Social Justice Society v.

Dangerous Drugs Board

570 SCRA 410
November 3, 2008
Substantive Due Process
FACTS:
In the consolidated petitions, the constitutionality of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, requiring 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 prosecutors office with certain offenses, is questioned. The petition of
Pimentel specifically questions the constitutionality of imposing a mandatory drug testing for
candidates for public office, that no one can be elected and assume the duties of the public office
without complying with the requirement. Pimentel invokes Sec. 3, Art 6 of the Constitution, which
states the exclusive requirements for a senatorial candidate. He argues that both the Congress and
COMELEC, by requiring a mandatory drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates
for senator must first be certified as drug free. He adds that there is no provision in the Constitution
authorizing the Congress or COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for
senator.
Petitioner Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, alleges that the provision
in issue constitutes undue delegation of legislative power, that it gives unbridled discretion to schools
and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. Other than that, the provisions violate the
equal protection clause as it can lead to harassing a student or an employee deemed undesirable.
Lastly, the right against unreasonable searches is also breached by said provisions.
Petitioner Atty. Laserna, as citizen and taxpayer, also seeks Sec. 36 to be struck down as
unconstitutional for infringing on the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable search and
seizure, and the right against self - incrimination, and for being contrary to the due process and equal
protection guarantees.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Congress can enact a law prescribing qualifications for candidates for senator
in addition to those laid down by the Constitution.
2. Whether or not Sec. 36 violates the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches
and seizure, and the equal protection clause.
HELD:
1. No
A candidate for senator needs only to meet the qualifications laid down in the Constitution. The
Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these qualification standards, as it cannot
enlarge the Constitution. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform and no act
shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. The inherent legislative powers of the Congress are
broad but they are still subject to constitutional limitations. The COMELEC cannot, in the guise of
enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec.
36, validly impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution
prescribes. The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by
Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio

unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution. It may be argued
that the provision does not expressly state that non-compliance with the drug test imposition is a
disqualifying factor or would work to nullify a certificate of candidacy. This argument may be
accepted if the drug test requirement is optional but the law strictly made it mandatory that those who
fail to comply shall suffer consequences.
2. No
The drug test required for secondary and tertiary level students and public and private employees
is to stamp out illegal drugs and safeguard the well-being of the citizens, particularly the youth. The
primary legislative intent is not criminal prosecution, for those found positive for illegal drug use as a
result of this random testing are not treated as criminals. They may even be exempt from criminal
liability should the illegal drug user consent to undergo rehabilitation. US jurisprudence tells us that
schools require drug testing as in loco parentis with respect to their students. Technically minor
students have fewer rights than adults, subject to the custody of their parents or guardians and
schools. 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; they have the right to impose
conditions on applicants for admission that are fair and just; and they have the right to demand
compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. This testing is not just for the
users, but upon the entire student body and faculty so it argues against the idea that the testing aims
to incriminate unsuspecting individual students.
The court holds that as for officers and employees of public and private offices, it is also
justifiable. The petitioners failed to show how the testing violates the right to privacy and constitutes
unlawful search. The right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of
ones person or from intrusion into ones private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a
persons ordinary sensibilities. It yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to the
states exercise of police power. It can be justified for the promotion of some compelling state
interest. The employees privacy interest in an office is limited, subject to the inherent right of the
employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. The law contains provisions
specifically directed towards preventing a situation that would unduly embarrass the employees.
Everybody is warned about the testing so no one is really singled out in advance. In addition to that,
the test shall be conducted by trained professionals monitored by the DOH, and the records shall be
kept confidential. It does not oblige the employer concerned to report to the prosecuting agencies any
information or evidence relating to the violation of the law.
On the other hand, the Court finds no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons
accused of crimes. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are randomness and
suspicionless. In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutors office, a
mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. When persons suspected of
committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. They do
not necessarily consent to the procedure let alone waive their right to privacy. Drug testing in this
case would violate a persons right to privacy and they are forced to incriminate themselves.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio