The Philippine Supreme Court has partially granted my petition in connection with the unconstitutionality of certain parts of Section 36 of R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). My petition was docketed as GR No. 158633 and entitled “Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr. vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, et. al.”
The Supreme Court agreed with me that the random, suspicionless and mandatory drug tests required of elective candidates and of respondents facing criminal complaints before the Prosecutors with an imposable penalty of more than 6 years is unconstitutional. However, it disagreed with me insofar as students and workers are concerned.
The other petitioners were Sen. A. Pimentel and the Social Justice Society. Our petitions were consolidated. The ponente was Assoc. Justice P. Velasco.
Philippine dailies reported the SC decision on Nov. 5, 2008. I have summarized below the salient parts of my petition. I have also posted below the news items that carried the report.
Sec. 36 of R.A. No. 9165 imposes the requirement of mandatory, suspicionless and random drug tests nationwide among all high school and college students, all public and private officers, workers and employees, all local and national candidates for elective and appointive government positions, and all respondents facing preliminary investigations of the criminal complaints filed against them with an imposable penalty exceeding 6 years and 1 day.
My position was that the said provision was violative of the Filipino citizens’ constitutional right to privacy, right against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination, and right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws.
The relevant portions of Sec. 36 of R.A. 9165 read:
(a) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. - Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained in the school’s student handbook and with notice to parents, undergo a random drug testing; Provided, That all drug testing expenses whether in public or private schools under this Section will be borne by the government;
(b) Officers and employees of public and private offices. - Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the company’s work rules and regulations, which shall be borne by the employer, for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law;
(c) All persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one day shall have to undergo a mandatory drug test; and
(d) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act.”
Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
“SEC. 15. – Use of Dangerous Drugs. - A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00); Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions therein shall apply.”
Under Sec. 36 of R.A. No. 9165, the following constitutional infirmities are evident:
1. High school and college students (the great bulk of whom are minors) shall undergo MANDATORY drug tests. It may be “random” (the adjective used in Sec. 36 [c]) but it is mandatory and compulsory. The provision merely requires “notice” to the parents, but not their “consent”, making its mandatory nature more evident. It appears that the implementing rules of Sec. 36 to be issued soon by the respondent DDB must be compulsorily included in the school’s student handbook (requiring mandatory amendments to the student handbook). Although Sec. 36 © is silent about it, it appears that a student found positive of use of dangerous drugs may be administratively expelled by the school authorities. (Sec. 36 [c], R.A. No. 9165). Aside from the said administrative sanction, there is the probability that they would be exposed to potential criminal proceedings under the law (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 1965).
2. Public and private workers, employees, and officers, whether domestic or overseas, shall likewise undergo MANDATORY drug tests. Again, it may be “random” (the adjective used in Sec. 36 [d]) but it is mandatory and compulsory. It appears that the implementing rules of Sec. 36 to be issued soon by the respondent DDB must be compulsorily included in the company’s work rules and regulations (requiring mandatory amendments to the company’s work rules and regulations). Sec. 36 (d) expressly provides that any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs may be administratively suspended or terminated from work subject to the provisions of Art. 282 of the Labor Code and the pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law. (Sec. 36 [d], R.A. No. 9165). Aside from the said administrative sanction, there is the probability that they would be exposed to potential criminal proceedings under the law (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 1965).
3. All persons charged before the prosecutor’s office (that is, whose criminal cases are still undergoing preliminary investigation) with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of not less than 6 years and 1 day shall undergo MANDATORY drug tests. (Sec. 36 [f], R.A. No. 9165). A citizen facing a preliminary investigation for a pending criminal complaint (whatever its nature or type might be) shall now be required to undergo a mandatory drug test, regardless of whether or not his pending case is related to dangerous drugs use and regardless of whether or not the result of such mandatory drug test is relevant or material to the pending criminal complaint against him. (Sec. 36 [g], R.A. No. 9165). Aside from their pending criminal complaints, there is the probability that they would be potentially exposed to additional criminal proceedings under the law (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 1965).
4. All candidates for public office whether appointive or elective both in the national of local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test. (Sec. 36, [g], R.A. No. 9165). The Constitution alone may provide for the qualifications of national elective and appointive officials, the constitutional officials of the land, and the members of the independent constitutional commissions, agencies and bodies. (As to the local elective and appointive officials and employees, Congress may provide for their qualifications, e.g., the Local Government Code, the Civil Service Law, the Revised Administrative Code, and other laws). R.A. No. 9165 in effect adds a new mandatory qualification for national elective officials, like the President, the Vice President, and the Senators, and other constitutional officials, such as the members of the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, the members of the Judicial and Bar Council, and the members of the independent constitutional bodies, that is, they must all pass the mandatory drug tests under that law. It will be noted that constitutional officials may only be removed from office by IMPEACHMENT, and not by operation of R.A. No. 1965; and the specific procedures for their nomination and appointment are clearly spelled out in the Constitution (which R.A. No. 9165 may not amend). Finally, the public and private officials and employees would be exposed to other potential criminal cases arising from the mandatory drug tests.
5. The high school and college students, the public and private officials and employees, the respondents in criminal complaints undergoing preliminary investigations, and the local and national candidates (elective or appointive positions) would all be exposed to unreasonable search and their right to privacy violated by Sec. 36 of R.A. No. 9165.
Sec. 1 and Sec. 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution provide:
“Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
“Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, xxxx.” (See also: Art. 32, Civil Code).
The right of privacy is both constitutional and statutory. (Sec. 3, Art. III, 1987 Constitution; Art. 26, Civil Code). Any evidence obtained in violation of a citizen’s right to privacy and right against unreasonable search and seizure shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Sec. 3 [2], Art. III, id.).
The 1987 Constitution provides that no person may be compelled to be a witness against himself (Sec. 17, Art. III, 1987 Constitution). No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (Sec. 14, id.).
The provisions of Art. III of the 1987 Constitution have their roots in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court and US Circuit Courts of Appeals have made various rulings on the constitutionality of mandatory drug tests in the schools and the workplaces. The US courts have been consistent in their rulings that mandatory drug tests violate a citizen’s constitutional right to privacy and right against unreasonable search and seizure. I cited various US cases in support of my legal theory.
Philippine Dailies’ News Items
on the Supreme Court Decision
Dated November 5, 2008.
SC strikes out drug tests for candidates
By Norman Bordadora
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:10:00 11/04/2008
MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act that require drug tests for candidates for public office—whether elective or appointive, in local and national levels.
In an en banc decision on November 3, the Supreme Court also nullified the anti-drug legislation’s provision for mandatory drug testing for persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a crime carrying a penalty of not less than six years.
The high tribunal has enjoined all concerned government agencies from implementing mandatory drug tests on candidates for public office and on persons charged with a crime carrying a penalty of not less than six years.
The court, however, upheld the mandatory drug test provisions for high school and college students and for officers and employees of public and private offices, subject to the school or company rules and regulations.
The decision, penned by Justice Presbiterio Velasco Jr., was made in connection with the petitions filed by Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr., the Social Justice Society, and lawyer Manuel Laserna Jr. against the mandatory drug tests.
Pimentel, a senatorial candidate in the 2004 elections, sought in December 2003 to nullify the drug test for candidates, saying it was unconstitutional because “they impose a qualification for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution.”
He also asked that the Commission on Elections be enjoined from implementing a resolution for the mandatory testing for candidates for elective positions based on the Dangerous Drugs Act.
He said the Constitution only required that candidates meet the qualifications on citizenship, voter registration, literacy, age and residency.
“Pimentel’s contention is well-taken. Accordingly, Section 36 (g) of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared, as unconstitutional,” the high court said in its decision.
“It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that the issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform,” it added.
The high tribunal also found “no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes.”
“The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are ‘randomness’ and ‘suspicionless.’ In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor’s office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless,” it said.
“The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint,” it added.
Aside from questioning the constitutionality of the mandatory drug tests for candidates and individuals charged with crimes, the SJS and lawyer Laserna also questioned the constitutionality of such tests on students and employees.
The Supreme Court, however, found the mandatory tests on students and employees constitutional.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20081104-170250/SC-strikes-out-drug-tests-for-candidates
PIA Press Release
2008/11/05
Drug testing for candidates unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules
Manila (5 November) -- Congress cannot enact laws which violates the provisions of the Constitution.
With this premise, the Supreme Court has ruled as unconstitutional sections of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 which requires for drug testing of candidates both in the national and local posts.
The Supreme Court, in an en banc decision on November 3, declared as unconstitutional Section 36 (f) and Section 36 (g) of RA 9165.
The High Court also nullified the antidrug legislation's provision for mandatory drug testing for persons charged with a crime carrying a penalty of not less than six years.
Section 36(g) requires all candidates for national and local positions to undergo a mandatory drug test while Section 36(f) mandates all persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having a penalty of imprisonment of not less than six years to undertake mandatory drug test.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the mandatory drug test provision for high school and college students and for employees of both public and private offices, subject to the school or company rules and regulations.
The decision penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. was made in connection with the petitions filed by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., the Social Justice Society, and the lawyer Manuel Laserna Jr., against the mandatory drug tests.
Sen. Pimentel, in his petition, sought the nullification of Section 36(g) of RA 9165 and Commission on Elections Resolution 6486 issued on Dec. 23, 2003 that prescribes the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates.
The senator, who ran for re-election in the May 10, 2004 elections, argued that the provision and Comelec resolution should be nullified since they impose another qualification for senatorial candidates in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution.
Sen. Pimentel said under Article VI Section 3 of the Constitution, candidates should only meet the qualifications of citizenship, voter registration, literacy, age, and residency.
In granting Pimentel's petition, the Supreme Court noted that Section 36(g) of RA 9165 and Comelec Resolution 6486 add another qualification layer to what the 1987 Constitution requires. The Supreme Court stressed that Congress cannot enact laws which violate the provisions of the Constitution. (PIA 8) [top]
http://www.pia.gov.ph/?m=12&fi=p081105.htm&no=33
Drug tests for candidates illegal—high court
By Rey E. Requejo
THE Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the provision of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act 9165) requiring mandatory drug testing for candidates for public office and those charged with a crime punishable with more than six years imprisonment.
But the 23-page decision written by Associate Justice Resbiterio Velasco Jr. upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing for secondary and tertiary level students as well as employees and officials of public and private offices.
Voting unanimously, the high tribunal partially granted the consolidated petitions filed by Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. against the Commission on Elections; the Social Justice Society against the Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency; and lawyer Manuel J. Laserna Jr. against the Dangerous Drug Board and PDEA.
In particular, Pimentel had sought to nullify Section 36 (g) of RA 9165 and Comelec Resolution 6486 issued on Dec. 23, 2003 that prescribed rules and regulations for mandatory drug testing for candidates.
The senator said this imposed an additional qualification apart from those already provided for in Section 3, Artivcle VI of the 1987 Constitution.
He said the Constitution explicitly states that candidates need only meet the qualifications such as citizenship, voter registration, literacy, age and residency.
SJS and Laserna, for their part, sought to restrain the DDB and PDEA from enforcing four provisions of Sections 36 as these were constitutionally infirm.
They claimed that these provisions provided undue delegation of legislative power when they give schools and employers sole discretion to determine the manner of drug testing.
They pointed out that the random drug testing can be used to harass a student or an employee, and violates a person’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches.
In granting Pimentel’s petition, the high tribunal said they agreed to the lawmaker’s argument this added another qualification layer and Congress cannot enact law which violates the provisions of the Constitution.
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics2_nov5_2008
SC upholds drug tests for students but not for poll bets
By REY G. PANALIGAN
In a precedent-setting decision, the Supreme Court (SC) has declared constitutional the provisions in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 that require high school and college students, and officers and employees in public and private offices to undergo a mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug test.
But the SC, in a unanimous full court decision written by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., struck down as unconstitutional the provisions that require drug tests for candidates for public office in the national or local governments and those charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense.
With the ruling, the SC granted the petition filed by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. against the Comelec pertaining to Section 36(g) and partially granted the petitions filed by Social Justice Society and lawyer Manuel J. Laserna Jr. against the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in connection with Section 36 (c, d, and f).
The Comelec, and the DDB and PDEA are barred from implementing Section 36 (g) and Section 36(f) of RA 9165, respectively.
Citing American jurisprudence, the SC said that "the court is of the view and so holds that the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing of students are constitutional."
"Indeed, it is within the prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable requirements," it said.
The SC took note of the proliferation of prohibited drugs in the country "that threatens the well-being of the people, particularly the youth and school children who usually end up as victims."
"Accordingly, and until a more effective method is conceptualized and put in motion, a random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary schools is not only acceptable but may even be necessary if the safety and interest of the student population, doubtless a legitimate concern of the government, are to be promoted and protected," it said.
"Needless to stress, the random testing scheme provided under the law argues against the idea that the testing aims to incriminate unsuspecting individual students," it added.
"Just as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students, the mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Section 36 of RA 9165 for officers and employees of public and private offices is justifiable," the SC said.
"Section 36 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR), as couched, contain provisions specifically directed towards preventing a situation that would unduly embarrass the employees or place them under a humiliating experience."
It pointed out that "the random drug testing shall be undertaken under conditions calculated to protect as much as possible the employee’s privacy and dignity."
"In addition, the IRR issued by the Department of Health provides that access to the drug results shall be on the ‘need to know’ basis; that the drug test results and records shall be kept confidential subject to the usual accepted practices to protect the confidentiality… and notably, RA9165 does not oblige the employer concerned to report to the prosecuting agencies any information or evidence relating to the violation of the law received as a result of the operation of the drug testing."
Thus, it said "the intrusion into the employee’s privacy, under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper safeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages of test results, and is relatively minimal."
But in the case of mandatory drug test for candidates for national and local elections, the SC said, "it is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect."
It said that Section 36(g) of RA 9165 imposes qualifications on candidates in addition to what the Constitution prescribes.
"If Congress cannot require a candidate for senator (or any other elective public office) to meet such additional qualification, the Commission on Elections (Comelec), to be sure, is also without such power," the SC said.
"It ought to be made abundantly clear, however, that the unconstitutionality of Section 36(g) of RA9165 is rooted on its having infringed the constitutional provision defining the qualification or eligibility requirements for one aspiring to run for and serve as senator" (or an elective official), the SC said.
In the case of persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense, the SC said, "a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless."
"When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will," it said.
"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 objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a person’s right to private guaranteed under Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves," it added.
http://www.mb.com.ph/MAIN20081105139982.html
November 05, 2008 07:01 PM Wednesday
Poll bets no longer required to undergo drug test By: Hector Lawas
The Supreme Court struck down for being unconstitutional a provision of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 requiring national and local candidates to undergo mandatory drug testing.
Section 36 (g) requires all candidates for national and local posts to be tested for drugs while Section (f) mandates all persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six years to undergo mandatory drug test.
In its 25-page en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr., the High Court partially granted the consolidated petitions filed by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. against the Commission on Elections, the Social Justice Society versus the Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and lawyer Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., versus the Dangerous Drug Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Pimentel, who ran for re-election in 2004, argued that the provision should be nullified since the Constitution already set qualifications for candidates.
The Supreme Court said Congress cannot enact a law which violates the provisions of the Constitution.
“It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid it if conflicts with the Constitution,” it added.
The Court said if Congress has no power to impose additional qualifications for election candidates, the same can also be said for Comelec.
“The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution,” the tribunal added.
http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php?issue=2008-11-05&sec=4&aid=77570
Drug tests for poll bets unconstitutional
Written by Joel R. San Juan / Reporter
Tuesday, 04 November 2008 23:26
MANDATORY drug tests for high- school and university students have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court (SC), with the en banc voting unanimously for the legitimacy of Republic Act (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The provision on students is in Section 36 (c) of RA 9165. The Court also upheld the legality of Section 36 (d) that requires officers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas but operating in the country, to undergo random drug testing.
The Court struck down, however, as unconstitutional Sections 36 (f) and (g) of the law. Section (f) mandates all persons charged at the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense with a penalty of at least six years to undergo mandatory drug testing; while Section (g) requires drug tests for all candidates for national and local offices.
The en banc decision, written by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., was in response to the consolidated petitions filed by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. against the Commission on Elections (Comelec), the Social Justice Society (SJS) versus the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and lawyer Manuel Laserna Jr. versus the Dangerous Drug Board and PDEA.
Pimentel had focused on Section 36 (g) on and Comelec Resolution 6486 issued on December 23, 2003, prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates.
He urged the Court to nullify that provision and the Comelec resolution, arguing they impose an additional qualification for candidates, at least for senators, in addition to those listed in the Constitution—citizenship, voter registration, literacy, age and residency.
On the other hand, SJS and Laserna asked the Court to prohibit the DDB and PDEA from enforcing Sections 36 (c), (d), (f) and (g) for being constitutionally infirm, arguing they constitute undue delegation of legislative power when they give schools and employers sole discretion to determine the manner of drug testing. They said these can be used to harass students or employees and violate a person’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches.
On Pimentel’s petition, the Court agreed that Congress cannot enact a law that violates the Constitution. “The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid it if conflicts with the Constitution.”
The Court said logically the same can also be said for the Comelec. “The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution.”
The Court said, however, that the sections on student testing are justifiable, considering the proliferation of illegal drugs where the youth and school- children usually end up as victims; and noted the provisions do not intend to criminally prosecute those found positive for illegal drugs, but to give them a chance to undergo rehabilitation.
The SC further said that employees’ privacy and dignity will not be compromised because based on the implementing rules and regulations of the health department, the drug- test result and the records will be kept confidential and access to the result will be on the “need to know basis.”
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=26:nation&id=1503:drug-tests-for-poll-bets-unconstitutional
SC rules drug test for candidates unconstitutional
By Mike Frialde Updated November 05, 2008 12:00 AM
The Supreme Court has ruled as unconstitutional sections of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which requires drug testing for candidates for national and local elective posts and those facing criminal charges punishable by more than six years imprisonment.
In its 25-page decision penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco, the SC struck down as unconstitutional Section 36(f) and Section 36(g) of RA 9165.
Section 36(g) requires all candidates for national and local positions to undergo a mandatory drug test while Section 36(f) mandates all persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having a penalty of imprisonment of not less than six years to undertake mandatory drug test.
In its decision, the Court partially granted the consolidated petitions filed by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., the Social Justice Society (SJS) and lawyer Manuel Laserna Jr.
Pimentel, in his petition, sought the nullification of Section 36(g) of RA 9165 and Commission on Elections Resolution 6486 issued on Dec. 23, 2003 that prescribes the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates.
The senator, who ran for re-election in the May 10, 2004 elections, argued that the provision and Comelec resolution should be nullified since they impose another qualification for senatorial candidates in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution.
Pimentel said under Article VI Section 3 of the Constitution, candidates should only meet the qualifications of citizenship, voter registration, literacy, age, and residency.
In granting Pimentel’s petition, the SC noted that Section 36(g) of RA 9165 and Comelec Resolution 6486 add another qualification layer to what the 1987 Constitution requires.
The SC has stressed that Congress cannot enact laws which violate the provisions of the Constitution.
“It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution,” the SC said.
The Court added that if Congress has no power to impose additional qualifications for election candidates, the same could also be said for Comelec.
“The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution,” the Court said.
The Court, however, affirmed the constitutionality of Section 36(c) of RA 9165, which requires students of secondary and tertiary schools to undergo random drug testing.
The Court also upheld the legality of Section 36 (d) of the same law which requires officers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, to undergo a random drug test.
In their petitions, the SJS and Laserna asked the Court to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing Sections 36 (c), (d), (f) and (g) of RA 9165 for being constitutionally infirm.
They stressed that these provisions constitute undue delegation of legislative power when they give schools and employers sole discretion to determine the manner of drug testing.
The petitioners added that the random drug test can be used to harass a student or an employee and violates a person’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches.
Likewise, the petitioners claimed that the provisions infringed on the constitutional right to privacy, the right against self-incrimination, and are contrary to due process and equal protection guarantees.
According to the Court, Sections 36 (c) and (f) of RA 9165 are justifiable considering the proliferation of illegal drugs where the youth and school children usually end up as victims.
The SC noted that the provision does not intend to criminally prosecute those found positive for illegal drugs but to give them a chance to undergo rehabilitation.
“The Court is of the view and so holds that the provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory and random drug testing of students are constitutional. Indeed, it is within the prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable and equitable requirements,” the SC said.
The Court also said that the privacy and dignity of the employees would not be compromised during the drug test, as trained professionals in access-controlled laboratories monitored by the Department of Health to prevent tampering will handle this.
Based on the implementing rules and regulations of the DOH, the drug test result and the records shall be kept confidential and access to the result shall be on the “need to know basis.”
http://beta2.philstar.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=412785&publicationSubCategoryId=63
Mandatory drug test for political candidates ‘unconstitutional’ - SC
11/04/2008 | 07:05 PM
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared as unconstitutional a provision in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 requiring mandatory drug testing to all candidates for public office and people facing criminal charges.
In a 23-page en banc decision, the SC likewise declared as unconstitutional Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 6489, which implemented the drug testing among candidates
The SC said paragraph (g) of Section 36 of Republic Act 9165 violates the 1987 Constitution because it adds another qualification for senators as enumerated in Section 3, Article VI of the charter.
Section 36 of Republic Act 9165 states that, “No person shall be a senator unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, and on the day of the election, is at least 35-years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.”
In its decision, the high court said a citizen’s right to elect a public official “should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution.”
“Whether or not the drug-free bar set up under the challenged provision is to be hurdled before or after election is really of no moment, as getting elected would be of little value if one cannot assume office for non-compliance with the drug-testing requirement,” the SC said.
The case stemmed from the three petitions separately filed by the Social Justice Society (SJS), private lawyer Manuel Laserna, and Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr against the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and the Comelec.
The petitioners claimed that Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on authorized and mandatory drug testing for students, employees, candidates and those charged for crimes, is unconstitutional as it imposed a qualification for candidates in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution.
The assailed provision likewise stated that aside from penalties imposed for violation of this law, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of RA 9165.
The SC agreed with Pimentel’s arguments that the Constitution only prescribes this maximum of five qualifications for one to be a candidate for the Senate. It added that there is no provision in the constitution authorizing the Congress or Comelec to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for senator.
“The Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade or weaken the force of a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the Constitution,” the SC said.
The same decision however affirmed the validity of a provision mandating random and “suspicionless” drug tests for students in secondary and tertiary schools, as well as employees of public and private offices.
According to the Court, random drug testing for in high school and college and for employees, is “a kind of search in which a reasonable parent might need to engage” and that “minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians and schools.”
The court added that schools have a duty to safeguard the health and well-being of their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty. - GMANews.TV
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/131313/Mandatory-drug-test-for-political-candidates-%E2%80%98unconstitutional%E2%80%99---SC
SC: Drug test for political bets unconstitutional
THE SUPREME COURT (SC) has struck down a drug test requirement for those seeking public office and those accused of crimes.
But it upheld the "random" and "suspicionless" drug testing on minor students and public and private employees.
In a 23-page decision, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., clarified section 36 of Republic Act 9165, or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The provision required drug testing for students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, persons charged before the prosecutor’s office and candidates for public office.
Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., who ran in the May 2004 elections, said drug testing for political candidates was unconstitutional. The high court agreed.
Social Justice Society and lawyer Manuel J. Laserna questioned the drug testing for those accused of crimes, and for students and workers. This was an infringement on privacy, he added.
The high court however noted "in the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor’s office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint."
This does not hold true for students and employees, it said, adding students are most vulnerable to the effects of drug use.
"The need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the individual’s privacy interest..." the court said. — IPP
http://www.bworldonline.com/BW110508/content.php?id=076
