Documents on illegal drugs operations not security matters – SC
The Supreme Court (SC) declared that police documents on illegal drugs operations do not involve national security matters that should be shielded from the public.
Thus, the High Court said the Philippine National Police (PNP) through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) cannot be selective as to what documents it would release to parties and even to the public, on police operations involving illegal drugs.
There are two petitions pending resolution by the SC on the alleged unconstitutionality of the government’s campaign against illegal drugs.
Last April 2 during its summer session in Baguio City, the SC ordered the OSG to submit all documents pertaining to police operations against illegal drugs, particularly on the number of persons killed and dates, places, and reports on police operations from July 1, 2016.
The SC said the documents that would be submitted by the OSG should be furnished the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) and the Center for International Law (Centerlaw).
FLAG and Centerlaw represented several persons challenging the constitutionality of the illegal drugs operations being implemented by the PNP in two petitions filed in 2017.
Centerlaw earlier asked the SC to compel the OSG to furnish it copies of documents relating to the PNP’s illegal drugs operations.
It is not known, however if the OSG complied with the SC’s April 2 directive.
Early this year, the OSG complied with the first SC directive to submit documents on police operations but it categorized which documents should be released to the petitioners in the two cases.
The SC did not agree with the OSG’s selective submission of documents.
In its April 2 resolution which was made public Wednesday (April 17), the SC said “the information and documents relate to routine police operations involving violations of laws against the sale or use of illegal drugs.”
“There is no showing that the country's territorial integrity, national sovereignty, independence, or foreign relations will be compromised or prejudiced by the release of these information and documents to this Court or even to the public,” the SC said.
“These information and documents do not involve rebellion, invasion, terrorism, espionage, infringement of our sovereignty or sovereign rights by foreign powers, or any military, diplomatic or state secret involving national security,” the High Court added.
“It is simply ridiculous to claim that these information and documents on police operations against drug pushers and users involve national security matters.”
Two categories
In its resolution, the SC declared: “The undeniable fact that thousands of ordinary citizens have been killed and continue to be killed, during police drug operations certainly is a matter of grave public concern."
On the categorization of the documents submitted by the OSG, the SC said: “The OSG unilaterally declared, for the first time, that there are two categories of documents required from it. The OSG never mentioned any category of documents during the oral arguments, or even during its prior Motion for Reconsideration dated 18 December 201 7, when it refused to submit all the information and documents requested by Members of this Court.”
“We find that it cannot now impose conditions on its compliance. We find that it is only the OSG which unilaterally classified the documents into Categories 1 and 2, without the knowledge of or consent from this Court and the parties, for the first time on 4 September 2018, or after it already submitted its Compliances to the Court and the parties without any qualification or condition on 26 April 2018 and 25 June 2018,” the SC said.
It also said: “Again, we find that the OSG arrogated upon itself the determination of the relevance of the documents to the issues involved in the present petitions. To reiterate, we have ruled in our Resolution dated 3 April 2018 that the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of this Court.”
“Moreover, we also ruled in the same Resolution that "contrary to the claim of the Solicitor General, the requested information and documents do not obviously involve state secrets affecting national security.”