Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board

570 SCRA 410

Novemer !" #00$

Sustantive Due %rocess

&AC'S(

In the consolidated petitions, the constitutionality of the Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, requiring 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, is questioned !he petition of

"imentel specifically questions the constitutionality of imposing a mandatory drug testing for

candidates for public office, that no one can be elected and assume the duties of the public office

without complying with the requirement "imentel invo#es $ec %, Art & of the Constitution, which

states the e'clusive requirements for a senatorial candidate (e argues that both the Congress and

C)*++C, by requiring a mandatory drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates

for senator must first be certified as drug free (e adds that there is no provision in the Constitution

authori-ing the Congress or C)*++C to e'pand the qualification requirements of candidates for

senator

"etitioner $ocial .ustice $ociety /$.$, a registered political party, alleges that the provision

in issue constitutes undue delegation of legislative power, that it gives unbridled discretion to schools

and employers to determine the manner of drug testing )ther than that, the provisions violate the

equal protection clause as it can lead to harassing a student or an employee deemed undesirable

astly, the right against unreasonable searches is also breached by said provisions

"etitioner Atty aserna, as citi-en and ta'payer, also see#s $ec %& to be struc# down as

unconstitutional for infringing on the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable search and

sei-ure, and the right against self 1 incrimination, and for being contrary to the due process and equal

 protection guarantees

)SS*+S(

3hether or not Congress can enact a law prescribing qualifications for candidates for senator

in addition to those laid down by the Constitution2 3hether or not $ec %& violates the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches

and sei-ure, and the equal protection clause

,+-D(

4o

A candidate for senator needs only to meet the qualifications laid down in the Constitution !he

Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these qualification standards, as it cannot

enlarge the Constitution !he Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform and no act

shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution !he inherent legislative powers of the Congress are

 broad but they are still sub5ect to constitutional limitations !he C)*++C cannot, in the guise of

enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement $ec

%&, validly impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution

 prescribes !he right of a citi-en in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by

"repared by6 .o1Anne D Coloquio

 

unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution It may be argued

that the provision does not e'pressly state that non1compliance with the drug test imposition is a

disqualifying factor or would wor# to nullify a certificate of candidacy !his argument may be

accepted if the drug test requirement is optional but the law strictly made it mandatory that those who

fail to comply shall suffer consequences

2 4o

!he drug test required for secondary and tertiary level students and public and private employees

is to stamp out illegal drugs and safeguard the well1being of the citi-ens, particularly the youth !he

 primary legislative intent is not criminal prosecution, for those found positive for illegal drug use as a

result of this random testing are not treated as criminals !hey may even be e'empt from criminal

liability should the illegal drug user consent to undergo rehabilitation 7$ 5urisprudence tells us that

schools require drug testing as in loco parentis with respect to their students !echnically minor

students have fewer rights than adults, sub5ect to the custody of their parents or guardians and

schools $chools have a duty to safeguard the health and well1being of their students and may adopt

such measures as may reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty8 they have the right to impose

conditions on applicants for admission that are fair and 5ust8 and they have the right to demand

compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies !his testing is not 5ust for the

users, but upon the entire student body and faculty so it argues against the idea that the testing aims

to incriminate unsuspecting individual students

!he court holds that as for officers and employees of public and private offices, it is also

 5ustifiable !he petitioners failed to show how the testing violates the right to privacy and constitutes

unlawful search !he right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted e'ploitation of

one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a

 person’s ordinary sensibilities It yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the

state’s e'ercise of police power It can be 5ustified for the promotion of some compelling state

interest !he employees’ privacy interest in an office is limited, sub5ect to the inherent right of the

employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the wor#place !he law contains provisions

specifically directed towards preventing a situation that would unduly embarrass the employees

+verybody is warned about the testing so no one is really singled out in advance In addition to that,

the test shall be conducted by trained professionals monitored by the D)(, and the records shall be

#ept confidential It does not oblige the employer concerned to report to the prosecuting agencies any

information or evidence relating to the violation of the law

)n the other hand, the Court finds no valid 5ustification for mandatory drug testing for persons

accused of crimes !he operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are 9randomness: and

9suspicionless: In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor’s office, a

mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless 3hen persons suspected of

committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will !hey do

not necessarily consent to the procedure let alone waive their right to privacy Drug testing in this

case would violate a persons’ right to privacy and they are forced to incriminate themselves

"repared by6 .o1Anne D Coloquio