SC rules drug test for candidates unconstitutional

MANILA, Philippines – 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.”