SC orders gov't to submit reports on Duterte drug war

The Supreme Court (SC) has denied the government's petition against its December 2017 order to submit reports on President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs.

SC spokesman Theodore Te said the high court has denied Solicitor General Jose Calida's motion and directed the government, including Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Director General Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa, to turn in the reports within a period of 15 days from notice.

En Banc Actions, April 3, 2018 | GR 234359, 234484, SolGen Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Dec 5, 2017 Order in the Petitions v Wat on Drugs denied; submission of the required reports within 15 days from notice.

— Supreme Court PIO (@SCPh_PIO) April 3, 2018

In December, the SC asked the government so submit a list of persons killed in legitimate police operations from July 1, 2016 to Nov. 30, 2017; list of deaths under investigation from July 1, 2016 to Nov. 30, 2017; list of Chinese and Filipino-Chinese drug lords who have been neutralized; and list of drugs involved whether shabu, cocaine, marijuana, opioids, etc.; and comparative tables on index crimes.

The SC also wanted to obtain statistics of internal cleansing within the police force; drug watchlist in affected areas; reports and documents regarding alleged drug war victims Aileen Almora, Rowena Aparri, and Jefferson Soriano; pre- and post-operation reports in all the incidents cited in the petition filed by Sister Ma. Juanita Daño's group; number of buy-bust incidents in San Andres Bukid, Manila from July 1, 2016 to Nov. 30, 2017; list of warrants and warrantless arrests in high-value target police operations; and list of cases under investigation under the PNP's Internal Affairs Service.

This was in relation to the petitions filed by two groups questioning the documents that authorized the conduct of the war on drugs.

In his appeal, Calida said the submission of the drug war reports will compromise police operations and informants' safety.

"By requiring the respondents to submit the aforementioned information and documents, the Court has ventured into unwarranted factual inquiries," the motion stated.

"Besides, the Court is not a trier of facts. 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. Tersely put, the petitions raise a facial challenge to the issuances that will not demand the production and evaluation of evidence," it also said. —ALG, GMA News