* PDEA 7 legal counsel Serge Andaya stated that plea bargaining for drug suspects depends strictly on the specific offense and the quantity of illegal drugs seized.
* Under RA 9165, claiming ignorance is not a defense, and Section 5 violations carry severe penalties, including life imprisonment and fines up to P10 million.
* Andaya traced drug enforcement history back to 1905 US colonial laws and Act 1761, which phased out opium, leading to the evolution of RA 9165.
SOME drug suspects may be allowed to plead to lesser offenses, but not all, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) 7 said, as eligibility depends on the nature of the case and the quantity of illegal drugs seized.
Serge Andaya, a lawyer who works for the PDEA 7 Legal Prosecution Unit, said plea bargaining is allowed in certain drug cases following the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in People v. Locsin.
He discussed the rules during the “Kapihan Kontra Droga” forum organized by the Philippine Information Agency (PIA) 7 on Thursday, Oct. 15, 2026.
The option matters because penalties for drug offenses are severe. Violators of Section 5 of Republic Act (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, face life imprisonment and fines ranging from P500,000 to P10 million.
The section covers seven prohibited acts which are selling, trading, administering, dispensing, delivering, distributing and transporting illegal drugs.
Ignorance is not a defense
Andaya also warned the public that claiming ignorance may not serve as a defense under special laws such as RA 9165.
“This is a special law. So, intent is immaterial. So, whether you know or not that there are drugs there, but after, upon discovery at the airport, drugs are recovered in your possession, regardless of whether you knew or not, you will surely be held liable,” Andaya said in a mix of Cebuano and English.
Under RA 9165, prohibited drugs are regulated in accordance with international agreements.
The law is the latest in a series of measures that have evolved over more than a century, Andaya said, noting that changes since the American colonial period were meant to strengthen enforcement against drug-related offenses.
History
A United States Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1905, would ban opium imports except by the government for medicinal purposes. The 1905 measure was a tariff law.
On April 1, 1906, the Philippine Commission (the American colonial governing authority) enacted Act 1461, which was the first opium law under the US ban. It took effect on April 1, 1906. Its purpose was to restrict the sale of opium and curb its harms until March 1, 1908.
The law was repealed by Act 1761, which was enacted on Oct. 10, 1907, and took effect seven days later.
Act 1761 was designed to carry out a 1905 US Act of Congress banning opium imports except for medicinal purposes. Unlike the earlier law, which regulated a legal opium trade, Act 1761 phased opium out.
Registered Chinese users received daily allowances that shrank by 15 percent of the original amount every month, and they could consume opium only in licensed dispensaries supervised by internal revenue officers.
Opium holders had 10 days to surrender their stocks, while dealers, dispensaries and pharmacists faced strict licensing, tax and record-keeping rules. The law also covered cocaine and alpha and beta eucaine.
From March 1, 1908, possessing or using these drugs without medical authorization was punishable by a fine of up to P10,000, imprisonment of up to five years, or both, with possible deportation for foreign nationals who repeated the offense.
Revenue from the law funded anti-opium information campaigns, addiction treatment, teachers’ salaries and schoolhouses.
Act 1761 was followed by the Revised Penal Code in 1930, RA 6425, or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and the current RA 9165. / ABC