2. Social Justice Society v.

Dangerous Drugs Board

G.R. No. 158870 | November 3, 2008
Article III, Section 2 When is a search a search

Facts:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Sec 36 of RA No 9165 or 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 prosecutors office for certain offenses

Issues:
Whether or not RA 9165 is unconstitutional for violating the right to privacy and the right against
unreasonable searches and seizure.

Held:
Candidates of public office UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Mandatory drug testing for senatorial candidates is unconstitutional because it imposes additional
qualification aside from those provided by the constitution.
Students of secondary and tertiary schools CONSTITUTIONAL
Citing the case of Veronia v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls, the court ruled that
provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory drug testing of students is constitutional as long as it
is random and suspicionless.
It is within the prerogative of the educational institutions to require compliance with reasonable
school rules and policies. Given the proliferation of drugs today, random drug testing 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 are to be promoted and protected.
Moreover, by seeking entry to the school and from their voluntary submitting of their persons to
the parental authority of the school authorities, the students have performed a waiver of their right
to privacy.
For Officers and Employees - CONSTITUTINAL
Mandatory drug testing for officers and employees of public and private offices is also justifiable.
The court failed to find how the mandatory, random and suspicion less drug testing violates the
right to privacy and constitutes unlawful and unconsented search.
A perusal of the procedures prescribed by the law in administering random drug tests on public
and private offices reveals that the alleged intrusion into the employees privacy is accompanied
by the proper safeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages of test results.
The need for drug testing to eliminate, or at least minimize, illegal drug use is a substantial
enough reason to override the individuals privacy interest. Moreover, it is recognized that there
is a reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the employees.
Persons charged with a crime before the prosecutors office - UNCONSTITUTIONAL
In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutors office, a mandatory drug
testing can never be random or suspicionless; To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is
a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a toll for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated
objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons right to privacy.

Prepared by: Marianne Carmel Agunoy 1C