DDB Board Regulation number 7 only assesses if the person is a drug user or not. If not PWUD, there is a DDB Board Regulation number 3 specific for plea bargainers. Law enforcement agency will prescribe intervention for the particular person but the court also has discretion on this matter.
There’s an existing jurisprudence (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, dated April 2 2019) penned by Judge Ruben T.Reyes, Former President of the Judges Association on this matter. The privilege of availing plea-bargaining DOES NOT APPLY to recidivist/second-time offences
Balai Silangan is a reformatory program. If you’re assessed as having violated any provision of R.A. 9165 except section 15 or any other provisions of the law, you can avail of the reformatory program. If you’re deemed a PWUD, and your only violation is Section 15 of R.A. 9165, it shouldn’t be Balai Silangan. You should go to any intervention program: general intervention, community- based program, outpatient rehab, and in-patient rehab program. Balai Silangan are for drug offenders.
Balay Silangan is proposed by PDEA while Bahay Pagbabago is proposed by PNP.
The KKDK Program is designed for users not pushers. The program is anchored on the stages of change and the use of techniques to move the PWUD from one stage of change to the next. Drug users on the other hand, especially with those without experience may find it difficult to reflect on questions pertinent to drug use.
The KKDK is a viable program There is a need to present the KKDK program to both Balai Silangan of PDEA and Bahay Pagbabago of PNP.
They should specify the severity of the Substance Use Disorder. That’s the point of conducting the DDE. If the degree of severity is not indicated, then it’s useless. It should contain the severity. If the Balai Silangan PPP is capable of providing intervention services, based on the severity of the substance abuse disorders, the BJMP can very well provide those interventions.
There is no study that shows that drug offenders can influence PWUDs in a joint counseling session.
The rehabilitation case manager will do the recommendation for the after-care program but the final decision will come from the court.
For pleabargainers, it is a case to case basis. It depends on the decision of the court.
It would be better to put PWUDs and plea bargainers in separate groups for CBDR programs because these clients would have different risk levels and needs. It would also not be advisable to mix pushers with recovering users
Barangay officials and other personnel like barangay health workers and community volunteers from the church and other NGOs can be trained to deliver programs for plea bargainers. It is preferred that potential program facilitators have a background in basic counseling and facilitation to properly deliver the program and guide the plea bargainer in his/ her recovery.
Currently, there are a number of interventions being given by local government units for pleabargainers. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology is using Therapeutic Community (TC) and the Katatagan Kontra Droga sa Komunidad intensive outpatient program. The KKDK IOP is also being used by a number of LGUs. The Parole and Probation board also has their own program based on TC.
For PWUDs, the law enforcement should no longer be involved unless the person is a drug offender. Law enforcement monitoring should be discussed at the ADAC level.
No, since the ADAC does the delisting. The PNP or law enforcement agency validates the list that the LGU has with their old list. The LGU verifies the reasons for delisted names. Such reasons may include completion to intervention program, or if the individual has migrated to another area or if the person has died.
The language in the circular used is drug dependency test, which maybe interpreted as drug test even if it pertains to DDE.
There is no study that shows that drug offenders can influence PWUDs in a joint counseling session.
The rehabilitation case manager will do the recommendation for the after-care program but the final decision will come from the court.
For pleabargainers, it is a case to case basis. It depends on the decision of the court.
Globally, to reduce the burden of drug use and drug related components, there are two big components. One is the supply reduction. The supply reduction measures are important, but there will be quite a lot of psychoactive substances around the world around us still available to people. There is no way we can eradicate this completely. The other one is demand reduction. This is the prevention, treatment, recovery, support, and harm reduction. The best possible strategy at least based on what we know so far, is the combination between the two. Neither alone will give us the result we would like to see.