Constitutional Law I1

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY V. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD

GRs 157870, 158633 and 161658
November 3, 2008
Ponente: Velasco, Jr.

Key words: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act,

mandatory drug testing, random drug testing,
senatorial candidates

ARTICLE VI, SECTION 3: 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.
I. Terms
RA 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) principal
government agency tasked to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations concerning the
conduct of regular and special elections
Social Justice Society (SJS) registered national
political party in the Philippines
Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) government
agency that makes policies, strategies and
programs on drug prevention and control
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
government agency responsible for efficient law
enforcement of all provisions on any dangerous
drugs and/or precursors and essential chemicals
II. Reliefs Sought
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
III. Facts
RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 requires mandatory drug testing

of students of secondary and tertiary schools,

officers and employees of public and private offices,
persons charged before prosecutors office with a
criminal offense, and all candidates for public
office, whether appointed or elected both in the
national or local government, among other
personalities (RA 9165 Section 36). The authorized
drug testing under RA 9165 shall be done by any
government forensic laboratories or by any of the
drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored
by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results.
Three consolidated petitions question the
constitutionality of Section 36 of RA 9165:
1. Petitioner Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. (senator and
candidate for re-election in May 2004
elections) seeks to nullify Sec. 36 (g) of RA
9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486
for being unconstitutional, in that they
impose a qualification for candidates for
senators in addition to those already
provided for in the Constitution. According to
Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes
five qualifications for senatorial candidates
FARCON | 1C

Constitutional Law I2

(Art VI Sec. 3), and that there is no provision

in the Constitution that authorizes the
Congress or COMELEC to expand the
qualification requirements of candidates for
senator.
2. Petitioner Social Justice Society (SJS) seeks
to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board
(DDB) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) from enforcing paragraphs
(c), (d), (f) and (g) of RA 9165 Sec. 36 on the
ground that they are constitutionally infirm
the provisions are said to constitute undue
delegation of legislative power by giving
discretion to schools and employers to
determine manner of drug testing. The
provisions also are also said to trench in the
equal protection clause because they can be
used to harass a student or employee
deemed undesirable, and breach the
constitutional right against unreasonable
searches.
3. Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. (citizen
and taxpayer) maintains that RA 9165 should
be struck down as unconstitutional for
infringing on the constitutional 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.
IV. Issue/s and Held

W/N Congress and COMELEC can enact a law

prescribing qualifications for candidates for
senator in addition to those laid down by the
Constitution. NO.
o According to Art. VI Sec. 3 of the
Constitution, a candidate for senator needs
only to meet the ff. qualifications: 1)
citizenship, 2), voter registration, 3) literacy,
4) age, and 5) residency.
o Congress and COMELEC cannot validly
amend or modify these qualification
standards. They cannot disregard or weaken
the force of a constitutional mandate, or alter
or enlarge the Constitution.
o The Constitution is the basic law to which all
laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it
conflicts with the Constitution.
W/N paragraphs (c), (d), (f) and (g) of Sec. 36 of
RA 9165 are constitutional.
o (C) Students of secondary and tertiary
schools YES. Requiring mandatory,
random, and suspicionless drug testing of
students is constitutional. The objective is to
stamp out illegal drug and safeguard the
wellbeing of the citizenry, particularly the
youth, from the harmful effects of dangerous
drugs. The random testing scheme will not
incriminate unsuspecting individual students.
o (D) Officers and employees of public and
private offices YES. The need for drug
testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is
substantial enough to override the
individuals privacy interest. The random
FARCON | 1C

Constitutional Law I3

procedure shall be observed, and the

persons to be subjected to drug test shall be
picked by chance or in an unplanned way. In
all cases, safeguards against misusing and
compromising the confidentiality of test
results are established.
o (F) Persons charged before prosecutors
office with a criminal offense NO. Court
finds no valid justification for mandatory drug
testing for persons accused of crimes. The
operative concepts in mandatory drug testing
are randomness and suspicionless. In the
case of persons charged with a crime before
the persecutors office, a mandatory drug
testing can never be random or
suspicionless. The persons charged 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.
o (G) All candidates for public office,
whether appointed or elected both in the
national or local government NO. Article
VI Sec. 3 of the Constitution already
prescribes the qualifications for senatorial
candidates. Congress and COMELEC
cannot validly amend or modify these
qualification standards.

FARCON | 1C