Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), v.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA) November 3, 2008 DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: In these kindred petitions, the constitutionality of Section 36 of Republic ct No! "R # $%6&, other'ise kno'n as theComprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 , insofar as it re(uires mandatory dru) testin) of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons char)ed before the prosecutor*s office 'ith certain offenses, amon) other personalities, is put in issue! s far as pertinent, the challen)ed section reads as follo's+ S,-! 36! Authorized Drug Testing!. uthori/ed dru) testin) shall be done by any )overnment forensic laboratories or by any of the dru) testin) laboratories accredited and monitored by the 012 to safe)uard the (uality of the test results! 3 3 3 4he dru) testin) shall employ, amon) others, t'o "2# testin) methods, the screenin) test 'hich 'ill determine the positive result as 'ell as the type of dru) used and the confirmatory test 'hich 'ill confirm a positive screenin) test! 3 3 3 4he follo'in) shall be sub5ected to under)o dru) testin)+ 3333 "c# Students of secondary and tertiary schools!.Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related rules and re)ulations as contained in the school*s student handbook and 'ith notice to the parents, under)o a random dru) testin) 3 3 36 "d# 1fficers and employees of public and private offices!.1fficers and employees of public and private offices, 'hether domestic or overseas, shall be sub5ected to under)o a random dru) test as contained in the company*s 'ork rules and re)ulations, 3 3 3 for purposes of reducin) the risk in the 'orkplace! ny officer or employee found positive for use of dan)erous dru)s shall be dealt 'ith administratively 'hich shall be a )round for suspension or termination, sub5ect to the provisions of rticle 282 of the 7abor -ode and pertinent provisions of the -ivil Service 7a'6 3333 "f# ll persons char)ed before the prosecutor*s office 'ith a criminal offense havin) an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than si3 "6# years and one "%# day shall under)o a mandatory dru) test6 ")# ll candidates for public office 'hether appointed or elected both in the national or local )overnment shall under)o a mandatory dru) test! In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dan)erous dru)s use shall be sub5ect to the provisions of Section %& of this ct! G.R. N . !"!"#$ "Aquilino Q. Pimentel, r. v. Commission on !lections# 1n 0ecember 23, 2003, the -ommission on ,lections "-18,7,-# issued Resolution No! 6986, prescribin) the rules and re)ulations on the mandatory dru) testin) of candidates for public office in connection 'ith the 8ay %0, 2009 synchroni/ed national and local elections! 4he pertinent portions of the said resolution read as follo's+ :2,R, S, Section 36 ")# of Republic ct No! $%6& provides+ S,-! 36! Authorized Drug Testing!.3 3 3 3333 ")# ll candidates for public office 3 3 3 both in the national or local )overnment %&a'' (nd)*+ ,anda- *. d*(+ -)%-! a

:2,R, S, Section %, rticle ;I of the %$8< -onstitution provides that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them 'ith utmost responsibility, inte)rity, loyalty and efficiency6 :2,R, S, by re(uirin) candidates to under)o mandatory dru) test, the public 'ill kno' the (uality of candidates they are electin) and they 'ill be assured that only those 'ho can serve 'ith utmost responsibility, inte)rity, loyalty, and efficiency 'ould be elected 3 3 3!

N1: 42,R,=1R,, 4he >-18,7,-?, pursuant to the authority vested in it under the -onstitution, @atas Aambansa @l)! 88% "1mnibus ,lection -ode#, >R ? $%6& and other election la's, R,S17B,0 to promul)ate, as it hereby promul)ates, the follo'in) rules and re)ulations on the conduct of mandatory dru) testin) to candidates for public office>+? S,-4I1N %! Coverage!.A'' /and0da-)% 1 * 2(3'0/ 110/), 3 -& na-0 na' and ' /a', 0n -&) Ma. !4, 5446 S.n/&* n07)d Na-0 na' and L /a' E')/-0 n% shall under)o mandatory dru) test in )overnment forensic laboratories or any dru) testin) laboratories monitored and accredited by the 0epartment of 2ealth! S,-! 3! 3 3 3 1n 8arch 2&, 2009, in addition to the dru) certificates filed 'ith their respective offices, the -omelec 1ffices and employees concerned shall submit to the 7a' 0epartment t'o "2# separate lists of candidates! 4he first list shall consist of those candidates 'ho complied 'ith the mandatory dru) test 'hile the second list shall consist of those candidates 'ho failed to comply 3 3 3! S,-! 9! Preparation and pu"lication of names of candidates!.@efore the start of the campai)n period, the >-18,7,-? shall prepare t'o separate lists of candidates! 4he first list shall consist of those candidates 'ho complied 'ith the mandatory dru) test 'hile the second list shall consist of those candidates 'ho failed to comply 'ith said dru) test! 3 3 3 S,-! &! !ffect of failure to undergo mandator# drug test and file drug test certificate !.No person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has under)one mandatory dru) test and filed 'ith the offices enumerated under Section 2 hereof the dru) test certificate herein re(uired! ",mphasis supplied!# Aetitioner (uilino C! Aimentel, Dr!, a senator of the Republic and a candidate for reEelection in the 8ay %0, 2009 elections, filed a Aetition for -ertiorari and Arohibition under Rule 6&! In it, he seeks "%# to nullify Sec! 36")# of R $%6& and -18,7,Resolution No! 6986 dated 0ecember 23, 2003 for bein) unconstitutional in that they impose a (ualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the %$8< -onstitution6 and "2# to en5oin the -18,7,- from implementin) Resolution No! 6986!
>%?

Aimentel invokes as le)al basis for his petition Sec! 3, rticle BI of the -onstitution, 'hich states+ S,-4I1N 3! No person shall be a Senator unless he is a naturalEborn citi/en of the Ahilippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirtyEfive years of a)e, able to read and 'rite, a re)istered voter, and a resident of the Ahilippines for not less than t'o years immediately precedin) the day of the election!

ccordin) to Aimentel, the -onstitution only prescribes a ma3imum of five "&# (ualifications for one to be a candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate! 2e says that both the -on)ress and -18,7,-, by re(uirin), via R $%6& and Resolution No! 6986, a senatorial aspirant, amon) other candidates, to under)o a mandatory dru) test, create an additional (ualification that all candidates for senator must first be certified as dru) free! 2e adds that there is no provision in the -onstitution authori/in) the -on)ress or -18,7,- to e3pand the (ualification re(uirements of candidates for senator! G.R. N . !#8$84 "$ocial ustice $ociet# v. Dangerous Drugs %oard and Philippine Drug !nforcement Agenc## In its Aetition for Arohibition under Rule 6&, petitioner Social Dustice Society "SDS#, a re)istered political party, seeks to prohibit the 0an)erous 0ru)s @oard "00@# and the Ahilippine 0ru) ,nforcement )ency "A0, # from enforcin) para)raphs "c#, "d#, "f#, and ")# of Sec! 36 of R $%6& on the )round that they are constitutionally infirm! =or one, the provisions constitute undue dele)ation of le)islative po'er 'hen they )ive unbridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of dru) testin)! =or another, the provisions trench in the e(ual protection clause inasmuch as they can be used to harass a student or an employee deemed undesirable! nd for a third, a person*s constitutional ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable searches is also breached by said provisions! G.R. N . !#$"99 "Att#. &anuel . 'aserna, r. v. Dangerous Drugs %oard and Philippine Drug !nforcement Agenc## Aetitioner tty! 8anuel D! 7aserna, Dr!, as citi/en and ta3payer, also seeks in his Aetition for -ertiorari and Arohibition under Rule 6& that Sec! 36"c#, "d#, "f#, and ")# of R $%6& be struck do'n as unconstitutional for infrin)in) on the constitutional ri)ht to privacy, the ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable search and sei/ure, and the ri)ht a)ainst selfEincrimination, and for bein) contrary to the due process and e(ual protection )uarantees! T&) I%%() n Locus Standi

=irst off, 'e shall address the 5usticiability of the cases at bench and the matter of the standin) of petitioners SDS and 7aserna to sue! s respondents 00@ and A0, assert, SDS and 7aserna failed to alle)e any incident amountin) to a violation of the constitutional ri)hts mentioned in their separate petitions!>2? It is basic that the po'er of 5udicial revie' can only be e3ercised in connection 'ith a "ona fide controversy 'hich involves the statute sou)ht to be revie'ed! >3? @ut even 'ith the presence of an actual case or controversy, the -ourt may refuse to e3ercise 5udicial revie' unless the constitutional (uestion is brou)ht before it by a party havin) the re(uisite standin) to challen)e it! >9? 4o have standin), one must establish that he or she has suffered some actual or threatened in5ury as a result of the alle)edly ille)al conduct of the )overnment6 the in5ury is fairly traceable to the challen)ed action6 and the in5ury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action!>&? 4he rule on standin), ho'ever, is a matter of procedure6 hence, it can be rela3ed for nonEtraditional plaintiffs, like ordinary citi/ens, ta3payers, and le)islators 'hen the public interest so re(uires, such as 'hen the matter is of transcendental importance, of overarchin) si)nificance to society, or of paramount public interest! >6? 4here is no doubt that Aimentel, as senator of theAhilippines and candidate for the 8ay %0, 2009 elections, possesses the re(uisite standin) since he has substantial interests in the sub5ect matter of the petition, amon) other preliminary considerations! Re)ardin) SDS and 7aserna, this -ourt is 'ont to rela3 the rule on locus standi o'in) primarily to the transcendental importance and the paramount public interest involved in the enforcement of Sec! 36 of R $%6&! T&) C n% '0da-)d I%%()% 4he principal issues before us are as follo's+ "%# 0o Sec! 36")# of R $%6& and -18,7,- Resolution No! 6986 impose an additional (ualification for candidates for senatorF -orollarily, can -on)ress enact a la' prescribin) (ualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those laid do'n by the -onstitutionF and "2# re para)raphs "c#, "d#, "f#, and ")# of Sec! 36, R $%6& unconstitutionalF Specifically, do these para)raphs violate the ri)ht to privacy, the ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable searches and sei/ure, and the e(ual protection clauseF 1r do they constitute undue dele)ation of le)islative po'erF P0,)n-)' P)-0-0 n (C n%-0-(-0 na'0-. 1 S)/. 9":+; 1 RA <!"# and COMELEC R)% '(-0 n N . "6$") In essence, Aimentel claims that Sec! 36")# of R $%6& and -18,7,- Resolution No! 6986 ille)ally impose an additional (ualification on candidates for senator! 2e points out that, sub5ect to the provisions on nuisance candidates, a candidate for senator needs only to meet the (ualifications laid do'n in Sec! 3, rt! BI of the -onstitution, to 'it+ "%# citi/enship, "2# voter re)istration, "3# literacy, "9# a)e, and "&# residency! @eyond these stated (ualification re(uirements, candidates for senator need not possess any other (ualification to run for senator and be voted upon and elected as member of the Senate! 4he -on)ress cannot validly amend or other'ise modify these (ualification standards, as it cannot disre)ard, evade, or 'eaken the force of a constitutional mandate,><? or alter or enlar)e the -onstitution! Aimentel*s contention is 'ellEtaken! ccordin)ly, Sec! 36")# of R $%6& should be, as it is hereby declared as, unconstitutional! It is basic that if a la' or an administrative rule violates any norm of the -onstitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect! 4he -onstitution is the basic la' to 'hich all la's must conform6 no act shall be valid if it conflicts 'ith the -onstitution!>8? In the dischar)e of their defined functions, the three departments of )overnment have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the -onstitution! :hatever limits it imposes must be observed!>$? -on)ress* inherent le)islative po'ers, broad as they may be, are sub5ect to certain limitations! s early as %$2<, in(overnment v. $pringer, the -ourt has defined, in the abstract, the limits on le)islative po'er in the follo'in) 'ise+ Someone has said that the po'ers of the le)islative department of the Government, like the boundaries of the ocean, are unlimited! In constitutional )overnments, ho'ever, as 'ell as )overnments actin) under dele)ated authority, the po'ers of each of the departments 3 3 3 are limited and confined 'ithin the four 'alls of the constitution or the charter, and each department can only e3ercise such po'ers as are necessarily implied from the )iven po'ers! 4he -onstitution is the shore of le)islative authority a)ainst 'hich the 'aves of le)islative enactment may dash, but over 'hich it cannot leap!>%0? 4hus, le)islative po'er remains limited in the sense that it is sub5ect to substantive and constitutional limitations 'hich circumscribe both the e3ercise of the po'er itself and the allo'able sub5ects of le)islation! >%%? 4he substantive constitutional limitations are chiefly found in the @ill of Ri)hts >%2? and other provisions, such as Sec! 3, rt! BI of the -onstitution prescribin) the (ualifications of candidates for senators! In the same vein, the -18,7,- cannot, in the )uise of enforcin) and administerin) election la's or promul)atin) rules and re)ulations to implement Sec! 36")#, validly impose (ualifications on candidates for senator in addition to 'hat the -onstitution prescribes! If -on)ress cannot re(uire a candidate for senator to meet such additional (ualification, the -18,7,-, to be sure, is also 'ithout such po'er! 4he ri)ht of a citi/en in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by un'arranted impositions of re(uirement not other'ise specified in the -onstitution!>%3?

Sec! 36")# of R $%6&, as sou)ht to be implemented by the assailed -18,7,- resolution, effectively enlar)es the (ualification re(uirements enumerated in the Sec! 3, rt! BI of the -onstitution! s couched, said Sec! 36")# unmistakably re(uires a candidate for senator to be certified ille)alEdru) clean, obviously as a preEcondition to the validity of a certificate of candidacy for senator or, 'ith like effect, a condition sine qua non to be voted upon and, if proper, be proclaimed as senatorEelect! 4he -18,7,resolution completes the chain 'ith the proviso that H>n?o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has under)one mandatory dru) test!I Bie'ed, therefore, in its proper conte3t, Sec! 36")# of R $%6& and the implementin) -18,7,- Resolution add another (ualification layer to 'hat the %$8< -onstitution, at the minimum, re(uires for membership in the Senate! :hether or not the dru)Efree bar set up under the challen)ed provision is to be hurdled before or after election is really of no moment, as )ettin) elected 'ould be of little value if one cannot assume office for nonEcompliance 'ith the dru)Etestin) re(uirement! It may of course be ar)ued, in defense of the validity of Sec! 36")# of R $%6&, that the provision does not e3pressly state that nonEcompliance 'ith the dru) test imposition is a dis(ualifyin) factor or 'ould 'ork to nullify a certificate of candidacy! 4his ar)ument may be accorded plausibility if the dru) test re(uirement is optional! @ut the particular section of the la', 'ithout e3ception, made dru)Etestin) on those covered mandatory, necessarily su))estin) that the obstinate ones shall have to suffer the adverse conse(uences for not adherin) to the statutory command! nd since the provision deals 'ith candidates for public office, it stands to reason that the adverse conse(uence adverted to can only refer to and revolve around the election and the assumption of public office of the candidates! ny other construal 'ould reduce the mandatory nature of Sec! 36")# of R $%6& into a pure 5ar)on 'ithout meanin) and effect 'hatsoever! :hile it is antiEclimactic to state it at this 5uncture, -18,7,- Resolution No! 6986 is no lon)er enforceable, for by its terms, it 'as intended to cover only the 8ay %0, 2009 synchroni/ed elections and the candidates runnin) in that electoral event! Nonetheless, to obviate repetition, the -ourt deems it appropriate to revie' and rule, as it hereby rules, on its validity as an implementin) issuance! It ou)ht to be made abundantly clear, ho'ever, that the unconstitutionality of Sec! 36")# of R $%6& is rooted on its havin) infrin)ed the constitutional provision definin) the (ualification or eli)ibility re(uirements for one aspirin) to run for and serve as senator! SJS P)-0-0 n (C n%-0-(-0 na'0-. 1 S)/. 9":/;, :d;, :1;, and :+; 1 RA <!"#) 4he dru) test prescribed under Sec! 36"c#, "d#, and "f# of R $%6& for secondary and tertiary level students and public and private employees, 'hile mandatory, is a random and suspicionless arran)ement! 4he ob5ective is to stamp out ille)al dru) and safe)uard in the process Hthe 'ell bein) of >the? citi/enry, particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of dan)erous dru)s!I 4his statutory purpose, per the policyEdeclaration portion of the la', can be achieved via the pursuit by the state of Han intensive and unrelentin) campai)n a)ainst the traffickin) and use of dan)erous dru)s 3 3 3 throu)h an inte)rated system of plannin), implementation and enforcement of antiEdru) abuse policies, pro)rams and pro5ects!I >%9? 4he primary le)islative intent is not criminal prosecution, as those found positive for ille)al dru) use as a result of this random testin) are not necessarily treated as criminals! 4hey may even be e3empt from criminal liability should the ille)al dru) user consent to under)o rehabilitation! Secs! &9 and && of R $%6& are clear on this point+ Sec! &9! )oluntar# $u"mission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and *eha"ilitation !. dru) dependent or any person 'ho violates Section %& of this ct may, by himselfJherself or throu)h hisJher parent, >close relatives? 3 3 3 apply to the @oard 3 3 3 for treatment and rehabilitation of the dru) dependency! Kpon such application, the @oard shall brin) forth the matter to the -ourt 'hich shall order that the applicant be e3amined for dru) dependency! If the e3amination 3 3 3 results in the certification that the applicant is a dru) dependent, heJshe shall be ordered by the -ourt to under)o treatment and rehabilitation in a -enter desi)nated by the @oard 3 3 3! 3333 Sec! &&! !+emption from the Criminal 'ia"ilit# ,nder the )oluntar# $u"mission Program !. dru) dependent under the voluntary submission pro)ram, 'ho is finally dischar)ed from confinement, shall be e3empt from the criminal liability under Section %& of this ct sub5ect to the follo'in) conditions+ 3333 School children, the KS Supreme -ourt noted, are most vulnerable to the physical, psycholo)ical, and addictive effects of dru)s! 8aturin) nervous systems of the youn) are more critically impaired by into3icants and are more inclined to dru) dependency! 4heir recovery is also at a depressin)ly lo' rate!>%&? 4he ri)ht to privacy has been accorded reco)nition in this 5urisdiction as a facet of the ri)ht protected by the )uarantee a)ainst unreasonable search and sei/ure >%6? under Sec! 2, rt! III >%<? of the -onstitution! @ut 'hile the ri)ht to privacy has lon) come into its o'n, this case appears to be the first time that the validity of a stateEdecreed search or intrusion throu)h the medium of mandatory random dru) testin) amon) students and employees is, in this 5urisdiction, made the focal point! 4hus, the issue tendered in these proceedin)s is veritably one of first impression!

KS 5urisprudence is, ho'ever, a rich source of persuasive 5urisprudence! :ith respect to random dru) testin) amon) school children, 'e turn to the teachin)s of )ernonia $chool District -. v. Acton ")ernonia# and %oard of !ducation of /ndependent $chool District 0o. 12 of Potta2atomie Count# , et al. v. !arls, et al. "%oard of !ducation#,>%8? both fairly pertinent KS Supreme -ourtE decided cases involvin) the constitutionality of )overnmental search! In )ernonia, school administrators in Bernonia, 1re)on 'anted to address the dru) menace in their respective institutions follo'in) the discovery of fre(uent dru) use by school athletes! fter consultation 'ith the parents, they re(uired random urinalysis dru) testin) for the school*s athletes! Dames cton, a hi)h school student, 'as denied participation in the football pro)ram after he refused to undertake the urinalysis dru) testin)! cton forth'ith sued, claimin) that the school*s dru) testin) policy violated, inter alia, the =ourth mendment>%$? of the KS -onstitution! 4he KS Supreme -ourt, in fashionin) a solution to the issues raised in )ernonia, considered the follo'in)+ "%# schools stand in loco parentis over their students6 "2# school children, 'hile not sheddin) their constitutional ri)hts at the school )ate, have less privacy ri)hts6 "3# athletes have less privacy ri)hts than nonEathletes since the former observe communal undress before and after sports events6 "9# by 5oinin) the sports activity, the athletes voluntarily sub5ected themselves to a hi)her de)ree of school supervision and re)ulation6 "&# re(uirin) urine samples does not invade a student*s privacy since a student need not undress for this kind of dru) testin)6 and "6# there is need for the dru) testin) because of the dan)erous effects of ille)al dru)s on the youn)! 4he KS Supreme -ourt held that the policy constituted reasonable search under the =ourth>20? and %9th mendments and declared the random dru)Etestin) policy constitutional! In %oard of !ducation, the @oard of ,ducation of a school in 4ecumseh, 1klahoma re(uired a dru) test for hi)h school students desirin) to 5oin e3traEcurricular activities! 7indsay ,arls, a member of the sho' choir, marchin) band, and academic team declined to under)o a dru) test and averred that the dru)Etestin) policy made to apply to nonEathletes violated the =ourth and %9th mendments! s ,arls ar)ued, unlike athletes 'ho routinely under)o physical e3aminations and undress before their peers in locker rooms, nonEathletes are entitled to more privacy! 4he KS Supreme -ourt, citin) )ernonia, upheld the constitutionality of dru) testin) even amon) nonEathletes on the basis of the school*s custodial responsibility and authority! In so rulin), said court made no distinction bet'een a nonEathlete and an athlete! It ratiocinated that schools and teachers act in place of the parents 'ith a similar interest and duty of safe)uardin) the health of the students! nd in holdin) that the school could implement its random dru)Etestin) policy, the -ourt hinted that such a test 'as a kind of search in 'hich even a reasonable parent mi)ht need to en)a)e! In sum, 'hat can reasonably be deduced from the above t'o cases and applied to this 5urisdiction are+ "%# schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis 'ith respect to their students6 "2# minor students have conte3tually fe'er ri)hts than an adult, and are sub5ect to the custody and supervision of their parents, )uardians, and schools6 "3# schools, actin) in loco parentis, have a duty to safe)uard the health and 'ellEbein) of their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to dischar)e such duty6 and "9# schools have the ri)ht to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair, 5ust, and nonE discriminatory! Guided by )ernonia and %oard of !ducation, the -ourt is of the vie' and so holds that the provisions of R $%6& re(uirin) mandatory, random, and suspicionless dru) testin) of students are constitutional! Indeed, it is 'ithin the prero)ative of educational institutions to re(uire, as a condition for admission, compliance 'ith reasonable school rules and re)ulations and policies! 4o be sure, the ri)ht to enroll is not absolute6 it is sub5ect to fair, reasonable, and e(uitable re(uirements! 4he -ourt can take 5udicial notice of the proliferation of prohibited dru)s in the country that threatens the 'ellEbein) of the people,>2%? particularly the youth and school children 'ho usually end up as victims! ccordin)ly, and until a more effective method is conceptuali/ed and put in motion, a random dru) testin) 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 le)itimate concern of the )overnment, are to be promoted and protected! 4o borro' from )ernonia, H>d?eterrin) dru) use by our Nation*s schoolchildren is as important as enhancin) efficient enforcement of the Nation*s la's a)ainst the importation of dru)sI6 the necessity for the State to act is ma)nified by the fact that the effects of a dru)Einfested school are visited not 5ust upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty! >22? Needless to stress, the random testin) scheme provided under the la' ar)ues a)ainst the idea that the testin) aims to incriminate unsuspectin) individual students! Dust as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students, the mandatory but random dru) test prescribed by Sec! 36 of R $%6& for officers and employees of public and private offices is 5ustifiable, albeit not e3actly for the same reason! 4he -ourt notes in this re)ard that petitioner SDS, other than sayin) that Hsub5ectin) almost everybody to dru) testin), 'ithout probable cause, is unreasonable, an un'arranted intrusion of the individual ri)ht to privacy,I >23? has failed to sho' ho' the mandatory, random, and suspicionless dru) testin) under Sec! 36"c# and "d# of R $%6& violates the ri)ht to privacy and constitutes unla'ful andJor unconsented search under rt! III, Secs! % and 2 of the -onstitution! >29? Aetitioner 7aserna*s lament is 5ust as simplistic, s'eepin), and )ratuitous and does not merit serious consideration! -onsider 'hat he 'rote 'ithout elaboration+ 4he KS Supreme -ourt and KS -ircuit -ourts of ppeals have made various rulin)s on the constitutionality of mandatory dru) tests in the school and the 'orkplaces! 4he KS courts have been consistent in their rulin)s that the mandatory dru) tests violate a citi/en*s constitutional ri)ht to privacy and ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable search and sei/ure! 4hey are (uoted e3tensively hereinbelo'! >2&? 4he essence of privacy is the ri)ht to be left alone!>26? In conte3t, the ri)ht to privacy means the ri)ht to be free from un'arranted e3ploitation of one*s person or from intrusion into one*s private activities in such a 'ay as to cause humiliation to a person*s ordinary sensibilities! >2<? nd 'hile there has been )eneral a)reement as to the basic function of the )uarantee a)ainst

un'arranted search, Htranslation of the abstract prohibition a)ainst Lunreasonable searches and sei/ures* into 'orkable broad )uidelines for the decision of particular cases is a difficult task,I to borro' from C. Camara v. &unicipal Court!>28? uthorities are a)reed thou)h that the ri)ht to privacy yields to certain paramount ri)hts of the public and defers to the state*s e3ercise of police po'er!>2$? s the 'arrantless clause of Sec! 2, rt III of the -onstitution is couched and as has been held, HreasonablenessI is the touchstone of the validity of a )overnment search or intrusion! >30? nd 'hether a search at issue he's to the reasonableness standard is 5ud)ed by the balancin) of the )overnmentEmandated intrusion on the individual*s privacy interest a)ainst the promotion of some compellin) state interest!>3%? In the criminal conte3t, reasonableness re(uires sho'in) of probable cause to be personally determined by a 5ud)e! Given that the dru)Etestin) policy for employeesMMand students for that matterMMunder R $%6& is in the nature of administrative search needin) 'hat 'as referred to in )ernonia as Hs'ift and informal disciplinary procedures,I the probableEcause standard is not re(uired or even practicable! @e that as it may, the revie' should focus on the reasonableness of the challen)ed administrative search in (uestion! 4he first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the nature of the privacy interest upon 'hich the dru) testin), 'hich effects a search 'ithin the meanin) of Sec! 2, rt! III of the -onstitution, intrudes! In this case, the office or 'orkplace serves as the backdrop for the analysis of the privacy e3pectation of the employees and the reasonableness of dru) testin) re(uirement! 4he employees* privacy interest in an office is to a lar)e e3tent circumscribed by the company*s 'ork policies, the collective bar)ainin) a)reement, if any, entered into by mana)ement and the bar)ainin) unit, and the inherent ri)ht of the employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the 'orkplace! 4heir privacy e3pectation in a re)ulated office environment is, in fine, reduced6 and a de)ree of impin)ement upon such privacy has been upheld! Dust as definin) as the first factor is the character of the intrusion authori/ed by the challen)ed la'! Reduced to a (uestion form, is the scope of the search or intrusion clearly set forth, or, as formulated in 3ple v. Torres, is the enablin) la' authori/in) a search Hnarro'ly dra'nI or Hnarro'ly focusedIF>32? 4he poser should be ans'ered in the affirmative! =or one, Sec! 36 of R $%6& and its implementin) rules and re)ulations "IRR#, as couched, contain provisions specifically directed to'ards preventin) a situation that 'ould unduly embarrass the employees or place them under a humiliatin) e3perience! :hile every officer and employee in a private establishment is under the la' deemed fore'arned that he or she may be a possible sub5ect of a dru) test, nobody is really sin)led out in advance for dru) testin)! 4he )oal is to discoura)e dru) use by not tellin) in advance anyone 'hen and 'ho is to be tested! nd as may be observed, Sec! 36"d# of R $%6& itself prescribes 'hat, in 3ple, is a narro'in) in)redient by providin) that the employees concerned shall be sub5ected to Hrandom dru) test as contained in the company*s 'ork rules and re)ulations 3 3 3 for purposes of reducin) the risk in the 'ork place!I =or another, the random dru) testin) shall be undertaken under conditions calculated to protect as much as possible the employee*s privacy and di)nity! s to the mechanics of the test, the la' specifies that the procedure shall employ t'o testin) methods, i!e!, the screenin) test and the confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much as possible the trust'orthiness of the results! @ut the more important consideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained professionals in accessE controlled laboratories monitored by the 0epartment of 2ealth "012# to safe)uard a)ainst results tamperin) and to ensure an accurate chain of custody!>33? In addition, the IRR issued by the 012 provides that access to the dru) results shall be on the Hneed to kno'I basis6>39? that the Hdru) test result and the records shall be >kept? confidential sub5ect to the usual accepted practices to protect the confidentiality of the test results!I >3&? Notably, R $%6& does not obli)e the employer concerned to report to the prosecutin) a)encies any information or evidence relatin) to the violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act received as a result of the operation of the dru) testin)! ll told, therefore, the intrusion into the employees* privacy, under R $%6&, is accompanied by proper safe)uards, particularly a)ainst embarrassin) leaka)es of test results, and is relatively minimal! 4o reiterate, R $%6& 'as enacted as a measure to stamp out ille)al dru) in the country and thus protect the 'ellEbein) of the citi/ens, especially the youth, from the deleterious effects of dan)erous dru)s! 4he la' intends to achieve this throu)h the medium, amon) others, of promotin) and resolutely pursuin) a national dru) abuse policy in the 'orkplace via a mandatory random dru) test!>36? 4o the -ourt, the need for dru) testin) to at least minimi/e ille)al dru) use is substantial enou)h to override the individual*s privacy interest under the premises! 4he -ourt can consider that the ille)al dru) menace cuts across )ender, a)e )roup, and socialE economic lines! nd it may not be amiss to state that the sale, manufacture, or traffickin) of ille)al dru)s, 'ith their ready market, 'ould be an investor*s dream 'ere it not for the ille)al and immoral components of any of such activities! 4he dru) problem has hardly abated since the martial la' public e3ecution of a notorious dru) trafficker! 4he state can no lon)er assume a laid back stance 'ith respect to this modernEday scour)e! 0ru) enforcement a)encies perceive a mandatory random dru) test to be an effective 'ay of preventin) and deterrin) dru) use amon) employees in private offices, the threat of detection by random testin) bein) hi)her than other modes! 4he -ourt holds that the chosen method is a reasonable and enou)h means to lick the problem! 4akin) into account the fore)oin) factors, i!e!, the reduced e3pectation of privacy on the part of the employees, the compellin) state concern likely to be met by the search, and the 'ellEdefined limits set forth in the la' to properly )uide authorities in the conduct of the random testin), 'e hold that the challen)ed dru) test re(uirement is, under the limited conte3t of the case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional! 7ike their counterparts in the private sector, )overnment officials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the -ivil Service la' and other la's on public officers, all enacted to promote a hi)h standard of ethics in the public service! >3<? nd if R $%6& passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, 'ho, by constitutional command, are re(uired to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them 'ith utmost responsibility and efficiency! >38?

Aetitioner SDS* ne3t posture that Sec! 36 of R $%6& is ob5ectionable on the )round of undue dele)ation of po'er hardly commends itself for concurrence! -ontrary to its position, the provision in (uestion is not so e3tensively dra'n as to )ive unbridled options to schools and employers to determine the manner of dru) testin)! Sec! 36 e3pressly provides ho' dru) testin) for students of secondary and tertiary schools and officersJemployees of publicJprivate offices should be conducted! It enumerates the persons 'ho shall under)o dru) testin)! In the case of students, the testin) shall be in accordance 'ith the school rules as contained in the student handbook and 'ith notice to parents! 1n the part of officersJemployees, the testin) shall take into account the company*s 'ork rules! In either case, the random procedure shall be observed, meanin) that the persons to be sub5ected to dru) test shall be picked by chance or in an unplanned 'ay! nd in all cases, safe)uards a)ainst misusin) and compromisin) the confidentiality of the test results are established! 7est it be overlooked, Sec! $9 of R $%6& char)es the 00@ to issue, in consultation 'ith the 012, 0epartment of the Interior and 7ocal Government, 0epartment of ,ducation, and 0epartment of 7abor and ,mployment, amon) other a)encies, the IRR necessary to enforce the la'! In net effect then, the participation of schools and offices in the dru) testin) scheme shall al'ays be sub5ect to the IRR of R $%6&! It is, therefore, incorrect to say that schools and employers have unchecked discretion to determine ho' often, under 'hat conditions, and 'here the dru) tests shall be conducted! 4he validity of dele)atin) le)islative po'er is no' a (uiet area in the constitutional landscape! >3$? In the face of the increasin) comple3ity of the task of the )overnment and the increasin) inability of the le)islature to cope directly 'ith the many problems demandin) its attention, resort to dele)ation of po'er, or entrustin) to administrative a)encies the po'er of subordinate le)islation, has become imperative, as here! La%)*na P)-0-0 n (C n%-0-(-0 na'0-. 1 S)/. 9":/;, :d;, :1;, and :+; 1 RA <!"#) Knlike the situation covered by Sec! 36"c# and "d# of R $%6&, the -ourt finds no valid 5ustification for mandatory dru) testin) for persons accused of crimes! In the case of students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless dru) testin) for students emanates primarily from the 'aiver by the students of their ri)ht to privacy 'hen they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntarily submittin) their persons to the parental authority of school authorities! In the case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless dru) testin) proceeds from the reasonableness of the dru) test policy and re(uirement! :e find the situation entirely different in the case of persons char)ed before the public prosecutor*s office 'ith criminal offenses punishable 'ith si3 "6# years and one "%# day imprisonment! 4he operative concepts in the mandatory dru) testin) are HrandomnessI and Hsuspicionless!I In the case of persons char)ed 'ith a crime before the prosecutor*s office, a mandatory dru) testin) can never be random or suspicionless! 4he ideas of randomness and bein) suspicionless are antithetical to their bein) made defendants in a criminal complaint! 4hey are not randomly picked6 neither are they beyond suspicion! :hen persons suspected of committin) a crime are char)ed, they are sin)led out and are impleaded a)ainst their 'ill! 4he persons thus char)ed, by the bare fact of bein) haled before the prosecutor*s office and peaceably submittin) themselves to dru) testin), if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone 'aive their ri)ht to privacy! >90? 4o impose mandatory dru) testin) on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated ob5ectives of R $%6&! 0ru) testin) in this case 'ould violate a persons* ri)ht to privacy )uaranteed under Sec! 2, rt! III of the -onstitution! :orse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves! =HEREFORE, the -ourt resolves to GRANT the petition in G!R! No! %6%6&8 and declares S)/. 9"(+) of RA <!"#and COMELEC R)% '(-0 n N . "6$" as UNCONSTITUTIONAL 6 and to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition in G!R! Nos! %&<8<0 and %&8633 by declarin) S)/. 9"(/) and (d) of RA <!"# CONSTITUTIONAL , but declarin) its S)/. 9"(1)UNCONSTITUTIONAL ! ll concerned a)encies are, accordin)ly, permanently en5oined from implementin) S)/. 9"(1) and (+) of RA <!"#! No costs!