Introduction

In the Philippines, marijuana—commonly referred to as cannabis, weed, or "damong ligaw" in local parlance—remains a highly regulated substance under the country's stringent drug laws. The legal framework governing its possession and use is primarily rooted in Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This legislation classifies marijuana as a "dangerous drug," placing it alongside other controlled substances like methamphetamine (shabu) and ecstasy. The Act reflects the Philippines' historically tough stance on drugs, influenced by international treaties such as the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, to which the country is a signatory.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the legal status of marijuana in the Philippine context, including historical background, current prohibitions, penalties, exceptions (if any), enforcement practices, and ongoing debates. It draws on statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, and policy developments to elucidate all aspects of the topic. Note that while this discussion is thorough, individuals should consult legal professionals for personalized advice, as laws and interpretations can evolve.

Historical Context

The regulation of marijuana in the Philippines dates back to the American colonial period. In 1905, under U.S. administration, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1461, which prohibited the sale and use of opium but did not specifically address marijuana. Marijuana's criminalization intensified in the mid-20th century, aligning with global trends. The Republic Act No. 6425, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, was the precursor to the current law, imposing severe penalties for drug-related offenses during the Martial Law era under President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

The 2002 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165) was enacted in response to escalating drug problems, particularly the methamphetamine epidemic. It consolidated and strengthened previous laws, emphasizing a zero-tolerance approach. This was further amplified during the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte (2016–2022), whose "war on drugs" campaign led to aggressive enforcement, including extrajudicial measures targeting drug users and dealers. Marijuana, though less emphasized than harder drugs, was swept into this broad crackdown.

Post-Duterte, under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (since 2022), the approach has shifted slightly toward rehabilitation over punishment for minor users, but the core prohibitions remain intact. International influences, such as the U.S.-led "War on Drugs" and ASEAN regional cooperation, continue to shape Philippine policy, resisting liberalization seen in countries like Thailand or parts of the United States.

Current Legal Framework

Classification of Marijuana

Under RA 9165, marijuana is listed in Schedule I of dangerous drugs, defined as substances with high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use in the Philippines. This includes the plant itself (Cannabis sativa), its resin, extracts, tinctures, and any derivative containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component. Cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive compound, is not explicitly exempted and falls under the same restrictions if derived from marijuana.

The law prohibits a wide range of activities related to marijuana:

Possession: Holding any amount of marijuana, regardless of intent.
Use/Consumption: Ingesting, smoking, or otherwise using marijuana.
Cultivation/Production: Growing, harvesting, or manufacturing marijuana plants or products.
Sale/Distribution: Selling, trading, or transporting marijuana.
Importation/Exportation: Bringing marijuana into or out of the country.

These prohibitions apply nationwide, with no distinctions between public and private spaces. Even trace amounts in paraphernalia (e.g., pipes, rolling papers) can lead to charges.

Penalties for Possession and Use

Penalties under RA 9165 are severe and graduated based on the quantity involved and the nature of the offense. For possession and use:

Small Quantities (Personal Use): Possession of less than 5 grams of marijuana resin or oil, or less than 300 grams of marijuana plant material, typically results in imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years, plus a fine of PHP 300,000 to PHP 400,000. First-time offenders for use may be eligible for probation or rehabilitation under the Plea Bargaining Framework for Drug Cases (Supreme Court A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, 2018), which allows community service or treatment instead of jail time.
Larger Quantities: Possession of 5–10 grams of resin/oil or 300–500 grams of plant material escalates penalties to life imprisonment and fines up to PHP 10 million. Amounts exceeding 10 grams of resin/oil or 500 grams of plant material can lead to life imprisonment to death (though the death penalty is under moratorium since 2006, per RA 9346).
Use Alone: Simple use, without possession, is punishable by 6 months to 4 years imprisonment and fines of PHP 10,000 to PHP 50,000. Mandatory drug testing and rehabilitation may be ordered.

Aggravating factors include involvement of minors, public officials, or proximity to schools/churches (within 100 meters), which can increase penalties. Repeat offenses nullify probation eligibility.

Judicial discretion plays a role; the Supreme Court has ruled in cases like People v. Holgado (G.R. No. 207992, 2014) that intent and quantity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the burden often falls on the accused to prove lawful possession, inverting typical presumptions.

Exceptions and Medical Use

Unlike some jurisdictions, the Philippines does not recognize recreational marijuana use under any circumstances. For medical purposes:

No General Legalization: Medical marijuana is not legalized. Bills like House Bill No. 6517 (Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act) were proposed in 2019 and 2022, aiming to allow regulated medical use for conditions like epilepsy, chronic pain, and PTSD. These have stalled in Congress due to opposition from conservative groups and the Catholic Church.
Limited Research and Importation: The Philippine Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may grant special permits for compassionate use of unregistered drugs, including CBD-based products like Epidiolex for epilepsy. However, this is rare and requires rigorous documentation. Importation for research is possible under Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) oversight, but personal medical use remains illegal.
Traditional/Indigenous Use: Indigenous communities, such as those in the Cordillera region, have historically used marijuana for rituals or medicine, but RA 9165 does not provide exemptions. Enforcement in remote areas is lax, but legal risks persist.

Hemp (industrial cannabis with low THC) is not distinguished legally from marijuana, though there are calls for separate regulation to support agriculture.

Enforcement and Practical Realities

Enforcement is handled by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Philippine National Police (PNP), and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Operations often involve buy-bust stings, checkpoints, and tip-offs. During the Duterte era, over 6,000 deaths were linked to anti-drug operations, including marijuana cases, raising human rights concerns from organizations like Amnesty International.

In practice:

Drug Testing: Mandatory in workplaces, schools, and government (per RA 9165 and DOLE Department Order No. 53-03). Positive tests for marijuana metabolites (detectable for weeks) can lead to dismissal or charges.
Rehabilitation Programs: The government operates centers under the Department of Health (DOH) and DDB. Voluntary surrender for treatment can avoid prosecution for minor users.
Corruption and Disparities: Enforcement is uneven; affluent individuals may evade penalties through connections, while the poor face harsher treatment. Prisons are overcrowded, with drug offenders comprising a significant portion.

Recent data from the DDB indicates marijuana is the second most abused drug after shabu, with arrests peaking in urban areas like Metro Manila and Cebu.

Judicial and Legislative Developments

Key Supreme Court rulings:

People v. Matalam (G.R. No. 199399, 2013): Upheld chain-of-custody requirements for evidence, leading to acquittals if procedures are violated.
Estipona v. Lobrigo (G.R. No. 226679, 2017): Declared mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional for plea bargaining, allowing lighter penalties for possession/use.

Legislatively, there is growing advocacy for reform. Groups like the Philippine Cannabis Compassion Society push for decriminalization, citing benefits like tax revenue and reduced prison populations. International shifts, such as Uruguay's full legalization and U.S. state-level reforms, influence debates. However, strong opposition from the Church, law enforcement, and anti-drug advocates maintains the status quo.

In 2023–2024, discussions in Congress focused on amending RA 9165 to emphasize harm reduction, including potential decriminalization of small amounts for personal use, similar to Portugal's model. As of now, no major changes have been enacted.

International and Comparative Perspectives

The Philippines' stance aligns with conservative Asian neighbors like Indonesia and Singapore, where marijuana possession can lead to death penalties. In contrast, Thailand legalized medical and recreational use in 2022, prompting regional discussions. As a UN member, the Philippines adheres to the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs, limiting liberalization options.

Expatriates and tourists should note that Philippine laws apply extraterritorially for citizens, and foreigners face deportation plus bans upon conviction.

Conclusion

Marijuana possession and use in the Philippines remain strictly illegal, with severe penalties underscoring the country's prohibitive approach. While there are murmurs of reform toward medical access and decriminalization, the legal landscape prioritizes deterrence and public health concerns over individual freedoms. Stakeholders, including lawmakers, advocates, and the public, continue to debate the efficacy of this framework amid evolving global norms. For those navigating this issue, awareness of the law is crucial to avoid inadvertent violations, and support for evidence-based policy changes could shape future developments.