Responsibility for enforcing drug laws

BANTAYGOBYERNO

Ike Señeres

As it is supposed to be, the enforcement of anti-illegal drug laws is supposed to be the responsibility of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) at the national level, and of the Local Government Units (LGUs) at the local level. While everyone is happy now that the war against illegal drugs appears to be winning, I am just wondering how it became widely spread, and what the accountability is of those who failed to enforce these laws in the past. As we all know it, the Philippine National Police (PNP) is under the supervision of the DILG and therefore it follows that the former Directors General of the PNP are equally also accountable together with the past DILG Secretaries.

As I know it, former officials of the Japanese bureaucracy would still go to jail even long after they have retired, if and when they are found guilty of previous offenses. As far as I could recall, nothing of that sort has ever happened here because retirement seems to be the instant way out for the offenders.

         For all we know, many of those who are accountable all already out of the country, enjoying the loots that they have amassed. Chances are many of those who were at the top of DILG and the PNP will claim innocence, and will say that they are not directly involved. They could say whatever they want however, but in the end, the doctrine of command responsibility would still prevail.

In theory, all members of the Cabinet are simply just alter egos of the President, meaning that they are simply just acting for and in his behalf. Given that theory, we could actually say that it is DILG Secretary Ismael Sueno who is acting for and in behalf of President Rodrigo RoaDuterte for the enforcement of the anti-illegal drug laws, care of PNP Chief Ronald De La Rosa, by way of delegated authority. If this analogy is valid, then we could also say that in reverse, the failure to enforce these laws could be indirectly blamed on all PNP Chiefs, going up to all DILG Secretaries and ending up with all Presidents in recent memory.

For all intents and purposes however, it could be said that President Duterte should get the credit for the successful anti-drug campaign, because he is the one who provided the leadership for the campaign, having stemmed from his very strong political will.

Conversely, it could also be said that all the Presidents in recent memory from the time that the drug problem started should get all the blame for their inaction and their lack of political will. Looking at what Duterte did, it is very clear that he did not need any special powers to do what he did, because all the laws were already in place, and all that he had to do was to enforce it.

Just how far should command responsibility really go? As far as credit is concerned, we could really spread it out, because we know that the credit should go equally to Chief De La Rosa, to Secretary Sueno and to Duterte. In case of the failure to implement during the previous administrations, just how far could we spread out the blame? Could we spread it out to all the previous PNP Chiefs, DILG Secretaries and Presidents? For sure, it would not be too difficult to find evidence for negligence and dereliction of duty, because every piece of illegal drug that has been confiscated so far was obviously brought in during the watch of others in the immediate past.

 Going further down in the blame game, perhaps it would also be in good order to also look into reasons why the past Directors of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the PNP neither detected nor investigated the proliferation of illegal drugs, oftentimes within their own ranks.

It would also be good to look into the reasons why the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) of the PNP has not investigated anyone from their own ranks also. Because of that, I am reminded about the question of who should be watching the police. Because of what has happened in the past, I now believe that we should no longer allow the police to watch their own, meaning that the IAS should now be a watchdog from outside the PNP.

In the midst of all these happenings, I believe that it is also now time to reconsider who should be reporting the crime rate, and how should be reporting it. As of now, it is the PNP that is reporting the crime rate and because of that, there appears to be a conflict of interest, because reporting a high crime rate would work against the interests of its high officials.

The cure to that perhaps is a third party that would report the crime rate, in much the same way that the functions of the IAS should also be transferred to a third party. As it is now, the crime rate data includes only the index crimes, meaning the crimes against persons and against properties. No wonder the high incidence of illegal drug use did not even affect the crime rate data.

 Email bantaygobyerno-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639956441780