By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Courts of Accountability: Complementarity in the Drug War
Current proceedings before the International Criminal Court (ICC) have placed the Philippine justice system under intense scrutiny. A primary metric of whether domestic mechanisms function adequately is the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. The tribunal recognizes the necessity of adopting a resolute stance against the scourge of illegal drugs, but maintains that this objective cannot justify the subversion of constitutional rights. The State’s steadfastness in eliminating the drug menace must be equally matched by its determination to uphold the Constitution. The Court has plainly ruled that a battle waged against illegal drugs that resorts to shortcuts and tramples on the rights of the people is not a war on drugs; it is a war against the people (People v. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020; People v. Doria, G.R. No. 227854, October 9, 2019).
This judicial posture defines the country’s domestic accountability mechanisms. Under the Rome Statute, the international tribunal operates on the principle of complementarity, meaning it may only exercise jurisdiction over serious crimes if domestic courts are “unwilling or unable” to prosecute the offenders. The Supreme Court highlighted that the country’s domestic legislation, specifically Republic Act No. 9851, provides broader protection than the Rome Statute. Unlike the international treaty, the domestic law completely dispenses with the principle of complementarity as a requirement for the prosecution of crimes against humanity, ensuring that the Philippine justice system retains robust and primary mechanisms to prosecute grave offenses (Pangilinan v. Cayetano, G.R. No. 238875, March 16, 2021).
On the efficiency of these domestic courts, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio noted during oral arguments that the justice system actively processes and resolves drug-related offenses. He pronounced that in his almost 17 years in the Court, the Divisions almost every time affirm the conviction in a drug case. He qualified this by pointing out a systemic disparity, observing that the offenders convicted are almost always either a pusher or user, mostly a pusher. He highlighted that he could remember only one drug lord being convicted by the Court, raising questions about the operational focus of the police campaigns against the major syndicates dominating the illegal drug trade (Almora v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 234359, April 3, 2018).
Beyond individual convictions, the Supreme Court has directly scrutinized the broader implementation of these police campaigns. The Court directed the government to produce police operational reports pertaining to the thousands of deaths resulting from the war on drugs. Rejecting the government’s generic invocation of national security, the Court reasoned that the unusually high number of deaths requires judicial scrutiny to determine whether the application of police circulars adhered to the Constitution and to formulate rules protecting fundamental human rights (Almora v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 234359, April 3, 2018).
One aspect of this accountability framework defines the constitutional limits of law enforcement practices, particularly against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court has decisively struck down intrusive, warrantless searches of moving vehicles based solely on an unverified tip from an anonymous informant. The Court declared that a solitary tip is still hearsay and is insufficient to constitute probable cause. Permitting such searches would set an extremely dangerous precedent, giving authorities an unbridled license to undertake extensive searches based on fabricated information (Evardo v. People, G.R. No. 234317, May 10, 2021; People v. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020).
Strict procedural safeguards also govern the handling of seized drug evidence under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court acknowledges that the corpus delicti in drug cases is easily susceptible to manipulation, planting, and contamination. As a result, it mandates strict compliance with the chain of custody rules, requiring the presence of insulating witnesses—such as an elected official, a media representative, and a representative from the Department of Justice—to insulate the incrimination from any taint of illegitimacy (People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 261132, August 2, 2023; People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 229046, September 11, 2019). Unjustified deviations from this procedure inevitably result in the acquittal of the accused, as the presumption of regularity in official duties cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence (People v. Palao, G.R. No. 219890, January 12, 2021).
The Philippine justice system balances punitive measures with restorative frameworks, such as allowing plea bargaining in certain drug offenses. The Court asserted its rule-making power to enable minor drug offenders to plead guilty to lesser offenses, facilitating their treatment and social reintegration (Lo v. People, G.R. No. 258420, February 26, 2025; Cereza v. Suarez, G.R. No. 242722, October 10, 2022). These rulings show a functioning domestic judicial mechanism. By acquitting individuals when procedures fail and demanding operational transparency from state agents, the Supreme Court affirms that the rule of law must never be dislodged by the rule of men, establishing the domestic courts as primary instruments of accountability (People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019; People v. Villazorda, G.R. No. 207632, August 22, 2022).
As these domestic mechanisms actively operate under the shadow of international scrutiny, one must ask: do these courts of accountability satisfy the strict demands of complementarity, or do the staggering realities of the drug war expose the limits of this legal framework?