SOCIAL JUS1ICL SOCIL1Y v.

DANGLROUS DRUGS BOARD and

PHILIPPINL DRUG LNIORCLMLN1 AGLNCY
G.R. Nos. JS7870, JS8633, J6J6S8, 03 November 2008, LN BANC, (Velasco, Jr., J.)
Cviaea b, 1ervovia cboot Di.trict 1] r. .ctov ava oara of avcatiov of vaeevaevt cboot Di.trict ^o.
2 of Pottaratovie Covvt,, et at. r. art., et at., tbe Covrt i. of tbe rier ava .o bota. tbat tbe rori.iov. of R. 1:
reqvirivg vavaator,, ravaov, ava .v.iciovte.. arvg te.tivg of .tvaevt. are cov.titvtiovat. vaeea, it i. ritbiv tbe
rerogatire of eavcatiovat iv.titvtiov. to reqvire, a. a covaitiov for aavi..iov, covtiavce ritb rea.ovabte .cboot rvte. ava
regvtatiov. ava oticie.. 1o be .vre, tbe rigbt to evrott i. vot ab.otvte; it i. .vb;ect to fair, rea.ovabte, ava eqvitabte
reqvirevevt.. v .vv, rbat cav rea.ovabt, be aeavcea frov tbe abore tro ca.e. ava atiea to tbi. ;vri.aictiov are: ;1)
.cboot. ava tbeir aavivi.trator. .tava iv toco arevti. ritb re.ect to tbeir .tvaevt.; ;2) vivor .tvaevt. bare covtetvatt,
ferer rigbt. tbav av aavtt, ava are .vb;ect to tbe cv.toa, ava .verri.iov of tbeir arevt., gvaraiav., ava .cboot.; ;)
.cboot., activg iv toco arevti., bare a avt, to .afegvara tbe beattb ava rettbeivg of tbeir .tvaevt. ava va, aaot .vcb
vea.vre. a. va, rea.ovabt, be vece..ar, to ai.cbarge .vcb avt,; ava ;1) .cboot. bare tbe rigbt to ivo.e covaitiov. ov
aticavt. for aavi..iov tbat are fair, ;v.t, ava vovai.crivivator,.
v tbe .ave reiv, tbe COMC cavvot, iv tbe gvi.e of evforcivg ava aavivi.terivg etectiov tar. or
rovvtgativg rvte. ava regvtatiov. to ivtevevt ec. ;g), ratiat, ivo.e qvatificatiov. ov cavaiaate. for .evator iv
aaaitiov to rbat tbe Cov.titvtiov re.cribe.. f Covgre.. cavvot reqvire a cavaiaate for .evator to veet .vcb aaaitiovat
qvatificatiov, tbe COMC, to be .vre, i. at.o ritbovt .vcb orer. 1be rigbt of a citiev iv tbe aevocratic roce.. of
etectiov .bovta vot be aefeatea b, vvrarravtea ivo.itiov. of reqvirevevt vot otberri.e .ecifiea iv tbe Cov.titvtiov.
Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Covrebev.ire Davgerov. Drvg. .ct of 2002, was
enacted. It requires mandatory drug testing o candidates or public oice, students o secondary and
tertiary schools, oicers and employees o public and priate oices, and persons charged beore the
prosecutor`s oice with certain oenses, among other personalities.
1he Commission on Llections ,COMLLLC, issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the rules
and regulations on the mandatory drug testing o candidates or public oice in connection with the May
10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senator o the Republic
and a candidate or re-election in said elections, seeks to nulliy Sec. 36,g, o RA 9165 and COMLLLC
Resolution No. 6486
Social Justice Society ,SJS,, a registered political party, seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs
Board ,DDB, and the Philippine Drug Lnorcement Agency ,PDLA, rom enorcing paragraphs ,c,, ,d,,
,,, and ,g, o Sec. 36 o RA 9165 on the ollowing grounds: lirst, the proisions constitute undue
delegation o legislatie power. Second, the proisions trench in the equal protection clause inasmuch as
they can be used to harass a student or an employee deemed undesirable. And third, a person`s
constitutional right against unreasonable searches is also breached by said proisions.
Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as seeks in his Petition that Sec. 36,c,, ,d,, ,,, and ,g, o
RA 9165 be struck down or inringing on the constitutional right to priacy, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against sel-incrimination, and or being contrary to the
due process and equal protection guarantees.
ISSULS:
1, \hether or not Sec. 36,g, o RA 9165 and COMLLLC Resolution No. 6486 impose an
additional qualiication or candidates or senator and i so, whether or not the Congress can enact a law
prescribing qualiications or candidates or senator in addition to those laid down by the Constitution
2, \hether or not paragraphs ,c,, ,d,, ,,, and ,g, o Sec. 36, RA 9165 iolate the right to
priacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and the equal protection clause
3, \hether or not RA 9165 paragraphs ,c,, ,d,, ,,, and ,g, o Sec. 36 constitute undue delegation
o legislatie power to schools and employers
HLLD:
Petition DLNILD.
R.A. 9J6S poses additional qualification on candidates for senator
In essence, Pimentel claims that Sec. 36,g, o R.A. 9165 and COMLLLC Resolution No. 6486
illegally impose an additional qualiication on candidates or senator. le points out that, subject to the
proisions on nuisance candidates, a candidate or senator needs only to meet the qualiications laid
down in Sec. 3, Art. VI o the Constitution, to wit: ,1, citizenship, ,2, oter registration, ,3, literacy, ,4,
age, and ,5, residency. Beyond these stated qualiication requirements, candidates or senator need not
possess any other qualiication to run or senator and be oted upon and elected as member o the
Senate. 1he Congress cannot alidly amend or otherwise modiy these qualiication standards, as it
cannot disregard, eade, or weaken the orce o a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the
Constitution.
Pimentel`s contention is well-taken. Accordingly, Sec. 36,g, o R.A. 9165 should be, as it is
hereby declared as, unconstitutional. It is basic that i a law or an administratie rule iolates any norm o
the Constitution, that issuance is null and oid and has no eect. 1he Constitution is the basic law to
which all laws must conorm, no act shall be alid i it conlicts with the Constitution. In the discharge o
their deined unctions, the three departments o goernment hae no choice but to yield obedience to
the commands o the Constitution. \hateer limits it imposes must be obsered.
Congress` inherent legislatie powers, broad as they may be, are subject to certain limitations. As
early as 192, in Corervvevt r. rivger, the Court has deined, in the abstract, the limits on legislatie
power in the ollowing wise:
Someone has said that the powers o the legislatie department o the Goernment, like the
boundaries o the ocean, are unlimited. In constitutional goernments, howeer, as well as
goernments acting under delegated authority, the powers o each o the departments x x x are limited
and conined within the our walls o the constitution or the charter, and each department can only
exercise such powers as are necessarily implied rom the gien powers. 1he Constitution is the shore
o legislatie authority against which the waes o legislatie enactment may dash, but oer which it
cannot leap.
1hus, legislatie power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substantie and
constitutional limitations which circumscribe both the exercise o the power itsel and the allowable
subjects o legislation. 1he substantie constitutional limitations are chiely ound in the Bill o Rights
and other proisions, such as Sec. 3, Art. VI o the Constitution prescribing the qualiications o
candidates or senators.
In the same ein, the COMLLLC cannot, in the guise o enorcing and administering election
laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36,g,, alidly impose qualiications on
candidates or senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. I Congress cannot require a
candidate or senator to meet such additional qualiication, the COMLLLC, to be sure, is also without
such power. 1he right o a citizen in the democratic process o election should not be deeated by
unwarranted impositions o requirement not otherwise speciied in the Constitution.
Sec. 36,g, o R.A. 9165, as sought to be implemented by the assailed COMLLLC resolution,
eectiely enlarges the qualiication requirements enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI o the Constitution.
As couched, said Sec. 36,g, unmistakably requires a candidate or senator to be certiied illegal-drug
clean, obiously as a pre-condition to the alidity o a certiicate o candidacy or senator or, with like
eect, a condition .ive qva vov to be oted upon and, i proper, be proclaimed as senator-elect. 1he
COMLLLC resolution completes the chain with the proiso that |n|o person elected to any public
oice shall enter upon the duties o his oice until he has undergone mandatory drug test.` Viewed,
thereore, in its proper context, Sec. 36,g, o R.A. 9165 and the implementing COMLLLC Resolution
add another qualiication layer to what the 198 Constitution, at the minimum, requires or membership
in the Senate. \hile it is anti-climactic to state it at this juncture, COMLLLC Resolution No. 6486 is no
longer enorceable, or by its terms, it was intended to coer only the May 10, 2004 synchronized
elections and the candidates running in that electoral eent. Nonetheless, to obiate repetition, the Court
deems it appropriate to reiew and rule, as it hereby rules, on its alidity as an implementing issuance.
It ought to be made abundantly clear, howeer, that the unconstitutionality o Sec. 36,g, o RA
9165 is rooted on its haing inringed the constitutional proision deining the qualiication or eligibility
requirements or one aspiring to run or and sere as senator.
Drug test for students and employees does not violate constitutional rights
1he drug test prescribed under Sec. 36,c,, ,d,, and ,, o R.A. 9165 or secondary and tertiary
leel students and public and priate employees, while mandatory, is a random and suspicionless
arrangement. 1he objectie is to stamp out illegal drug and saeguard in the process the well being o
|the| citizenry, particularly the youth, rom the harmul eects o dangerous drugs.` 1his statutory
purpose, per the policy-declaration portion o the law, can be achieed ia the pursuit by the state o an
intensie and unrelenting campaign against the traicking and use o dangerous drugs x x x through an
integrated system o planning, implementation and enorcement o anti-drug abuse policies, programs
and projects.` 1he primary legislatie intent is not criminal prosecution, as those ound positie or
illegal drug use as a result o this random testing are not necessarily treated as criminals. 1hey may een
be exempt rom criminal liability should the illegal drug user consent to undergo rehabilitation. Secs. 54
and 55 o R.A. 9165 are clear on this point:
Sec. 54. 1otvvtar, vbvi..iov of a Drvg Deevaevt to Covfivevevt, 1reatvevt ava Rebabititatiov.-A
drug dependent or any person who iolates Section 15 o this Act may, by himsel,hersel or through
his,her parent, |close relaties| x x x apply to the Board x x x or treatment and rehabilitation o the
drug dependency. Upon such application, the Board shall bring orth the matter to the Court which
shall order that the applicant be examined or drug dependency. I the examination x x x results in
the certiication that the applicant is a drug dependent, he,she shall be ordered by the Court to
undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a Center designated by the Board x x x.

x x x

Sec. 55. evtiov frov tbe Crivivat iabitit, |vaer tbe 1otvvtar, vbvi..iov Prograv.-A drug
dependent under the oluntary submission program, who is inally discharged rom coninement,
shall be exempt rom the criminal liability under Section 15 o this Act subject to the ollowing
conditions:

1he right to priacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a acet o the right
protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure under Sec. 2, Art. III o the
Constitution. But while the right to priacy has long come into its own, this case appears to be the irst
time that the alidity o a state-decreed search or intrusion through the medium o mandatory random
drug testing among students and employees is, in this jurisdiction, made the ocal point. 1hus, the issue
tendered in these proceedings is eritably one o irst impression.
\ith respect to random drug testing among school children, the Court turns to the teachings o
1ervovia cboot Di.trict 1] r. .ctov ,1ervovia, and oara of avcatiov of vaeevaevt cboot Di.trict ^o. 2 of
Pottaratovie Covvt,, et at. r. art., et at. ,oara of avcatiov,, both airly pertinent US Supreme Court-
decided cases inoling the constitutionality o goernmental search.
1he US Supreme Court, in ashioning a solution to the issues raised in 1ervovia, considered the
ollowing: ,1, schools stand iv toco arevti. oer their students, ,2, school children, while not shedding
their constitutional rights at the school gate, hae less priacy rights, ,3, athletes hae less priacy rights
than non-athletes since the ormer obsere communal undress beore and ater sports eents, ,4, by
joining the sports actiity, the athletes oluntarily subjected themseles to a higher degree o school
superision and regulation, ,5, requiring urine samples does not inade a student`s priacy since a
student need not undress or this kind o drug testing, and ,6, there is need or the drug testing because
o the dangerous eects o illegal drugs on the young. 1he US Supreme Court held that the policy
constituted reasonable search under the lourth and 14th Amendments and declared the random drug-
testing policy constitutional.
In oara of avcatiov, the Board o Lducation o a school in 1ecumseh, Oklahoma required a
drug test or high school students desiring to join extra-curricular actiities. Lindsay Larls, a member o
the show choir, marching band, and academic team declined to undergo a drug test and aerred that the
drug-testing policy made to apply to non-athletes iolated the lourth and 14th Amendments. As Larls
argued, unlike athletes who routinely undergo physical examinations and undress beore their peers in
locker rooms, non-athletes are entitled to more priacy.
1he U.S. Supreme Court, citing 1ervovia, upheld the constitutionality o drug testing een
among non-athletes on the basis o the school`s custodial responsibility and authority. In so ruling, said
court made no distinction between a non-athlete and an athlete. It ratiocinated that schools and teachers
act in place o the parents with a similar interest and duty o saeguarding the health o the students. And
in holding that the school could implement its random drug-testing policy, the Court hinted that such a
test was a kind o search in which een a reasonable parent might need to engage.
In sum, what can reasonably be deduced rom the aboe two cases and applied to this jurisdiction
are: ,1, schools and their administrators stand iv toco arevti. with respect to their students, ,2, minor
students hae contextually ewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the custody and superision o
their parents, guardians, and schools, ,3, schools, acting iv toco arevti., hae a duty to saeguard the health
and well-being o their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to
discharge such duty, and ,4, schools hae the right to impose conditions on applicants or admission that
are air, just, and non-discriminatory.
Guided by 1ervovia and oara of avcatiov, the Court is o the iew and so holds that the
proisions o R.A. 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing o students are
constitutional. Indeed, it is within the prerogatie o educational institutions to require, as a condition or
admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. 1o be sure, the right to
enroll is not absolute, it is subject to air, reasonable, and equitable requirements.
Just as in the case o secondary and tertiary leel students, the mandatory but random drug test
prescribed by Sec. 36 o RA 9165 or oicers and employees o public and priate oices is justiiable,
albeit not exactly or the same reason. 1he Court notes in this regard that SJS, other than saying that
subjecting almost eerybody to drug testing, without probable cause, is unreasonable, an unwarranted
intrusion o the indiidual right to priacy,` has ailed to show how the mandatory, random, and
suspicionless drug testing under Sec. 36,c, and ,d, o R.A. 9165 iolates the right to priacy and
constitutes unlawul and,or unconsented search under Art. III, Secs. 1 and 2 o the Constitution.
1he essence o priacy is the right to be let alone. In context, the right to priacy means the
right to be ree rom unwarranted exploitation o one`s person or rom intrusion into one`s priate
actiities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person`s ordinary sensibilities. And while there has
been general agreement as to the basic unction o the guarantee against unwarranted search, translation
o the abstract prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures` into workable broad guidelines
or the decision o particular cases is a diicult task,` to borrow rom C. Cavara r. Mvviciat Covrt.
Authorities are agreed though that the right to priacy yields to certain paramount rights o the public
and deers to the state`s exercise o police power.
As the warrantless clause o Sec. 2, Art III o the Constitution is couched and as has been held,
reasonableness` is the touchstone o the alidity o a goernment search or intrusion. And whether a
search at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing o the goernment-
mandated intrusion on the indiidual`s priacy interest against the promotion o some compelling state
interest. In the criminal context, reasonableness requires showing o probable cause to be personally
determined by a judge. Gien that the drug-testing policy or employees--and students or that matter--
under R.A. 9165 is in the nature o administratie search needing what was reerred to in 1ervovia as
swit and inormal disciplinary procedures,` the probable-cause standard is not required or een
practicable.
Sec. 36 o R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations ,IRR,, as couched, contain
proisions speciically directed towards preenting a situation that would unduly embarrass the
employees or place them under a humiliating experience. \hile eery oicer and employee in a priate
establishment is under the law deemed orewarned that he or she may be a possible subject o a drug
test, nobody is really singled out in adance or drug testing. 1he goal is to discourage drug use by not
telling in adance anyone when and who is to be tested. And as may be obsered, Sec. 36,d, o R.A.
9165 itsel prescribes what, in Ote, is a narrowing ingredient by proiding that the employees concerned
shall be subjected to random drug test as contained in the company`s work rules and regulations x x x
or purposes o reducing the risk in the work place.`
lor another, the random drug testing shall be undertaken under conditions calculated to protect
as much as possible the employee`s priacy and dignity. As to the mechanics o the test, the law speciies
that the procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening test and the conirmatory test,
doubtless to ensure as much as possible the trustworthiness o the results. But the more important
consideration lies in the act that the test shall be conducted by trained proessionals in access-controlled
laboratories monitored by the Department o lealth ,DOl, to saeguard against results tampering and
to ensure an accurate chain o custody. In addition, the IRR issued by the DOl proides that access to
the drug results shall be on the need to know` basis, that the drug test result and the records shall be
|kept| conidential subject to the usual accepted practices to protect the conidentiality o the test
results.` Notably, R.A. 9165 does not oblige the employer concerned to report to the prosecuting
agencies any inormation or eidence relating to the iolation o the Covrebev.ire Davgerov. Drvg. .ct
receied as a result o the operation o the drug testing. All told, thereore, the intrusion into the
employees` priacy, under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper saeguards, particularly against
embarrassing leakages o test results, and is relatiely minimal.
1aking into account the oregoing actors, i.e., the reduced expectation o priacy on the part o
the employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well-deined limits set
orth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct o the random testing, we hold that the
challenged drug test requirement is, under the limited context o the case, reasonable and, ergo,
constitutional.
Like their counterparts in the priate sector, goernment oicials and employees also labor
under reasonable superision and restrictions imposed by the Ciil Serice law and other laws on public
oicers, all enacted to promote a high standard o ethics in the public serice. And i R.A. 9165 passes
the norm o reasonableness or priate employees, the more reason that it should pass the test or ciil
serants, who, by constitutional command, are required to be accountable at all times to the people and
to sere them with utmost responsibility and eiciency.
No Undue Delegation of Power under Sec. 36 of R.A. 9J6S
Petitioner SJS` next posture that Sec. 36 o R.A. 9165 is objectionable on the ground o undue
delegation o power hardly commends itsel or concurrence. Contrary to its position, the proision in
question is not so extensiely drawn as to gie unbridled options to schools and employers to determine
the manner o drug testing. Sec. 36 expressly proides how drug testing or students o secondary and
tertiary schools and oicers,employees o public,priate oices should be conducted. It enumerates
the persons who shall undergo drug testing. In the case o students, the testing shall be in accordance
with the school rules as contained in the student handbook and with notice to parents. On the part o
oicers,employees, the testing shall take into account the company`s work rules. In either case, the
random procedure shall be obsered, meaning that the persons to be subjected to drug test shall be
picked by chance or in an unplanned way. And in all cases, saeguards against misusing and
compromising the conidentiality o the test results are established.
Lest it be oerlooked, Sec. 94 o R.A. 9165 charges the DDB to issue, in consultation with the
DOl, Department o the Interior and Local Goernment, Department o Lducation, and Department
o Labor and Lmployment, among other agencies, the IRR necessary to enorce the law. In net eect
then, the participation o schools and oices in the drug testing scheme shall always be subject to the
IRR o RA 9165. It is, thereore, incorrect to say that schools and employers hae unchecked discretion
to determine how oten, under what conditions, and where the drug tests shall be conducted.
1he Court inds the situation entirely dierent in the case o persons charged beore the public
prosecutor`s oice with criminal oenses punishable with six ,6, years and one ,1, day imprisonment.
1he operatie concepts in the mandatory drug testing are randomness` and suspicionless.` In the case
o persons charged with a crime beore the prosecutor`s oice, a mandatory drug testing can neer be
random or suspicionless. 1he ideas o randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being
made deendants in a criminal complaint. 1hey are not randomly picked, neither are they beyond
suspicion. \hen persons suspected o committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are
impleaded against their will. 1he persons thus charged, by the bare act o being haled beore the
prosecutor`s oice and peaceably submitting themseles to drug testing, i that be the case, do not
necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waie their right to priacy. 1o impose mandatory drug
testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool or criminal prosecution,
contrary to the stated objecties o R.A. 9165. Drug testing in this case would iolate a persons` right to
priacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III o the Constitution. \orse still, the accused persons are
eritably orced to incriminate themseles.