The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Center for International Law and the Free Legal Assistance Group to comment on the appeal made by the Philippine National Police seeking to recall its order mandating the agency to submit information pertinent to the 3,806 killed during legitimate anti-illegal drug police operations under Oplan Double Barrel.
In a resolution, the SC gave petitioners CenterLaw and FLAG 10 days to submit its comment on the PNP’s motion filed through the Office of the Solicitor General.
SC spokesman Theodore Te said the directive was issued during the Court’s regular en banc session on Tuesday.
In its motion for reconsideration, Solicitor General Jose Calida branded as “patently irrelevant,” its order issued on Dec. 5, 2017 requiring them to submit details of those killed under legitimate police operations against users and pushers of illegal drugs from July 1, 2016 to Nov. 30, 2017.
Calida argued that the SC cannot declare a law or ordinance as unconstitutional based on the abuses committed by its implementor.
The CenterLaw and FLAG both assailed the legality of the ongoing anti-illegal drug war of the Duterte administration,
In particular, the Centerlaw sought for the issuance of a writ of amparo to shield the residents of 26 barangays in San Andres Bukid, Manila City against the government’s anti-illegal drug war.
The FLAG petition, on the other hand, is seeking to declare as unconstitutional PNP’s CMC 16-2016, or “Oplan Double Barrel,” which Diokno said allows the police to neutralize suspected drug pushers.
“The criterion by which the validity of the statute or ordinance is to be measured is the essential basis for the exercise of power, and not a mere incidental result arising from its exertion. This is logical,” Calida said.
“Just imagine the absurdity of situations when laws may be declared unconstitutional just because the officers implementing them have acted arbitrarily,” he said.
Last year, the Supreme Court conducted an oral argument in connection with the two consolidated petitions filed by the respondents.
The petitioners also urged the SC to issue protection orders for the relatives of three persons who ended up as victims of “extralegal killings” in the anti-drug campaign.
Diokno said that the killings of Ryan Dave Almora and Rex Aparri, and the shooting of Jefferson Soriano, are part of “extralegal killings,” thus covered by the rule on the writ of amparo.
In its order issued on December 5, 2017, the SC ordered the OSG to submit the names, addresses, gender of those killed under Oplan Double Barrel including the place, date and time of the drug operations.
The high court also required the OSG to provide the names of PNP team leader and team members who participated in the operation, the pre-operation plan, post ops report, whether research warrants or warrants of arrests were issued, names of representatives of media, NGOs and barangay officials present during the police operations.
On those “death under investigation,” the SC asked the submission of the names, addresses, gender, ages of those killed including the date, time and place of the killing, the Scene Of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) team leader and members who investigated the killing, investigation reports and whether charges have been filed against the suspects or not.
The tribunal also asked the government lawyers to submit the records of all buy-bust operations conducted in San Andres Bukid.
However, Calida, in its motion for reconsideration said the high court “cannot go beyond determining the textual commitment of PNP CMC No. 16-2016 and DILG MC No. 2017-112 to the Constitution.”
“In resolving constitutional issues, it is not allowed to receive and weigh evidence, which it will necessarily perform upon receiving the information and documents required of the respondents,” Calida said.
Calida added that the documents the Supreme Court wanted contain sensitive information that has national security implications.