Case Digest (G.R. No. 157870)
Facts:
Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, G.R. No. 157870; Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, G.R. No. 158633; Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161658, November 03, 2008, Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners were Social Justice Society (SJS) (a registered political party), Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. (citizen-taxpayer), and Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. (candidate for re-election). Respondents were the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in the first two petitions, and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in Pimentel’s petition. The petitions challenged portions of Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), particularly subsections (c), (d), (f) and (g), and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 (Dec. 23, 2003), which implemented mandatory drug testing for candidates in the May 10, 2004 elections.
Section 36 authorized drug testing by accredited laboratories, required screening and confirmatory tests, and subjected certain classes to mandatory or random testing: (c) students of secondary and tertiary schools (random testing pursuant to school rules and parental notice); (d) officers and employees of public and private offices (random testing under company work rules, with administrative penalties); (f) persons charged before the prosecutor with offenses punishable by imprisonment of not less than six years and one day (mandatory); and (g) all candidates for public office (mandatory). COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 required all candidates in the May 10, 2004 elections to undergo mandatory drug testing and directed publication of lists of compliant and non‑compliant candidates.
Senator Pimentel filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (Rule 65) seeking nullification of Sec. 36(g) and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 as imposing an additional qualification for senators beyond those in Article VI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution. SJS filed a Petition for Prohibition (Rule 65) to bar enforcement of Sec. 36(c),(d),(f),(g) on grounds of undue delegation, equal protection violations, and unreasonable searches. Laserna filed certiorari and prohibition (Rule 65) alleging violations of the right to privacy, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, due process, and equal protection. The petitions were consolidated and brought directly to the Supreme Court under Rule 65.
The Court first addressed justiciability and standing: it found that Pimentel clearly had standing; the Court relaxed the usual standing rule for SJS and Laserna because the questions raised were of transcendenta...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners SJS and Laserna have the requisite standing to challenge Section 36 of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486?
- Do Section 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional qualification for candidates for senator contrary to Article VI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution; and can Congress or COMELEC validly prescribe such additional qualifications?
- Are Sections 36(c), (d), (f) and (g) of RA 9165 unconstitutional — specifically, do they violate the right to privacy, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, equal...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)