"x x x.
Mandatory drug test for political candidates ‘unconstitutional’ - SC
Published November 4, 2008 7:05pm
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
x x x."
