G.R. Nos. JS7870, JS8633, J6J6S8, 03 November 2008, LN BANC, (Velasco, Jr., J.)
Cviaea b, 1ervovia ´cboot Di.trict 1¨] r. .ctov ava ßoara of íavcatiov of ívae¡evaevt ´cboot Di.trict ^o.
·2 of Pottaratovie Covvt,, et at. r. íart., et at., tbe Covrt i. of tbe rier ava .o bota. tbat tbe ¡rori.iov. of R. ·1ó:
reqvirivg vavaator,, ravaov, ava .v.¡iciovte.. arvg te.tivg of .tvaevt. are cov.titvtiovat. ívaeea, it i. ritbiv tbe
¡rerogatire of eavcatiovat iv.titvtiov. to reqvire, a. a covaitiov for aavi..iov, cov¡tiavce 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.. ív .vv, rbat cav rea.ovabt, be aeavcea frov tbe abore tro ca.e. ava a¡¡tiea 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 covte·tvatt,
ferer rigbt. tbav av aavtt, ava are .vb;ect to tbe cv.toa, ava .v¡erri.iov of tbeir ¡arevt., gvaraiav., ava .cboot.; ;²)
.cboot., activg iv toco ¡arevti., bare a avt, to .afegvara tbe beattb ava rett·beivg of tbeir .tvaevt. ava va, aao¡t .vcb
vea.vre. a. va, rea.ovabt, be, to ai.cbarge .vcb avt,; ava ;1) .cboot. bare tbe rigbt to iv¡o.e covaitiov. ov
a¡¡ticavt. for aavi..iov tbat are fair, ;v.t, ava vov·ai.crivivator,.
ív tbe .ave reiv, tbe COMíííC cavvot, iv tbe gvi.e of evforcivg ava aavivi.terivg etectiov tar. or
¡rovvtgativg rvte. ava regvtatiov. to iv¡tevevt ´ec. ²ó;g), ratiat, iv¡o.e qvatificatiov. ov cavaiaate. for .evator iv
aaaitiov to rbat tbe Cov.titvtiov ¡re.cribe.. íf Covgre.. cavvot reqvire a cavaiaate for .evator to veet .vcb aaaitiovat
qvatificatiov, tbe COMíííC, to be .vre, i. at.o ritbovt .vcb ¡orer. 1be rigbt of a citi¸ev iv tbe aevocratic ¡roce.. of
etectiov .bovta vot be aefeatea b, vvrarravtea iv¡o.itiov. of reqvirevevt vot otberri.e .¡ecifiea iv tbe Cov.titvtiov.
Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Cov¡rebev.ire Davgerov. Drvg. .ct of 2002, was
enacted. It requires mandatory drug testing oí candidates íor public oííice, students oí secondary and
tertiary schools, oííicers and employees oí public and pri·ate oííices, and persons charged beíore the
prosecutor`s oííice with certain oííenses, among other personalities.
1he Commission on Llections ,COMLLLC, issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the rules
and regulations on the mandatory drug testing oí candidates íor public oííice in connection with the May
10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senator oí the Republic
and a candidate íor re-election in said elections, seeks to nulliíy Sec. 36,g, oí 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 Lníorcement Agency ,PDLA, írom eníorcing paragraphs ,c,, ,d,,
,í,, and ,g, oí Sec. 36 oí RA 9165 on the íollowing grounds: lirst, the pro·isions constitute undue
delegation oí legislati·e power. Second, the pro·isions 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 pro·isions.
Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as seeks in his Petition that Sec. 36,c,, ,d,, ,í,, and ,g, oí
RA 9165 be struck down íor iníringing on the constitutional right to pri·acy, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against selí-incrimination, and íor being contrary to the
due process and equal protection guarantees.
1, \hether or not Sec. 36,g, oí RA 9165 and COMLLLC Resolution No. 6486 impose an
additional qualiíication íor candidates íor senator and ií so, whether or not the Congress can enact a law
prescribing qualiíications íor candidates íor senator in addition to those laid down by the Constitution
2, \hether or not paragraphs ,c,, ,d,, ,í,, and ,g, oí Sec. 36, RA 9165 ·iolate the right to
pri·acy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and the equal protection clause
3, \hether or not RA 9165 paragraphs ,c,, ,d,, ,í,, and ,g, oí Sec. 36 constitute undue delegation
oí legislati·e power to schools and employers
Petition DLNILD.
R.A. 9J6S poses additional qualification on candidates for senator
In essence, Pimentel claims that Sec. 36,g, oí R.A. 9165 and COMLLLC Resolution No. 6486
illegally impose an additional qualiíication on candidates íor senator. le points out that, subject to the
pro·isions on nuisance candidates, a candidate íor senator needs only to meet the qualiíications laid
down in Sec. 3, Art. VI oí the Constitution, to wit: ,1, citizenship, ,2, ·oter registration, ,3, literacy, ,4,
age, and ,5, residency. Beyond these stated qualiíication requirements, candidates íor senator need not
possess any other qualiíication to run íor senator and be ·oted upon and elected as member oí the
Senate. 1he Congress cannot ·alidly amend or otherwise modiíy these qualiíication standards, as it
cannot disregard, e·ade, or weaken the íorce oí a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the
Pimentel`s contention is well-taken. Accordingly, Sec. 36,g, oí R.A. 9165 should be, as it is
hereby declared as, unconstitutional. It is basic that ií a law or an administrati·e rule ·iolates any norm oí
the Constitution, that issuance is null and ·oid and has no eííect. 1he Constitution is the basic law to
which all laws must coníorm, no act shall be ·alid ií it conílicts with the Constitution. In the discharge oí
their deíined íunctions, the three departments oí go·ernment ha·e no choice but to yield obedience to
the commands oí the Constitution. \hate·er limits it imposes must be obser·ed.
Congress` inherent legislati·e powers, broad as they may be, are subject to certain limitations. As
early as 192¯, in Corervvevt r. ´¡rivger, the Court has deíined, in the abstract, the limits on legislati·e
power in the íollowing wise:
Someone has said that the powers oí the legislati·e department oí the Go·ernment, like the
boundaries oí the ocean, are unlimited. In constitutional go·ernments, howe·er, as well as
go·ernments acting under delegated authority, the powers oí each oí the departments x x x are limited
and coníined within the íour walls oí the constitution or the charter, and each department can only
exercise such powers as are necessarily implied írom the gi·en powers. 1he Constitution is the shore
oí legislati·e authority against which the wa·es oí legislati·e enactment may dash, but o·er which it
cannot leap.
1hus, legislati·e power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substanti·e and
constitutional limitations which circumscribe both the exercise oí the power itselí and the allowable
subjects oí legislation. 1he substanti·e constitutional limitations are chieíly íound in the Bill oí Rights
and other pro·isions, such as Sec. 3, Art. VI oí the Constitution prescribing the qualiíications oí
candidates íor senators.
In the same ·ein, the COMLLLC cannot, in the guise oí eníorcing and administering election
laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36,g,, ·alidly impose qualiíications on
candidates íor senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. Ií Congress cannot require a
candidate íor senator to meet such additional qualiíication, the COMLLLC, to be sure, is also without
such power. 1he right oí a citizen in the democratic process oí election should not be deíeated by
unwarranted impositions oí requirement not otherwise speciíied in the Constitution.
Sec. 36,g, oí R.A. 9165, as sought to be implemented by the assailed COMLLLC resolution,
eííecti·ely enlarges the qualiíication requirements enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI oí the Constitution.
As couched, said Sec. 36,g, unmistakably requires a candidate íor senator to be certiíied illegal-drug
clean, ob·iously as a pre-condition to the ·alidity oí a certiíicate oí candidacy íor senator or, with like
eííect, a condition .ive qva vov to be ·oted upon and, ií proper, be proclaimed as senator-elect. 1he
COMLLLC resolution completes the chain with the pro·iso that |n|o person elected to any public
oííice shall enter upon the duties oí his oííice until he has undergone mandatory drug test.` Viewed,
thereíore, in its proper context, Sec. 36,g, oí R.A. 9165 and the implementing COMLLLC Resolution
add another qualiíication layer to what the 198¯ Constitution, at the minimum, requires íor membership
in the Senate. \hile it is anti-climactic to state it at this juncture, COMLLLC Resolution No. 6486 is no
longer eníorceable, íor by its terms, it was intended to co·er only the May 10, 2004 synchronized
elections and the candidates running in that electoral e·ent. Nonetheless, to ob·iate repetition, the Court
deems it appropriate to re·iew and rule, as it hereby rules, on its ·alidity as an implementing issuance.
It ought to be made abundantly clear, howe·er, that the unconstitutionality oí Sec. 36,g, oí RA
9165 is rooted on its ha·ing iníringed the constitutional pro·ision deíining the qualiíication or eligibility
requirements íor one aspiring to run íor and ser·e as senator.
Drug test for students and employees does not violate constitutional rights
1he drug test prescribed under Sec. 36,c,, ,d,, and ,í, oí R.A. 9165 íor secondary and tertiary
le·el students and public and pri·ate employees, while mandatory, is a random and suspicionless
arrangement. 1he objecti·e is to stamp out illegal drug and saíeguard in the process the well being oí
|the| citizenry, particularly the youth, írom the harmíul eííects oí dangerous drugs.` 1his statutory
purpose, per the policy-declaration portion oí the law, can be achie·ed ·ia the pursuit by the state oí an
intensi·e and unrelenting campaign against the traííicking and use oí dangerous drugs x x x through an
integrated system oí planning, implementation and eníorcement oí anti-drug abuse policies, programs
and projects.` 1he primary legislati·e intent is not criminal prosecution, as those íound positi·e íor
illegal drug use as a result oí this random testing are not necessarily treated as criminals. 1hey may e·en
be exempt írom criminal liability should the illegal drug user consent to undergo rehabilitation. Secs. 54
and 55 oí R.A. 9165 are clear on this point:
Sec. 54. 1otvvtar, ´vbvi..iov of a Drvg De¡evaevt to Covfivevevt, 1reatvevt ava Rebabititatiov.-A
drug dependent or any person who ·iolates Section 15 oí this Act may, by himselí,herselí or through
his,her parent, |close relati·es| x x x apply to the Board x x x íor treatment and rehabilitation oí the
drug dependency. Upon such application, the Board shall bring íorth the matter to the Court which
shall order that the applicant be examined íor drug dependency. Ií the examination x x x results in
the certiíication 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. í·ev¡tiov frov tbe Crivivat íiabitit, |vaer tbe 1otvvtar, ´vbvi..iov Prograv.-A drug
dependent under the ·oluntary submission program, who is íinally discharged írom coníinement,
shall be exempt írom the criminal liability under Section 15 oí this Act subject to the íollowing

1he right to pri·acy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a íacet oí the right
protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure under Sec. 2, Art. III oí the
Constitution. But while the right to pri·acy has long come into its own, this case appears to be the íirst
time that the ·alidity oí a state-decreed search or intrusion through the medium oí mandatory random
drug testing among students and employees is, in this jurisdiction, made the íocal point. 1hus, the issue
tendered in these proceedings is ·eritably one oí íirst impression.
\ith respect to random drug testing among school children, the Court turns to the teachings oí
1ervovia ´cboot Di.trict 1¨] r. .ctov ,1ervovia, and ßoara of íavcatiov of ívae¡evaevt ´cboot Di.trict ^o. ·2 of
Pottaratovie Covvt,, et at. r. íart., et at. ,ßoara of íavcatiov,, both íairly pertinent US Supreme Court-
decided cases in·ol·ing the constitutionality oí go·ernmental search.
1he US Supreme Court, in íashioning a solution to the issues raised in 1ervovia, considered the
íollowing: ,1, schools stand iv toco ¡arevti. o·er their students, ,2, school children, while not shedding
their constitutional rights at the school gate, ha·e less pri·acy rights, ,3, athletes ha·e less pri·acy rights
than non-athletes since the íormer obser·e communal undress beíore and aíter sports e·ents, ,4, by
joining the sports acti·ity, the athletes ·oluntarily subjected themsel·es to a higher degree oí school
super·ision and regulation, ,5, requiring urine samples does not in·ade a student`s pri·acy since a
student need not undress íor this kind oí drug testing, and ,6, there is need íor the drug testing because
oí the dangerous eííects oí 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 ßoara of íavcatiov, the Board oí Lducation oí a school in 1ecumseh, Oklahoma required a
drug test íor high school students desiring to join extra-curricular acti·ities. Lindsay Larls, a member oí
the show choir, marching band, and academic team declined to undergo a drug test and a·erred 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 beíore their peers in
locker rooms, non-athletes are entitled to more pri·acy.
1he U.S. Supreme Court, citing 1ervovia, upheld the constitutionality oí drug testing e·en
among non-athletes on the basis oí 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 oí the parents with a similar interest and duty oí saíeguarding the health oí 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 oí search in which e·en a reasonable parent might need to engage.
In sum, what can reasonably be deduced írom the abo·e 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 ha·e contextually íewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the custody and super·ision oí
their parents, guardians, and schools, ,3, schools, acting iv toco ¡arevti., ha·e a duty to saíeguard the health
and well-being oí their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to
discharge such duty, and ,4, schools ha·e the right to impose conditions on applicants íor admission that
are íair, just, and non-discriminatory.
Guided by 1ervovia and ßoara of íavcatiov, the Court is oí the ·iew and so holds that the
pro·isions oí R.A. 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing oí students are
constitutional. Indeed, it is within the prerogati·e oí educational institutions to require, as a condition íor
admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. 1o be sure, the right to
enroll is not absolute, it is subject to íair, reasonable, and equitable requirements.
Just as in the case oí secondary and tertiary le·el students, the mandatory but random drug test
prescribed by Sec. 36 oí RA 9165 íor oííicers and employees oí public and pri·ate oííices is justiíiable,
albeit not exactly íor the same reason. 1he Court notes in this regard that SJS, other than saying that
subjecting almost e·erybody to drug testing, without probable cause, is unreasonable, an unwarranted
intrusion oí the indi·idual right to pri·acy,` has íailed to show how the mandatory, random, and
suspicionless drug testing under Sec. 36,c, and ,d, oí R.A. 9165 ·iolates the right to pri·acy and
constitutes unlawíul and,or unconsented search under Art. III, Secs. 1 and 2 oí the Constitution.
1he essence oí pri·acy is the right to be leít alone. In context, the right to pri·acy means the
right to be íree írom unwarranted exploitation oí one`s person or írom intrusion into one`s pri·ate
acti·ities 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 íunction oí the guarantee against unwarranted search, translation
oí the abstract prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures` into workable broad guidelines
íor the decision oí particular cases is a diííicult task,` to borrow írom C. Cavara r. Mvvici¡at Covrt.
Authorities are agreed though that the right to pri·acy yields to certain paramount rights oí the public
and deíers to the state`s exercise oí police power.
As the warrantless clause oí Sec. 2, Art III oí the Constitution is couched and as has been held,
reasonableness` is the touchstone oí the ·alidity oí a go·ernment search or intrusion. And whether a
search at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing oí the go·ernment-
mandated intrusion on the indi·idual`s pri·acy interest against the promotion oí some compelling state
interest. In the criminal context, reasonableness requires showing oí probable cause to be personally
determined by a judge. Gi·en that the drug-testing policy íor employees--and students íor that matter--
under R.A. 9165 is in the nature oí administrati·e search needing what was reíerred to in 1ervovia as
swiít and iníormal disciplinary procedures,` the probable-cause standard is not required or e·en
Sec. 36 oí R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations ,IRR,, as couched, contain
pro·isions speciíically directed towards pre·enting a situation that would unduly embarrass the
employees or place them under a humiliating experience. \hile e·ery oííicer and employee in a pri·ate
establishment is under the law deemed íorewarned that he or she may be a possible subject oí a drug
test, nobody is really singled out in ad·ance íor drug testing. 1he goal is to discourage drug use by not
telling in ad·ance anyone when and who is to be tested. And as may be obser·ed, Sec. 36,d, oí R.A.
9165 itselí prescribes what, in O¡te, is a narrowing ingredient by pro·iding that the employees concerned
shall be subjected to random drug test as contained in the company`s work rules and regulations x x x
íor purposes oí 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 pri·acy and dignity. As to the mechanics oí the test, the law speciíies
that the procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening test and the coníirmatory test,
doubtless to ensure as much as possible the trustworthiness oí the results. But the more important
consideration lies in the íact that the test shall be conducted by trained proíessionals in access-controlled
laboratories monitored by the Department oí lealth ,DOl, to saíeguard against results tampering and
to ensure an accurate chain oí custody. In addition, the IRR issued by the DOl pro·ides 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| coníidential subject to the usual accepted practices to protect the coníidentiality oí the test
results.` Notably, R.A. 9165 does not oblige the employer concerned to report to the prosecuting
agencies any iníormation or e·idence relating to the ·iolation oí the Cov¡rebev.ire Davgerov. Drvg. .ct
recei·ed as a result oí the operation oí the drug testing. All told, thereíore, the intrusion into the
employees` pri·acy, under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper saíeguards, particularly against
embarrassing leakages oí test results, and is relati·ely minimal.
1aking into account the íoregoing íactors, i.e., the reduced expectation oí pri·acy on the part oí
the employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well-deíined limits set
íorth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct oí the random testing, we hold that the
challenged drug test requirement is, under the limited context oí the case, reasonable and, ergo,
Like their counterparts in the pri·ate sector, go·ernment oííicials and employees also labor
under reasonable super·ision and restrictions imposed by the Ci·il Ser·ice law and other laws on public
oííicers, all enacted to promote a high standard oí ethics in the public ser·ice. And ií R.A. 9165 passes
the norm oí reasonableness íor pri·ate employees, the more reason that it should pass the test íor ci·il
ser·ants, who, by constitutional command, are required to be accountable at all times to the people and
to ser·e them with utmost responsibility and eííiciency.
No Undue Delegation of Power under Sec. 36 of R.A. 9J6S
Petitioner SJS` next posture that Sec. 36 oí R.A. 9165 is objectionable on the ground oí undue
delegation oí power hardly commends itselí íor concurrence. Contrary to its position, the pro·ision in
question is not so extensi·ely drawn as to gi·e unbridled options to schools and employers to determine
the manner oí drug testing. Sec. 36 expressly pro·ides how drug testing íor students oí secondary and
tertiary schools and oííicers,employees oí public,pri·ate oííices should be conducted. It enumerates
the persons who shall undergo drug testing. In the case oí 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 oí
oííicers,employees, the testing shall take into account the company`s work rules. In either case, the
random procedure shall be obser·ed, meaning that the persons to be subjected to drug test shall be
picked by chance or in an unplanned way. And in all cases, saíeguards against misusing and
compromising the coníidentiality oí the test results are established.
Lest it be o·erlooked, Sec. 94 oí R.A. 9165 charges the DDB to issue, in consultation with the
DOl, Department oí the Interior and Local Go·ernment, Department oí Lducation, and Department
oí Labor and Lmployment, among other agencies, the IRR necessary to eníorce the law. In net eííect
then, the participation oí schools and oííices in the drug testing scheme shall always be subject to the
IRR oí RA 9165. It is, thereíore, incorrect to say that schools and employers ha·e unchecked discretion
to determine how oíten, under what conditions, and where the drug tests shall be conducted.
1he Court íinds the situation entirely diííerent in the case oí persons charged beíore the public
prosecutor`s oííice with criminal oííenses punishable with six ,6, years and one ,1, day imprisonment.
1he operati·e concepts in the mandatory drug testing are randomness` and suspicionless.` In the case
oí persons charged with a crime beíore the prosecutor`s oííice, a mandatory drug testing can ne·er be
random or suspicionless. 1he ideas oí randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being
made deíendants in a criminal complaint. 1hey are not randomly picked, neither are they beyond
suspicion. \hen persons suspected oí committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are
impleaded against their will. 1he persons thus charged, by the bare íact oí being haled beíore the
prosecutor`s oííice and peaceably submitting themsel·es to drug testing, ií that be the case, do not
necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone wai·e their right to pri·acy. 1o impose mandatory drug
testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool íor criminal prosecution,
contrary to the stated objecti·es oí R.A. 9165. Drug testing in this case would ·iolate a persons` right to
pri·acy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III oí the Constitution. \orse still, the accused persons are
·eritably íorced to incriminate themsel·es.

3 45 22 2 5 $ - 2 3 6( % 3( % $'(%)%$ < 0 ! &/ ! * &6 * + = . 5 6& * $'(%)%$ $ + . * ! 6.*. * ! / 2 & *& *& * 0 & * 5 6 6 ! & *& *& * & * 5 0# 1 % 22 3 2 . $ / . * 6& * 9 * & ! 5 6 & * 5 $ 2 $ ? $ $ / @ 5 ! B ! ! ! ! # $ ! > 8 # $ ! " ! 4 ! ! ! . . &.6. ! 9 ! 5 6& * ! # ! ! = ! A ! ! ! BBB ! $ $ ! $ " % # = ! ! B # 5 ! 6 > $ = 8 ! .

4 5 6& * ( % 36 ( 3 % 3 573 5 # ! # D E ! 0 4 = B F# = ! % &1.%G .$ @ = ! ! ! ! ! ! ! + ! $'(%)%$ ( ! C E D 6 $'(%)%$ > $ 4 4 F> $'(%)%$ + . . D I % ! ! EBBB B 5 8 8 & BBB % ' . 2 93 (7 6 & *& * C F# ! ! BBB 4 ! # 5 9 ! ! . 0 $ # 5 .3 % 33 2 253 &* . 8 % % 5 ! % 3 2 . % H B ( $ BBB $ G H $ BBB 5 4% ! % & % 9 < % 8 BBB # .! $'(%)%$ 5 $ $'(%)%$ 6& *! $ $ # 0 5 ! ! $'(%)%$ 6& * 5 5 6& * 4 . /. B 5 ! ! ! 6& * . C 5 H . ..

# ! : B ! & * # I5 5 $ ! ! ! ! ! = ?&/ * ? * &6 ! ! $ ! ! " ! ! ?&. * ! B ? * &6 = I5 5 $ " 4 % = .B 9 5 = # $ 8 ! ! 0 ! 4 = ! = 5 / # $ & * & * ! I5 5 ! " $ 4 . # $ % & ! ! # I5 5 9& * 4 = ! ! ?& * ? : 8 4 4 # 4 4 4 ! ! 9& * ! 4 = ? 4 &. % ! % B 4 ! ! $ = ?&/ * ! ! . * 4 ' ) .

# ! 7 5 6& * BBB ! " F ! = * ! K K K K ! $ ! = ! 4 = C 5 ! 6 A! ! = : " ! C 8 4 7 < &7'<* .A ! ! $ ! # ? 3 5 B C = ! ! 6 = ! # 5 H $ & * 5 ! B " " C J F ! 0 " & &% 8 & B ! / $ ! " ! ! 53 5 = ! F 6& * ! # ! " C F B 5 ! B " / ! ! 4 ! F 4 & ! B ! .

7'< C D E F+ ! ! " # B ) ! ! ! ! ! ! $! 5 ! ! ! ! B ! &% = F ? C ! - - ! 4 - ! 5% %% 3 . ) A ! 7 778 % ! 7 = # " # $ B& * ! " # # ? C F C & * F ! .# B ! 5 H 6 B 5 ! ! H ! 6 0# = $ ! ' H ! " = ) 7'< 7 ) ! % 5 .7 2 2 53 5" B 6 :% 5 % % $ 6 ( ( .

# " ! ! ! = ! 5 / ! 7 $ . ! ! # ! " ..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful