Short answer. No. Since the 2014 amendment, a media representative is only one of two acceptable choices. The team needs an elected public official plus a representative of either the National Prosecution Service or the media. If a prosecution-service representative is present, no media witness is required.
What the law says
with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media
RA 9165, Section 21 — Chain Of Custody. Read the full provision →
Media was mandatory under the original law
When Republic Act No. 9165 took effect in 2002, a media representative was compulsory. The inventory had to be witnessed by a representative from the media and a representative from the Department of Justice and any elected public official — three separate witnesses, each of whom had to sign. A seizure with no media witness at all was, on the face of the statute, non-compliant. That is why older commentary treats the presence of a reporter or media person at the inventory as an indispensable box to tick.
The amendment made media optional
Republic Act No. 10640 rewrote the clause in 2014. The inventory must now be taken with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. Media is no longer a fixed requirement; it is one of two interchangeable options for the second independent witness. If a representative of the National Prosecution Service signs the inventory alongside an elected official, the statute is satisfied even though no member of the media was anywhere near the scene. The reverse is equally true — media alone, with an elected official, also complies.
Which version governs a given case
Whether a media witness was required turns on the date of the seizure. For seizures before the 2014 amendment took effect, the three-witness rule — including a media representative — applies, and its absence is judged against the standard of that time. For seizures after, media is optional. Anyone assessing an inventory from a drug operation should check its date first: the same missing media witness can be a serious gap under the old text and no gap at all under the amended one. The place and signing rules likewise follow the version in force when the drugs were seized.
A missing witness is not the end of the inquiry
Even where a required witness was absent, the section does not treat the seizure as automatically void. It allows that noncompliance under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved, does not invalidate the seizure and custody. But this is a defence the prosecution must make out, not a formality — it has to give a genuine reason for the gap and prove the drugs were not compromised. So the practical questions remain who witnessed and signed, and what explanation the record offers for anyone who should have been there but was not.