioned will have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt as well before their guilt may be established.
It is the commission of the prohibited act that is being presumed, not the guilt of the accused. Such commission or involvement in the commission of the prohibited act may only be presumed if certain facts are proven by the state, such as possession of incriminating evidence and knowledge of certain circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense. It is only upon establishment of these facts that the presumption of being involved in the commission of the offense attaches to the person. When the presumption is proven, then the guilt in the commission of the offense must be proven next. So as you can see, the guilt is never presumed, but the commission or involvement in the commission of the prohibited act.
Furthermore, the bill is in no way connected nor a knee-jerk reaction to the unfortunate encounter between the PNP and PDEA. This bill has been in the legislative mill for years already and was passed on third reading by the House last Congress.
We hope that this simple clarification will settle any misappreciation or misunderstanding of the proposed legislation.
REP. ROBERT ACE S. BARBERS
2nd District, Surigao del Norte
Chair, Committee on Dangerous Drugs
