Random, suspicionless and mandatory drug testing

On the matter of RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS MANDATORY DRUG TESTING, Paragraph (f) of Section 36 of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, June 7, 2002, known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", provides that "ALL PERSONS CHARGED BEFORE THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE HAVING AN IMPOSSIBLE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT OF NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY SHALL HAVE TO UNDERGO A MANDATORY DRUG TEST. "

For reference, Section 36 of RA 9165 is quoted in full below:

"Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. – Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of the drug test with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. Drug test certificates issued by accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of issue which may be used for other purposes. The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing:

(a) Applicants for driver's license. – No driver's license shall be issued or renewed to any person unless he/she presents a certification that he/she has undergone a mandatory drug test and indicating thereon that he/she is free from the use of dangerous drugs;

(b) Applicants for firearm's license and for permit to carry firearms outside of residence. – All applicants for firearm's license and permit to carry firearms outside of residence shall undergo a mandatory drug test to ensure that they are free from the use of dangerous drugs: Provided, That all persons who by the nature of their profession carry firearms shall undergo drug testing;

(c) 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 the 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;

(d) 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;

(e) Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies. – Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies shall undergo an annual mandatory drug test;

(f) ALL PERSONS CHARGED BEFORE THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE HAVING AN IMPOSSIBLE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT OF NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY SHALL HAVE TO UNDERGO A MANDATORY DRUG TEST; and

(g) 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."

For your information, in the case entitled "ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA, JR., petitioner, vs. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, respondents" ("Laserna Petition"), docketed as G.R. No. 158633, November 3, 2008, the Supreme Court declared as UNCONSTITUTIONAL Paragraph (f) of Section 36 of RA 9165 for being violative of the right to PRIVACY, the right against UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, and the right against SELF-INCRIMINATION.

The ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court in the Laserna Petition (GR 158633) is quoted below:

"x x x.

LASERNA PETITION
(Constitutionality of Sec. 36[c], [d],
[f], and [g] of RA 9165)

Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165, the Court finds no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes. In the case of students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities. In the case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.

We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutor's office with criminal offenses punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment. 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. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor's office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their RIGHT TO PRIVACY. 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. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons' RIGHT TO PRIVACY guaranteed under SEC. 2, ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably FORCED TO INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES.

X x x."

The dispositive part of the Supreme Court decision in the LASERNA PETITION (GR 158633), which was CONSOLIDATED with the "SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY PETITION" (GR 157870) and the "AQUILINO PIMENTEL JR. PETITION" (GR 161658), is quoted below:

"WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 161658 and declares Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition in G.R. Nos. 157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring its Sec. 36(f) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All concerned agencies are, accordingly, permanently enjoined from implementing Sec. 36(f) and (g) of RA 9165. No costs.

SO ORDERED."


APPLICABLE LAW -

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, June 7, 2002, known and cited as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".


Link to the Cited Jurisprudence -

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_157870_2008.html