I. Introduction

The debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana, also known as cannabis, in the Philippines remains one of the most contentious issues in contemporary Philippine law and policy. Rooted in a history of stringent anti-drug measures, the country's approach to marijuana has been predominantly prohibitive, viewing it as a dangerous substance akin to other narcotics. However, evolving global trends toward decriminalization and medical use have sparked domestic discussions on reform. This article examines the current legal status of marijuana under Philippine law, explores ongoing policy proposals, and analyzes the broader implications within the Philippine context. It draws on constitutional principles, statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, and legislative initiatives to provide a comprehensive overview.

Marijuana is classified scientifically as Cannabis sativa, containing psychoactive compounds like tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and non-psychoactive ones like cannabidiol (CBD). In the Philippines, it is commonly referred to as "marijuana" or "damo" in local parlance, and its regulation intersects with public health, criminal justice, economic policy, and human rights. While recreational use is strictly banned, limited medical applications have been proposed, reflecting a cautious shift influenced by international precedents.

II. Historical Background

The prohibition of marijuana in the Philippines traces back to colonial influences and post-independence policies. During the American colonial period (1898–1946), the Philippines adopted U.S.-inspired drug laws, with the first significant regulation coming under Act No. 2381 in 1914, which prohibited opium but laid the groundwork for broader narcotic controls. Marijuana was not initially a primary target, as its use was minimal and often associated with indigenous or folk medicine in some regions.

Post-World War II, the Republic Act No. 6425, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, marked a turning point by classifying marijuana as a prohibited drug alongside heroin and cocaine. Enacted during the Martial Law era under President Ferdinand Marcos, this law imposed harsh penalties, reflecting a "war on drugs" mentality amid rising global concerns over substance abuse. The 1980s and 1990s saw further entrenchment of these policies, influenced by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, to which the Philippines is a signatory.

The most pivotal development occurred in 2002 with the passage of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (CDDA), which repealed R.A. 6425 and consolidated drug-related offenses. This law was a response to escalating drug syndicates and aimed to eradicate illegal drug trade through severe sanctions. The CDDA's enactment coincided with international anti-drug campaigns but also drew criticism for its draconian measures, including mandatory death penalties (later commuted due to the abolition of capital punishment in 2006 via R.A. 9346).

In recent decades, the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte (2016–2022) intensified enforcement through the "Oplan Double Barrel" campaign, resulting in thousands of extrajudicial killings linked to drug suspects, many involving marijuana users. This period heightened global scrutiny, with the International Criminal Court investigating potential crimes against humanity. Subsequent administrations under Presidents Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (2022–present) have maintained a hardline stance but opened dialogues on medical cannabis, signaling incremental policy evolution.

III. Current Legal Framework

A. Classification and Prohibitions

Under the CDDA (R.A. 9165), marijuana is listed as a "dangerous drug" in Schedule I, alongside methamphetamine (shabu) and ecstasy. Section 2 defines dangerous drugs as substances that induce physiological or psychological dependence, with marijuana explicitly included due to its THC content. The law prohibits a wide array of activities related to marijuana:

Possession and Use: Section 11 criminalizes possession of any amount of marijuana, with penalties ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years imprisonment and fines of PHP 300,000 to PHP 400,000 for quantities under 500 grams. For larger amounts (e.g., 500 grams or more), penalties escalate to life imprisonment and fines up to PHP 10 million. Use is penalized under Section 15, often requiring mandatory rehabilitation.
Cultivation and Production: Section 8 bans cultivation, with penalties including life imprisonment or death (though death is not enforced). This includes growing marijuana plants, even for personal use, and extends to manufacturing extracts like hashish or oils.
Sale, Distribution, and Importation: Sections 5 and 6 impose the harshest penalties—life imprisonment to death and fines up to PHP 10 million—for selling, trading, or importing marijuana. Even minimal involvement, such as acting as a "financier" or "protector," incurs similar sanctions under Section 26.
Other Offenses: The law covers maintenance of dens (Section 7), chemical diversion (Section 10), and conspiracy (Section 26), broadening liability.

The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), established under the CDDA, oversees enforcement, with powers to conduct buy-bust operations and asset forfeiture. The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) regulates controlled precursors and formulates policies.

B. Exceptions and Medical Use

Currently, there are no broad exceptions for medical marijuana. However, the CDDA allows for "compassionate special permits" under Section 13 for terminally ill patients, but this is rarely invoked and does not explicitly include marijuana. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates pharmaceuticals, and CBD-based products require approval, but THC-infused items remain banned.

In practice, enforcement is uneven: affluent users may access rehabilitation, while marginalized communities face severe repercussions. Indigenous groups in regions like the Cordilleras have historically used marijuana in rituals, but this offers no legal shield.

C. Constitutional and Judicial Aspects

The Philippine Constitution (1987) underpins drug laws through Article II, Section 15 (right to health) and Section 5 (maintenance of peace and order). However, critics argue that harsh penalties violate Article III, Section 1 (due process) and Section 19 (prohibition of cruel punishments).

Key Supreme Court rulings include:

People v. Simon (1994): Upheld classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug, rejecting arguments of minimal harm.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001): Affirmed anti-drug laws' constitutionality, emphasizing state interest in public safety.
People v. Martin Simon (revisited in later cases): Courts have occasionally reduced sentences for minor possessions, citing proportionality.

Recent jurisprudence under the Duterte era has scrutinized extrajudicial killings, with cases like Pangilinan v. Cayetano (2021) calling for accountability, indirectly affecting drug policy enforcement.

D. Penalties and Rehabilitation

Penalties are non-bailable for serious offenses, with mandatory drug testing in schools and workplaces (Section 36). Rehabilitation centers, managed by the Department of Health (DOH), offer alternatives for first-time offenders via plea bargaining under R.A. 9165 as amended by R.A. 11310 (2019), allowing probation for possessions under 5 grams.

IV. Policy Proposals and Legislative Efforts

A. Medical Cannabis Bills

Efforts to legalize medical marijuana gained traction in the 2010s. House Bill No. 6517 (2019), the Philippine Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act, proposed regulated access for patients with conditions like epilepsy, cancer, and PTSD. Sponsored by Rep. Rodolfo Albano III, it aimed to establish a Medical Cannabis Office under the DOH, allowing cultivation under strict licenses. The bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate due to opposition from conservative sectors and the Duterte administration.

In the 19th Congress (2022–2025), similar proposals emerged:

Senate Bill No. 194 (2022) by Sen. Robin Padilla: Seeks medical cannabis legalization, emphasizing economic benefits like job creation in agriculture.
House Bill No. 10439 (2023): Proposes a Philippine Cannabis Development Authority to oversee medical and industrial hemp production, excluding recreational use.

These bills draw from models in Canada and Uruguay, proposing taxes on cannabis products to fund healthcare. As of early 2026, none have been enacted, amid debates in congressional committees.

B. Decriminalization and Recreational Use Proposals

Broader decriminalization remains fringe. Advocacy groups like the Philippine Cannabis Compassion Society push for reform, citing overpopulated prisons (over 70% drug-related inmates per Bureau of Corrections data). Proposals include:

Amending the CDDA to reclassify marijuana as a "less dangerous" substance, reducing penalties for personal use.
Industrial hemp legalization for fiber and CBD products, as in House Bill No. 837 (2022).

Opposition stems from the Catholic Church, law enforcement, and anti-drug advocates, fearing gateway effects and increased youth usage.

C. Economic and Social Policy Dimensions

Proposals highlight potential revenue: Legalization could generate PHP 8–10 billion annually in taxes, per think tank estimates, boosting rural economies in areas like Mindanao. Socially, reforms aim to address human rights abuses, with Amnesty International urging decriminalization to reduce stigma.

V. Arguments For and Against Legalization

A. Arguments in Favor

Medical Benefits: Evidence from studies (e.g., WHO reports) shows cannabis alleviates chronic pain, nausea, and seizures, potentially reducing opioid reliance.
Economic Gains: Regulated markets could create jobs, export opportunities, and tax income, mirroring Thailand's 2022 legalization.
Criminal Justice Reform: Decriminalization would decongest jails, redirect resources to serious crimes, and mitigate extrajudicial violence.
Human Rights: Aligns with UN recommendations for harm reduction over punishment.

B. Arguments Against

Public Health Risks: Concerns over addiction, impaired driving, and mental health issues like schizophrenia.
Social Impact: Potential increase in youth access, contradicting the Family Code and Child Welfare laws.
Enforcement Challenges: Weak regulatory infrastructure could lead to black markets.
Cultural and Moral Objections: Conflicts with predominant Catholic values emphasizing sobriety.

VI. International Context and Influences

The Philippines' stance contrasts with global shifts: Over 50 countries have legalized medical cannabis, and nations like Canada (2018) and Mexico (2021) allow recreational use. As a UN member, the Philippines adheres to the 1961 Convention but can amend schedules, as done for CBD in 2020. ASEAN neighbors like Thailand (decriminalized in 2022) and Malaysia (medical discussions) influence policy, pressuring Manila toward reform amid economic integration.

U.S. relations, via extradition treaties, reinforce prohibition, but Biden-era federal decriminalization talks may soften this.

VII. Conclusion

The legalization of marijuana in the Philippines remains elusive, constrained by a robust prohibitive framework under the CDDA and historical anti-drug fervor. While policy proposals for medical use inch forward, offering glimpses of reform, recreational legalization faces formidable barriers. Balancing public health, economic potential, and human rights will define future trajectories, requiring evidence-based legislation and societal consensus. As debates evolve, the Philippine legal system must navigate these complexities to align with both domestic needs and international norms.