EN BANC [G.R. No. 157870, November 03, 2008] SOCIAL JUS ICE SOCIE ! "SJS#, $E I IONER, %S.

&ANGEROUS &RUGS BOAR& AN&$'ILI$$INE &RUG EN(ORCE)EN AGENC! "$&EA#, RES$ON&EN S. (*+,-. In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs oard (DD ) and the Philippine Drug !nforce"ent #gency (PD!#)fro" enforcing paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec$ %6 of R# &'65 on the ground that they are constitutionally in fir"$ (or one, the pro)isions constitute undue delegation of legislati)e po*er *hen they gi)e unbridled discretion to schools and e"ployers to deter"ine the "anner of drug testing$ (or another, the pro)isions trench in the e+ual protection clause inas"uch as they can be used to harass a student or an e"ployee dee"ed undesirable$ #nd for a third, a person,s constitutional right against unreasonable searches is also breached by said pro)isions$ I--/e-. (') Do Sec$ %6(g) of R# &'65 and -./!0!- Resolution 1o$ 6236 i"pose an additional +ualification for candidates for senator4 -orollarily, can -ongress enact a la* prescribing +ualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those laid do*n by the -onstitution4 #nd (5) #re paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec$ %6, R# &'65 unconstitutional4 Specifically, do these paragraphs )iolate the right to pri)acy, the right against unreasonable searches and sei6ure, and the e+ual protection clause4 .r do they constitute undue delegation of legislati)e po*er4 'e01. 2'ERE(ORE, the -ourt resol)es to GRAN the petition in 7$R$ 1o$ '6'653 and declares Se+. 33 "4# of RA 5135 and CO)ELEC Re-o0/,6o7 No. 3883 as UNCONS I U IONAL8 and to $AR IALL! GRAN the petition in 7$R$ 1os$ '5939: and '536%% by declaring Se+. 33"+# #nd "1# of RA 5135CONS I U IONAL, but declaring its Se+. 33"9# UNCONS I U IONAL $ #ll concerned agencies are, accordingly, per"anently en;oined fro" i"ple"enting Se+. 33 "9# *71 "4# of RA 5135$ 1o costs$ R*,6o:&o+,r67e. Sec$ %6(g) of R# &'65 should be, as it is hereby declared as, unconstitutional$ It is basic that if ala* or an ad"inistrati)e rule )iolates any nor" of the -onstitution, that issuance is null and )oid and has no effect$ <he -onstitution is the basic la* to *hich all la*s "ust confor"8 no act shall be )alid if it conflicts *ith the -onstitution$ =3> In the discharge of their defined functions, the three depart"ents of go)ern"ent ha)e no choice butto yield obedience to the co""ands of the -onstitution$ ?hate)er li"its it i"poses "ust be obser)ed$ =&> It ought to be "ade abundantly clear, ho*e)er, that the unconstitutionality of Sec$ %6(g) of R# &'65 is rooted on its ha)ing infringed the constitutional pro)ision defining the +ualification or eligibility re+uire"ents for one aspiring to run for and ser)e as senator$ Sec$ %6(c) and (d) of R# &'65, the -ourt finds no )alid ;ustification for "andatory drug testing for persons accused of cri"es$ In the case of students, the constitutional )iability of the "andatory, rando", and suspicion less drug testing for students e"anates pri"arily fro" the *ai)er by the students of their right to pri)acy *hen they seek entry to the school, and fro" their )oluntarily sub"itting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities$ In the case of pri)ate and public e"ployees, the constitutional soundness of the "andatory, rando", and suspicion less drug testing proceeds fro" the reasonableness of the drug test policy and re+uire"ent$ ?e find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutor,s office *ith cri"inal offenses punishable *ith si@ (6) years and one (') day i"prison"ent$ <he operati)e concepts in the "andatory drug testing are Arando"nessA and Asuspicionless$A In the case of persons charged *ith a cri"e before the prosecutor,s office, a "andatory drug testing can ne)er be rando" or suspicion less$ <he ideas of rando"ness and being suspicion less are antithetical to their being "ade defendants in a cri"inal

co"plaint$ <hey are not rando"ly picked8 neither are they beyond suspicion$ ?hen persons suspected of co""itting a cri"e are charged, they are singled out and are i"pleaded against their *ill$ <he persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor,s office and peaceably sub"itting the"sel)es to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone *ai)e their right to pri)acy$ =2:> <o i"pose "andatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant atte"pt to harness a "edical test as a tool for cri"inal prosecution, contrary to the stated ob;ecti)es of R# &'65$ Drug testing in this case *ould )iolate a persons, right to pri)acy guaranteed under Sec$ 5, #rt$ III of the -onstitution$ ?orse still, the accused persons are )eritably forced to incri"inate the"sel)es$