DRUG TESTS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL'

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday declared unconstitutional a
provision in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 requiring
all candidates for public office and persons facing criminal charges
to undergo drug testing.

The court unanimously struck down paragraph (g) of Section 36 of
Republic Act 9165, which provides that all candidates for public
office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local
government shall undergo mandatory drug test.

The SC likewise declared unconstitutional Commission on Elections
(Comelec) Resolution 6486, which implemented the drug testing among
candidates.

The SC said Section 36 (g) is unconstitutional as it effectively adds
another qualification layer or requirements for senators enumerated in
Section 3, Article VI of the Constitution, which states that: "No
person shall be a senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, and on the day of the election, is at least 35 years of
age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the
Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day
of the election."

"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... Whether or not the
drug-free bar set up under the challenged provision is to be hurdled
before or after election is really of no moment, as getting elected
would be of little value if one cannot assume office for
non-compliance with the drug-testing requirement," the SC added.

The case stemmed from the three petitions separately filed by the
Social Justice Society (SJS), private lawyer Manuel Laserna and
Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. against the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB),
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and the Commission on
Elections (Comelec).

The petitioners claimed that Section 36 of RA 9165 on authorized and
mandatory drug testing for students, employees, candidates and those
charged for crimes, is unconstitutional as it imposed a qualification
for candidates in addition to those already provided for in the 1987
Constitution.

The assailed provision likewise stated that aside from penalties
imposed for violation of this law, those found to be positive for
dangerous drugs use shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15
of RA 9165.

The SC agreed with Pimentel's arguments that the Constitution only
prescribes this maximum of five qualifications for one to be a
candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the senate, and that
there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or
Comelec to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for
senator.

"The Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these
qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade or weaken the
force of a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the
Constitution," the SC said.

It added that in the discharge of their defined functions, the three
departments of government "have no choice but to yield obedience to
the commands of the Constitution, whatever limits it imposes must be
observed."

The tribunal further explained that the Comelec cannot, in the guise
of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and
regulations to implement Republic Act (RA) 9165, validly impose
qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the
Constitution provides."

The SC also said paragraph "f" of Section 36, which required mandatory
drug tests on all persons charged before the prosecutor's office with
a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not
less than six years and one day, is also unconstitutional as it would
violate a person's right to privacy guaranteed under the
Constitution.

It said there is "no valid justification for mandatory drug-testing
for persons accused of crimes" and that "to impose mandatory drug
testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test
as a tool for criminal prosecution."

Worse, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate
themselves, the high court added.

The same decision however affirmed the validity of a provision
mandating random and "suspicionless" drug tests for students in
secondary and tertiary schools, as well as employees of public and
private offices.

The court ruled that random drug testing for those in high school and
college and for employees, is "a kind of search in which a reasonable
parent might need to engage" and that "minor students have
contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the
custody and supervision of their parents, guardians and schools."

It added that schools have a duty to safeguard the health and
well-being of their students and may adopt such measures as may
reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty, and that schools have
the right to impose conditions on applicants for admissions that are
fair, just and non-discriminatory.

Drug-testing for employees was also upheld subject to the provisions
of labor laws for private employees and civil service laws for
government employees. (ECV/Sunnex)