1)Whether or not R.A. 9090 is constitutional.

2)Whether or not De la Cruz may refuse to give a sample of his blood.

1) No. R.A. 9090 is unconstitutional

Under the law, every law is given close scrutiny to ensure that no rights are violated. The Bill of Rights
safeguards these rights that the State, its instrumentalities and agents must give utmost respect. The
law clearly transgresses a person’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.

A person’s right to privacy is the State’s non-intrusion to one’s private matters and affairs. The person
has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The right against self-incrimination is procuring an evidence and using it against the person. This right
stresses that criminals are given adequate protection from these vexatious evidence.

R.A is unconstitutional because the procuring of DNA samples from convicts or under prosecution
violates right to privacy. Although the law gave guidelines how the samples will be kept and stored, it
can still be used not solely for investigative purposes but also for paternity etc. It also violates the right
against self-incrimination because it subjects the convict further investigation and as evidence that can
be used against him.

2) Yes. De la Cruz may refuse to give a sample of his blood.

The right against self-incrimination covers every individual, convicted or not. Procuring an evidence from
a person such as hair,urine and blood requires that there is a state of necessity to override one’s right
against self-incrimination.

In this case, the law’s purpose is to curb sex crimes and drug-related offenses. Although it has a lawful
subject, the means employed are unconstitutional. The evidence can be used to further incriminate the
individual. In order to use it as evidence in furtherance of an investigation, the individual must waived its
right expressly or impliedly.