SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY vs.

DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD seizures, the right against self-incrimination and being contrary to due process and equal
2008|Velasco protection guarantees.

Note: These are 3 consolidated petitions but the syllabus only cited SJS so I will focus on that ISSUE: W/N mandatory drug testing violates constitutional prohibitions – NO.
and include the others just in case.
HELD:
Facts:
The petitions concern the constitutionality of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 or the Sen. Pimentel’s Petition
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 concerning the mandatory drug testing of
candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees 1. Yes, the assailed sections are void as it violates the Constitution. Congress’ broad
of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors office with certain inherent legislative powers are subject to certain limitations. In Government v. Springer, the
offenses. Court defined the limits on legislative power as: “Someone has said that the powers of the
legislative department of the Government, like the boundaries of the ocean, are unlimited. In
The challenged sections read as follows: constitutional governments, however, as well as governments acting under delegated authority,
the powers of each of the departments x x x are limited and confined within the four walls of the
SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or constitution or the charter, and each department can only exercise such powers as are
by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of the test results. necessarily implied from the given powers. The Constitution is the shore of legislative authority
x x x 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 drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. x x against which the waves of legislative enactment may dash, but over which it cannot leap.”
x The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing:  The constitutional limitations are chiefly found in the Bill of Rights and other
provisions, such as Art. VI, Sec. 3 which prescribes the qualifications of candidates for
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the public office.
related rules and regulations as contained in the schools student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a
random drug testing x x x;  As the drug tests are mandatory, these take on the nature of requirements. Thus, the
Congress cannot prescribe another qualification for public office in addition to
(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether Constitutional qualifications.
domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the companys work rules and
regulations, x x x 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 SJS Petition
the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law;
As to constitutionality
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutors office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall undergo a mandatory drug test
(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo
1. No, the provisions assailed are constitutional. The drug tests, while mandatory, are random
a mandatory drug test. and suspicionless.
 The objective of the law is to stamp out illegal drugs and safeguard the citizens,
In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be especially the youth. Indeed, US Courts have taken judicial notice that the youth is the
subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act.
most vulnerable to the harmful effects of drugs and the chances of recovery from such
are very low.
G.R. No. 161658 (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission on Elections):
o Until a more effective method is conceptualized, a random drug test for
students in secondary and tertiary schools is not only acceptable but may
Sen. Pimentel, Jr., a candidate for the May 2004 elections, assails COMELEC
even be necessary in the interest of the student population.
Resolution No. 6486 prescribing the rules for the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public
 The primary legislative intent is not criminal prosecution as those found positive for
office. Pursuant to Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165, it is a prerequisite to acceptance into the duties of
illegal drug use as a result of this random testing are not necessarily treated as
public office.
criminals. They may even be exempt from criminal liability should the illegal drug user
 Sen. Pimentel assails this as adding another qualification aside from those in Sec. 3,
consent to undergo rehabilitation.
Art. VI 1987 Constitution: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and
(5) residency which he alleges that Congress cannot do.
2. There is no unbridled discretion or harassment. It is within the prerogative of
educational institutions to require, as a condition for admission, compliance with
reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. The right to enroll is not absolute;
G.R. No. 157870 (SJS v. DDB & PDEA):
it is subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable requirements.
 In the US cases of Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton and Board of Education of
SJS assails Sec. 36 (c), (d), (f) and (g) regarding mandatory drug testing for children
Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al. v. Earls, et al., it
and employees. They assail these provisions as undue delegations of legislative power as it
was ruled that students, especially athletes and those who compete outside school,
gives unbridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. In
are validly subject to drug testing. They reasoned that (1) schools and their
addition, they violate the equal protection clause and can be used for harassment.
administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their students; (2) minor
students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the
G.R. No. 158633 (Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. v. DDB & PDEA)
custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and schools; (3) schools,
acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health and well-being of
Atty. Laserna, as a citizen and taxpayer, also seeks in his Petition for Certiorari and
their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary
Prohibition under Rule 65 that Sec. 36 (c), (d), (f) and (g) should be unconstitutional as it
to discharge such duty; and (4) schools have the right to impose conditions on
infringes upon the constitutional right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and
applicants for admission that are fair, just, and non-discriminatory.
  Various agencies including the DOH, DILG, DepEd and DOLE shall create the IRR
necessary to enforce the law. Thus, the the participation of schools and offices in the
drug testing scheme shall always be subject to the IRR of RA 9165. It is, therefore,
As to the right of privacy for both students and employees subject to the testing: incorrect to say that schools and employers have unchecked discretion to determine
how often, under what conditions, and where the drug tests shall be conducted. The
1. The essence of privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s task is so complex and the legislative must resort to delegate such power to cope
person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation directly with the many problems.
to a person’s ordinary sensibilities. The right guarantees against unwarranted search and
seizures. However, authorities agree that the right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of Laserna Petition
the public and defers to the state’s exercise of police power.

 “Reasonableness” is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or The provisions are void as to the persons charged before the public prosecutor’s office
intrusion. While every officer and employee in a private establishment is deemed who are accused of crimes punishable with 6 years and 1 day imprisonment, such is not
forewarned of the random drug test, no one is really singled out in advance for drug “random” and “suspicionless.” When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they
testing. The goal is to discourage drug use by not telling in advance anyone when and are singled out and are impleaded against their will.
who is to be tested. To determine reasonableness these factors must be considered:
 Nature of the privacy interest: the employees’ privacy interest in the workplace  The mere fact of being brought before the prosecutor’s office and peaceably
is already circumscribed by work policies, CBAs, and the inherent right of the submitting themselves to drug testing does not mean they necessarily consent to the
employer to maintain discipline and efficacy. Their privacy expectation is reduced, procedure.
a degree of impingement upon the privacy has been upheld.  To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to
 The question is: “Is the scope of the search clearly set forth/ is the enabling harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated
law authorizing a search narrowly drawn or narrowly focused? objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons’ right to
o The answer is yes. RA 9165 Sec. 36 contains provisions specifically privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused
directed towards preventing situations which would unduly persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.
embarrass employees. The law has two methods: screening test and
confirmatory test done by trained professionals in controlled laboratories
to safeguard against tampering and assure the chain of custody.
Moreover, the results of the drug tests are on a need to know basis. RA
9165 also does not oblige the employer to report to prosecutors
evidence as a result of the drug testing.

2. The need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to
override the individual’s interest to privacy. Thus, the Court upholds its constitutionality as to
employees as there are (1) reduced expectations of privacy on the part of employees, (2)
compelling state concerns and (3) well defined limits in the law. Illegal drugs cut across
gender, age group, and social- economic lines. As drug enforcement agencies perceive this as
an effective method, the Court also holds it to be reasonable and enough means to “lick the
problem”.

 In sum, mandatory, random and suspicionless drug testing is constitutional as for

As to the undue delegation of power:

1. No undue delegation. RA 9165 has express standards, enumerates the people who shall
undergo drug testing and must be in accordance with school or workplace rules and policies.
Most of all, it shall be a random and suspicionless arrangement, thus there is no merit to their
argument that the testing aims to incriminate unsuspecting students/employees. The safeguards
against misusing and compromising the confidentiality of the test results are established.