G.R. No.

157870

November 3, 2008

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS , petitioner vs. !ANGEROUS !RUGS "OAR! #$% &'ILI&&INE !RUG EN(ORCE)ENT AGENCY (&!EA , respondents. FACTS: In these kindred petitions, the constitutionality of Section 36 of Repu lic Act !o. "RA# $%6&, other'ise kno'n as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it re(uires )andatory dru* testin* of *#$%+%#,e- .or /0b1+* o..+*e, -,0%e$,- o. -e*o$%#r2 #$% ,er,+#r2 -*3oo1-, o..+*er- #$% em/1o2ee- o. /0b1+* #$% /r+v#,e o..+*e-, #$% /er-o$- *3#r4e% be.ore ,3e /ro-e*0,or5- o..+*e 6+,3 *er,#+$ o..e$-e- , a)on* other personalities, is put in issue. Sen. +i)entel "re,electionist# invokes as le*al asis for his petition Sec. 3, Article -I of the Constitution, 'hich states only a )a.i)u) of & (ualifications for senator. /e adds that there is no provision in the Constitution authori0in* the Con*ress or C12343C to e.pand the (ualification re(uire)ents of candidates for senator. The Social 5ustice Society seeks to prohi it the 6an*erous 6ru*s 7oard "667# and the +hilippine 6ru* 3nforce)ent A*ency "+63A# fro) enforcin* parts of the la' as it constitutes undue dele*ation of le*islative po'er 'hen they *ive un ridled discretion to schools and e)ployers to deter)ine the )anner of dru* testin*. For another, the provisions trench in the e(ual protection clause inas)uch as they can e used to harass a student or an e)ployee dee)ed undesira le. And for a third, a person8s constitutional ri*ht a*ainst unreasona le searches is also reached y said provisions. +etitioner Atty. 2anuel 5. 4aserna, 5r., as citi0en and ta.payer, also seeks in his +etition for Certiorari and +rohi ition of RA $%6& e struck do'n as unconstitutional for infrin*in* on the constitutional ri*ht to privacy, the ri*ht a*ainst unreasona le search and sei0ure, and the ri*ht a*ainst self , incri)ination, and for ein* contrary to the due process and e(ual protection *uarantees. ISS93S: %. ;. 3. :1! the parties have locus standi :1! Con*ress can validly prescri e an additional re(uire)ent for Senator< :1! RA $%6& is unconstitutional y violatin* the ri*ht to privacy, the ri*ht a*ainst unreasona le searches and sei0ure, and the e(ual protection clause< 1r do they constitute undue dele*ation of le*islative po'er<

/346:

1.

There is no dou t that +i)entel, as senator of the +hilippines and candidate for the 2ay %=, ;==> elections, possesses the re(uisite standin* since he has su stantial interests in the su ?ect )atter of the petition, a)on* other preli)inary considerations. Re*ardin* S5S and 4aserna, this Court 'ill rela. the rule on locus standi o'in* pri)arily to the transcendental i)portance and the para)ount pu lic interest involved in the enforce)ent of Sec. 36 of RA $%6&.

;.

7eyond the stated (ualification re(uire)ents in the constitution, candidates for senator need not possess any other (ualification to run for senator and e voted upon and elected as )e) er of the Senate. The Con*ress cannot validly a)end or other'ise )odify these (ualification standards, as it cannot disre*ard, evade, or 'eaken the force of a constitutional )andate, or alter or enlar*e the Constitution. +i)entel8s contention is 'ell , taken. Accordin*ly, Sec. 36"*# of RA $%6& should e, as it is here y declared as, unconstitutional. It is asic that if a la' or an ad)inistrative rule violates any nor) of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the asic la' to 'hich all la's )ust confor)@ no act shall e valid if it conflicts 'ith the Constitution. Thus, le*islative po'er re)ains li)ited in the sense that it is su ?ect to su stantive and constitutional li)itations 'hich circu)scri e oth the e.ercise of the po'er itself and the allo'a le su ?ects of le*islation. In the sa)e vein, the C12343C cannot, in the *uise of enforcin* and ad)inisterin* election la's or pro)ul*atin* rules and re*ulations to i)ple)ent Sec. 36"*#, validly i)pose (ualifications on candidates for senator in addition to 'hat the Constitution prescri es. If Con*ress cannot re(uire a candidate for senator to )eet such additional (ualification, the C12343C, to e sure, is also 'ithout such po'er. The ri*ht of a citi0en in the de)ocratic process of election should not e defeated y un'arranted i)positions of re(uire)ent not other'ise specified in the Constitution.

3.

AS T1 ST963!TS and 32+41A33S: For secondary and tertiary level students and pu lic and private e)ployees, 'hile )andatory, is a r#$%om #$% -0-/+*+o$1e-- #rr#$4eme$,. The pri)ary le*islative intent is not cri)inal prosecution, as those found positive for ille*al dru* use as a result of this rando) testin* are not necessarily treated as cri)inals. They )ay even e e.e)pt fro) cri)inal lia ility should the ille*al dru* user consent to under*o reha ilitation. Secs. &> and && of RA $%6&. As 'as deduced y the court citin* forei*n ?urisprudence: "%# schools and their ad)inistrators stand in loco parentis 'ith respect to their students@ ";# )inor students have conte.tually fe'er ri*hts than an adult, and are su ?ect to the custody and supervision of their parents, *uardians, and schools@ "3# schools, actin* in loco parentis, have a duty to safe*uard the health and 'ell , ein* of their students and )ay adopt such )easures as )ay reasona ly e necessary to dischar*e such duty@ and "># schools have the ri*ht to i)pose conditions on applicants for ad)ission that are fair, ?ust, and non,discri)inatory.

Buided y these, the Court is of the vie' and so holds that the provisions of RA $%6& re(uirin* )andatory, rando), 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 ad)ission, co)pliance 'ith reasona le school rules and re*ulations and policies. To e sure, the ri*ht to enroll is not a solute@ it is su ?ect to fair, reasona le, and e(uita le re(uire)ents. 5ust as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students, the )andatory ut rando) dru* test prescri ed y Sec. 36 of RA $%6& for officers and e)ployees of pu lic and private offices is ?ustifia le, al eit not e.actly for the sa)e reason. The Court notes in this re*ard that petitioner S5S, other than sayin* that Csu ?ectin* al)ost every ody to dru* testin*, 'ithout pro a le cause, is unreasona le, an un'arranted intrusion of the individual ri*ht to privacy,C has failed to sho' ho' the )andatory, rando), and suspicionless dru* testin* under Sec. 36"c# and "d# of RA $%6& violates the ri*ht to privacy and constitutes unla'ful andDor unconsented search under Art. III, Secs. % and ; of the Constitution. The essence of privacy is the ri*ht to e left alone. In conte.t, the ri*ht to privacy )eans the ri*ht to e free fro) un'arranted e.ploitation of one8s person or fro) intrusion into one8s private activities in such a 'ay as to cause hu)iliation to a person8s ordinary sensi ilities. The first factor to consider in the )atter of reasona leness is the nature of the privacy interest upon 'hich the dru* testin*, 'hich effects a search 'ithin the )eanin* of Sec. ;, Art. III of the Constitution, intrudes. In this case, the office or 'orkplace serves as the ackdrop for the analysis of the privacy e.pectation of the e)ployees and the reasona leness of dru* testin* re(uire)ent. The e)ployees8 privacy interest in an office is to a lar*e e.tent circu)scri ed y the co)pany8s 'ork policies, the collective ar*ainin* a*ree)ent, if any, entered into y )ana*e)ent and the ar*ainin* unit, and the inherent ri*ht of the e)ployer to )aintain discipline and efficiency in the 'orkplace. T3e+r /r+v#*2 e7/e*,#,+o$ +$ # re401#,e% o..+*e e$v+ro$me$, +-, +$ .+$e, re%0*e%8 #$% # %e4ree o. +m/+$4eme$, 0/o$ -0*3 /r+v#*2 3#- bee$ 0/3e1%. Takin* into account the fore*oin* factors, i.e., the re%0*e% e7/e*,#,+o$ o. /r+v#*2 o$ ,3e /#r, o. ,3e em/1o2ee-, ,3e *om/e11+$4 -,#,e *o$*er$ 1+9e12 ,o be me, b2 ,3e -e#r*3, #$% ,3e 6e11 : %e.+$e% 1+m+,- -e, .or,3 +$ ,3e 1#6 ,o /ro/er12 40+%e #0,3or+,+e- +$ ,3e *o$%0*, o. ,3e r#$%om ,e-,+$4, 6e 3o1% ,3#, ,3e *3#11e$4e% %r04 ,e-, re;0+reme$, +-, 0$%er ,3e 1+m+,e% *o$,e7, o. ,3e *#-e, re#-o$#b1e #$%, ergo, *o$-,+,0,+o$#1. /1:3-3R: Co0r, .+$%- $o v#1+% <0-,+.+*#,+o$ .or m#$%#,or2 %r04 ,e-,+$4 .or /er-o$- #**0-e% o. *r+me- . In the case of students, the constitutional via ility of the )andatory, rando), and suspicionless dru* testin* for students e)anates pri)arily fro) the 'aiver y the students of their ri*ht to privacy 'hen they seek entry to the school, and fro) their voluntarily su )ittin* their persons to the parental authority of school authorities. In the case of private and pu lic e)ployees, the constitutional soundness of the )andatory, rando), and suspicionless dru* testin* proceeds fro) the reasona leness of the dru* test policy and re(uire)ent. :e find the situation entirely different in the case of persons char*ed efore the pu lic prosecutor8s office 'ith cri)inal offenses punisha le 'ith si. "6# years and one "%# day i)prison)ent. The operative concepts in the )andatory dru* testin* are Crando)nessC and Csuspicionless.C In the case of persons char*ed 'ith a cri)e efore the prosecutor8s office, a )andatory dru* testin* can never e rando) or suspicionless. The ideas of rando)ness and ein* suspicionless are antithetical to their ein* )ade defendants in a cri)inal co)plaint. They are not rando)ly picked@ neither are they eyond suspicion. :hen persons suspected of co))ittin* a cri)e are char*ed, they are sin*led out and are i)pleaded a*ainst their 'ill. The persons thus char*ed, y the are fact of ein* haled efore the prosecutor8s office and peacea ly su )ittin* the)selves to dru* testin*, if that e the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone 'aive their ri*ht to privacy. >= To i)pose )andatory dru* testin* on the accused is a latant atte)pt to harness a )edical test as a tool for cri)inal prosecution, contrary to the stated o ?ectives of RA $%6&. 6ru* testin* in this case 'ould violate a persons8 ri*ht to privacy *uaranteed under Sec. ;, Art. III of the Constitution. :orse still, the accused persons are verita ly forced to incri)inate the)selves.