Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board
GR Nos. 157870, 158633, 161658
November 3, 2008
Facts:
Petitioners question the constitutionality of Section 36 of RA 9165, a.k.a. the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. Section 36 requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, particularly those who are charged with offenses punishable by a penalty of not less than 6 years and 1 day of imprisonment.
On December 23, 2003, COMELEC issued Resolution 6486, which provides the rules on the mandatory drugs testing of candidates for public office. It requires the COMELEC offices and employees concerned to submit two separate lists of candidates: one for those who complied with the mandatory drug testing and the other of those who failed to comply.
It was Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. who opposed such resolution, contending that it was unconstitutional as it imposes an additional qualification for senators.
Issues:
1. Do Section 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution 6468 impose an additional qualification for candidates for senator?
2. Is RA 9165 unconstitutional?
Ruling:
1. Yes. The COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Section 36, validly impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution provides. The COMELEC resolution effectively enlarges that qualification requirements for senator, enumerated under Section 3, Article VI of the Constitution.
2. The provision of RA 9165 requiring mandatory drug testing for students (Section 36[b]) are constitutional as long as they are random and suspicionless. This is because schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their students, and schools have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair and non-discriminatory.
The provision requiring mandatory drug testing for officers and employees of public and private offices (Section 36[d]) are also justifiable. The privacy expectation in a regulated office environment is reduced. A degree of impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. To the Court, the need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the individual’s privacy interest under the premises.
On the other hand, the Court finds no justification in the mandatory drug testing of those prosecuted for crimes punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years and 1 day (Section 36[f]). The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are randomness and suspicionless. In this case, it cannot be said that the drug testing is random. To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165.
In sum, Section 36(c) and (d) are constitutional, but 36(f) is not.
It's a Ping Thing 