LEGALITY OF MANDATORY DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS

The spate of publicity recently generated by the so-called Alabang
boys case, which involves allegations of bribery of anti-drug
enforcement agents and Justice Department prosecutors, has impelled
the government to carry out a plan of action to curb the growing
menace of dangerous drugs in the country.

One thing we are thankful of controversies is that government shifts
into gears, albeit fleetingly in most cases, to address problems that
have been begging attention for some time already.

In what appears to be a sweeping move to address the worsening drug
problem, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared herself as the
country's drug czar and bared plans to institute a nation-wide
mandatory random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary
education.

As in most other governmental moves affecting individual liberty, this
plan has elicited not a few objections, not least of which are those
coming from our esteemed lawmakers - who by the way crafted the law
that provides for this type of testing.

Drug testing not only of students, but also of employees, public
officials, candidates for public office and criminal suspects, is
required by Section 36 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 (R.A. 9165).

As early as 2004, the legality of this particular provision of law had
already been questioned before the Supreme Court (SC) in the
consolidated cases of Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board
& Phil. Drug Enforcement Agency (G.R. No. 157870), Atty. Manuel J.
Laserna, Jr. v. Dangerous Drugs Board & Phil. Drug Enforcement Agency
(G.R. No. 158633), and Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v. Comelec (G.R. No.
161658) - the decision in all said cases being promulgated only on
November 3, 2008.

Petitioners in Social Justice Society and Laserna Jr. chiefly argued
that mandatory drug testing of students constitutes unwarranted
intrusion into their privacy and violates their right against
unreasonable searches and seizures under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court (SC) disagreed with these claims by ruling that
schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis over their
students, students have reduced expectation of privacy in school, and
the testing is reasonable.

Citing two U.S. cases, the SC said schools and their administrators
have substitute parental authority and responsibility over their
students, with the common interest to promote the health and
well-being of these students by adopting reasonable measures.

The Court cited the deleterious effects to the young of dangerous
drugs and how it may affect not only users, but other members of the
academe.

It found the presence of a compelling need to address the grave
problems of drug addiction as a justification for intrusion into the
privacy of students, which the Court pointed out as subject to
limitations.

By entering schools, students have reduced expectation of privacy.
Their rights to privacy are circumscribed by the school policies and
regulations governing student conduct on campus; students in effect
submit to the substitute parental authority of schools and their
administrators and waive their privacy rights by enrolling in schools.

Aside from finding the mandatory drug testing as a justified form of
intrusion into students' privacy, the court also found its
reasonableness in the manner it is to be carried out by being a
"suspicionless" and "random" arrangement.

It is not to be carried out in the context of a criminal suspicion and
not directed against any particular individual.

Unlike in the mandated drug testing of criminal suspects, which the
Supreme Court found as unlawful in Laserna Jr. the testing of students
is not intended to criminally prosecute them, but to stamp out illegal
drugs and in the process safeguard students' health and well-being
from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs.

The Court noted that if any student is found positive for the use of
dangerous drugs this will not necessarily result in criminal
prosecution, because Sections 54 and 55 of the law provide for
voluntary submission to a treatment or rehabilitation facility for
drug dependency and concomitant exemption from criminal liability.

Finally, the law was found to provide sufficient safeguards against
arbitrary and abusive testing by requiring the test to be conducted by
government-accredited facilities, maintaining confidentiality and
ensuring proper chain of custody of test results, among other things.

As the Supreme Court had already ruled on the legality of mandatory
drug testing for students in secondary and tertiary education, what is
left now is the proper implementation of the testing itself.

Parents, school authorities and students must become vigilant to
ensure that any testing is carried out in accordance with the strict
requirements of the law to prevent the system from becoming a tool for
abuse and wrongdoing.