Scribd
Upload
80 views

SJS V DDB

Section 36 of RA 9165 requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students, employees, and criminal defendants. The Social Justice Society challenges its constitutionality. The Supreme Court rules that mandatory drug testing of candidates imposes an additional qualification beyond what the constitution allows. However, mandatory testing of students and employees is constitutional because schools and workplaces have reduced privacy expectations. Testing criminal defendants is not constitutional because it is not truly random and aims to use medical tests for criminal prosecution.

Uploaded by

Lloyd David P. Vicedo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views

SJS V DDB

Section 36 of RA 9165 requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students, employees, and criminal defendants. The Social Justice Society challenges its constitutionality. The Supreme Court rules that mandatory drug testing of candidates imposes an additional qualification beyond what the constitution allows. However, mandatory testing of students and employees is constitutional because schools and workplaces have reduced privacy expectations. Testing criminal defendants is not constitutional because it is not truly random and aims to use medical tests for criminal prosecution.

Uploaded by

Lloyd David P. Vicedo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), 

petitioner
vs.
DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
(PDEA), respondents.
G.R. No. 157870 November 3, 2008
VELASCO, JR., J.
FACTS: 
Petitioners question the constitutionality of Section 36 of RA 9165—the Comprehensive Drugs Act of
2002. Section 36 requires 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, particularly those who are charged with
offenses punishable by a penalty of not less than 6 years and 1 day of imprisonment.
On December 23, 2003, COMELEC issued Resolution 6486, which provides the rules on the
mandatory drugs testing of candidates for public office. It requires the COMELEC offices and
employees concerned to submit two separate lists of candidates: one for those who complied with the
mandatory drug testing and the other of those who failed to comply.
It was Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. who opposed such resolution, contending that it was unconstitutional
as it imposes an additional qualification for senators.
RULING:
Whether Section 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution 6468 impose an additional
qualification for candidates for senator
Whether RA 9165 is unconstitutional.
RULING:
Yes. The provision imposes an additional qualification.
The COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating
rules and regulations to implement Section 36, validly impose qualifications on candidates for
senator in addition to what the Constitution provides. The COMELEC resolution effectively enlarges
that qualification requirements for senator, enumerated under Section 3, Article VI of the
Constitution.
No. Section 36(c) and (d) are constitutional, but 36(f) is not.
The provision of RA 9165 requiring mandatory drug testing for students (Section 36[b]) are
constitutional as long as they are random and suspicionless. This is because schools and their
administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their students, and schools have the right to
impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair and non-discriminatory.
The provision requiring mandatory drug testing for officers and employees of public and private
offices (Section 36[d])  are also justifiable. The privacy expectation in a regulated office environment
is reduced. A degree of impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. To the Court, the need for
drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the individual’s
privacy interest under the premises.
On the other hand, the Court finds no justification in the mandatory drug testing of those prosecuted
for crimes punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years and 1 day (Section 36[f]). The operative
concepts in the mandatory drug testing are randomness and suspicionless. In this case, it cannot be
said that the drug testing is random. 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.

You might also like