Mandatory drug test

Yes and no. It is my perfunctory response to queries on the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing.

The government cannot force candidates for public office to undergo any drug test, based on a 2008 Supreme Court ruling. The same rule applies to criminal defendants facing an offense punishable by a six-year jail sentence or more. On the other hand, public and private employees, as well as high school and college students, cannot escape from suspicionless random drug testing. It is legal.

2024 court circular

How about random drug testing for elected and appointed government officials from President Bongbong Marcos Jr., who has sidestepped substance abuse allegations since 2022, down to local officials? Is it unconstitutional?

It is a justiciable issue that only the High Court can settle with finality. But for now, I see no constitutional or legal impediment to the matter. Ordinary citizens and high officials must be subjected to the same rules and conditions if only to ensure that institutions in the Philippines are genuinely free from illegal drugs. It embodies the equal protection of the law clause in our Constitution.

Days ago, I challenged the Duterte siblings – Vice President Sara, Davao City 1st District Representative Pulong and Davao City Mayor Baste – to have their hair samples screened for the presence of illegal drugs. As elected public servants, they should lead by example. If they are not drug dependents, they should not fear any drug test. I am happy and proud that Inday Sara has accepted my challenge. Perhaps, her pro-activeness might finally encourage the President to heed the growing public clamor for a hair follicle test.

As an officer of the court, I also welcome the Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 246-2024 issued by the Supreme Court, which requires all judges and personnel of the first- and second-level courts to undergo physical exams, including random drug testing on or before Oct. 15. The directive comes from the institution that decides on the constitutional validity or infirmity of statutes and executive issuances. Clearly, the judicial branch does not find anything illegal about subjecting its people to a drug test.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the chemical testing of biological specimens is the only “objective” means to diagnose exposure to therapeutic and non-therapeutic drugs (including toxicants, abused drugs, doping compounds and other xenobiotics). Hair analysis is considered the most efficient tool to investigate drug-related histories, particularly when the period of use needs to be tested back to many days or even months before the sampling.

Would the legislature and the executive follow the judiciary’s lead? As supposed leaders with healthy bodies and sound minds, should not every solon in both chambers and each Cabinet official in the Marcos administration be open to the idea?

The SC circular came out when Congressman Pulong filed House Bill 10744, mandating elected and appointed officials, including the Chief Executive, to undergo random hair follicle drug tests every six months.

In seeking to amend the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Act of 2022 or Republic Act 9165, the proposed measure compels government officials, including those from government-owned and -controlled corporations, to undergo two tests. The screening test is conducted through a hair follicle examination to determine the positive result and the type of drug used, while the confirmatory test is done via a urine test. Only Department of Health-accredited testing laboratories or government forensic laboratories can perform the task.

Rep. Pulong noted that in 2018, the DDB issued Regulation 13 that exempted elective officials and presidential appointees from the Civil Service Commission policy (Resolution No. 1700653) on random drug testing. He said exemptions should not favor elected or appointed officials mandated to perform their duties with integrity and modesty. Citing 2022 DDB data, the gentleman from Davao City said there was a 42.7 percent increase in admissions of persons who use drugs (PWUDs) in rehabilitation centers.

Immediately, Pulong’s colleagues in the Lower House assailed his bill. They labeled it unconstitutional. I beg to differ. So far, the High Court has only struck down the legality of compulsory drug testing for political candidates and persons charged with crimes.

2008 Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court declared that a drug test imposition on aspiring elected officials infringes the constitutional provision that defines the eligibility requirements for political candidates (Social Justice Society vs. DDB).

The Court reminded the three co-equal branches of government to obey the commands and limits of the Constitution. Thus, Congress and the Commission on Elections cannot validly amend, modify or impose additional qualifications on candidates not provided by the 1987 Charter. “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.”

Candidates for president, vice president, senator and congressman must only satisfy the requirements on citizenship, voter registration, literacy, age and residency (Section 3, Article 7). Thus, any contravening law or administrative rule is automatically deemed null and void.

Meanwhile, the State cannot force persons accused of crimes to undergo a drug test because it violates their right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.

On the other hand, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of random drug testing for government workers, private employees and secondary and tertiary students. The government is safeguarding the well-being of the citizenry, particularly the youth, from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs under a drug-free workplace and school premises.

From the foregoing, our officials should not feel threatened or affronted at all by House Bill 10744. They should not be averse to voluntarily submitting bodily specimens for drug testing to prove that they are worthy of the trust and confidence of the Filipino nation. If they support a drug-free Philippines, they should lead the way in cleansing their ranks of drug addicts.

So, a resounding yes to mandatory drug testing for elected and appointed officials. And a big no to partisan and obstructionist politicking that does not contribute towards the eradication of the drug menace in the Philippines. What is good for the Filipino workforce and students should be good for our government officials, too.