SEN. Ronald "Bato" de la Rosa would have us believe that the hearings he has called at the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs, which he chairs, will be focused on the leak of confidential documents containing allegations linking prominent personalities to illegal drugs.
And yet he has given people reason to now believe that that is just an excuse to use the Senate to take down President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., whose name appears on the leaked documents. After all, Senator de la Rosa was uncategorical in his statement that the leaked document was not fabricated, thereby implying that its contents should be believed. This would therefore mean that the allegation that the President was, at the very least, being investigated for drug use, together with other prominent personalities, is not coming from a fabricated document.
The document being referred to is a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) "Authority to Operate and Pre-Operation Report," dated March 11, 2012, which went viral when it was publicly disclosed by vlogger Eden Claire Contreras (aka Maharlika). Disclosure: Maharlika is not in any way related to me.
De la Rosa cannot avoid being suspected of lacking good faith now, even if he also fumed about Maharlika's social media post, where she somewhat suggested that he may have been bribed by first lady Liza Marcos. Apparently, the US-based vlogger, who is a former Marcos loyalist turned bitter critic, reacted negatively to de la Rosa's earlier questioning of her credibility. De la Rosa challenged Maharlika to personally appear at the Senate to answer questions to substantiate her allegations, instead of attacking the senator's character. Some Marcos defenders are alleging that this is all part of a script, to provide Marcos critics with a platform and an opportunity to further besmirch the President's character.
De la Rosa appeared to be more emphatic when he granted some credibility to the source of the leakage, as well as the leaked document itself. In a radio interview on April 30, he was quoted as saying that, "Based on my impression, that paper is existing. Because the nature of the paper, when I looked at it, was clear. It was not AI-generated (artificial intelligence). It's not fabricated because the photocopy was clear, and you can see the punch holes where the paper fastener went through." This is a bit premature, and for someone claiming to be an expert investigator, a bit naive considering that anyone can easily make fabricated documents appear as genuine as possible, including even punching it with paper fastener to create holes before photocopying it to give the impression of authenticity.
What is even more strange is that de la Rosa vouched for the character of the source of the leak, Jonathan Morales, a former PDEA agent and now an anti-drug crusader under a group called "Anti-Drug Advocate Laban ng Pamilyang Pilipino Center for Investigative Regulatory Compliance." In the face of denial coming from PDEA about the existence, and its questioning of the authenticity, of the leaked documents, de la Rosa stated during the hearing that he was inclined to believe Morales simply because he was a former PDEA agent. De la Rosa seemed to have ignored the possibility of rogue agents, which is now being alleged of Morales by Rep. Ace Barbers who questioned his credibility and record at PDEA.
This is not to say that investigating the leakage of sensitive documents should not be conducted by the Senate. But the focus should be on the context of inquiring whether there is a paucity of laws that can prevent these leakages, and if there is, then the proper remedy is to propose legislation.
The proper venue should be the agencies that are clothed with the authority to conduct investigations. The focus should be on Morales, and on Maharlika, despite her protestations. After all, being suspected of being a drug user is a sensitive issue that requires utmost privacy. In fact, officials of private organizations that do not safeguard the secrecy of the drug test results of their employees can be penalized. The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) issued Board Regulations 8 in 2003, which stipulated that the confidentiality of all information relating to drug tests or to the identification of drug users in the workplace shall be held with utmost confidence, and can be overridden only when required by law, in case of overriding public health and safety concerns, and upon consent by the subject of the test.
Section 72 of Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, holds liable any person who violates the confidentiality of records of people who are already drug-dependent. It imposes penalties of imprisonment as well as fines. The maximum penalty is to be imposed, including absolute perpetual disqualification from any public office, when the offender is a government official or employee.
Clearly, what we have here is a case of someone who had custody of an information publicly leaking what is otherwise held as confidential by law. Section 72 of RA 9165, and DDB Regulations 8 are about drug-dependent people, whose privacy rights should be protected. What was leaked was a document that contained information about suspected drug users, and the protection of their privacy rights should be no less assured by law. While the President is not above the law, he cannot also be treated less by it.
This protection cannot be trifled with even by senators, and the Senate should not provide a venue for the leakers like that former PDEA agent, and their enablers like Maharlika, to continue their assault on privacy rights. This is not just about the rights of President Marcos Jr., but also of the other names included in the report, that include names of known celebrities and showbiz personalities.
Senator de la Rosa should rethink the direction his committee investigation is taking. He should be reminded that its real intent is to aid legislation, and not to aid the President's crucifixion.