Mandatory Drug Testing Case

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165), contains the following provisions:

1. Mandatory drug testing of all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government
2. Mandatory drug testing of all persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day
3. Random drug testing for secondary and tertiary school students as well as for officials and employees of public and private offices

Are the said provisions of the law constitutional?

ANSWER: Numbers 1 and 2 are unconstitutional. However, the SC upheld the constitutionality of Number 3.

In declaring sec. 36(g) unconstitutional, the Court said that the same “unmistakably requires a candidate for senator to be certified illegal-drug clean, obviously as a pre-condition to the validity of a certificate of candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a condition sine qua non to be voted upon and, if proper, be proclaimed senator-elect,” adding that the assailed provision of the law and the COMELEC Resolution “add another layer to what the 1987 Constitution, at the minimum, requires for membership in the Senate.”

The Court also found no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes, as required by sec. 36(f) of the law, as a mandatory drug testing in the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor’s office “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,” said the Court. “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. Drug testing in this case would violate a person’s right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.” (visit fellester.blogspot.com)

On the other hand, the High Court held that sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 requiring mandatory drug testing of students and officials and employees of public and private offices are constitutional.

The Court, taking note of the proliferation of prohibited drugs in the country which threaten “the well-being of the people, particularly the youth and school children who usually end up as victims,” stated that until a more effective method is conceptualized and put in motion, a random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary schools “is not only acceptable but may even be necessary if the safety and interest of the student population, doubtless a legitimate concern of the government, are to be promoted and protected.”

The Court, taking into account the reduced expectation of privacy on the part of employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well-defined limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of random drug testing, held that the challenged drug test requirement for those employed in public and private offices is, under the limited context of the case, reasonable and constitutional. (GR No. 157870, Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board and PDEA, November 3, 2008)