Tatlong case to guys

G.R. No. 157870 November 3, 2008

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), petitioner

vs.
DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA), respondents.

x-----------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. 158633 November 3, 2008

ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA, JR., petitioner

vs.
DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, respondents.

x-----------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. 161658 November 3, 2008

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., petitioner

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.

RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it requires mandatory drug testing
of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices,
and persons charged before the prosecutor's office with certain offenses, among other personalities, is put in issue.

SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. - Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any
of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of the test results. x x x The drug
testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well
as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. x x x The following shall be
subjected to undergo drug testing:

(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. - Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related rules
and regulations as contained in the school's student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a random drug testing x x

(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. - Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether
domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the company's work rules and
regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of
dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the
provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law;

(f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall undergo a mandatory drug test;

(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo a
mandatory drug test.

FACTS:

G.R. No. 161658 (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission on Elections)

On December 23, 2003, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the rules and
regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized
national and local elections. The pertinent portions of the said resolution read as follows:

Petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senator of the Republic and a candidate for re - election in the May 10, 2004
elections,1 filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and
COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they impose a qualification for
candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC
from implementing Resolution No. 6486.

G.R. No. 157870 (Social Justice Society v. Dangerous

Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency)

In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, seeks to
prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing paragraphs
(c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm. For one, the provisions constitute
undue delegation of legislative power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner
of drug testing. For another, the provisions trench in the equal protection clause inasmuch as they can be used to harass a
student or an employee deemed undesirable. And for a third, a person's constitutional right against unreasonable searches is
also breached by said provisions.
 G.R. No. 158633 (Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. v. Dangerous
Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency)

Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as citizen and taxpayer, also seeks in his Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under
Rule 65 that Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), and (g) of RA 9165 be struck down as unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional
right to privacy, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against self - incrimination, and for being
contrary to the due process and equal protection guarantees.

ISSUE :

1. WON RA 9165 AND COMELEC RESOLUTION no. 6488 CONSTITUTIONAL

2. WON Are paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165 constitutional? Specifically, do these paragraphs
violate the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and the equal protection clause? Or do
they constitute undue delegation of legislative power?

HELD : NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL – see ruling team yakult

L -Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution, to wit: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and (5) residency.

Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation. - A drug dependent or any person
who violates Section 15 of this Act may, by himself/herself or through his/her parent, [close relatives] x x x apply to the Board
x x x for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug dependency.

A- Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure, is
also without such power. The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by
unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution

The primary legislative intent is not criminal prosecution, as those found positive for illegal drug use as a result of this
random testing are not necessarily treated as criminals. They may even be exempt from criminal liability should the
illegal drug user consent to undergo rehabilitation. Secs. 54 and 55 of RA 9165 are clear on this point

C -While it is anti - climactic to state it at this juncture, COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 is no longer enforceable, for by its
terms, it was intended to cover only the May 10, 2004 synchronized elections and the candidates running in that electoral
event. Nonetheless, to obviate repetition, the Court deems it appropriate to review and rule, as it hereby rules, on its validity as
an implementing issuance.

In the case of students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily
from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting 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 drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.

We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutor's office with criminal offenses punishable
with six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are "randomness" and "suspicionless."
In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless.
The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not
randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are
impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor's office and peaceably
submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to
privacy.40 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 persons' right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art.
III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.

It ought to be made abundantly clear, however, that the unconstitutionality of Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 is rooted on its having
infringed the constitutional provision defining the qualification or eligibility requirements for one aspiring to run for and serve
as senator.

Des.. blue lang scope decision ng Pimentel at Comelec

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 161658 and declares Sec. 36(g) of RA
9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition in G.R.
Nos. 157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring its Sec. 36(f)
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All concerned agencies are, accordingly, permanently enjoined from implementing Sec.
36(f) and (g) of RA 9165. No costs.

Doctrine;

The Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or
weaken the force of a constitutional mandate,7 or alter or enlarge the Constitution.

The Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or weaken
the force of a constitutional mandate,7 or alter or enlarge the Constitution.