Title
Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board
Case
G.R. No. 157870
Decision Date
Nov 3, 2008
Three consolidated petitions challenged mandatory drug testing under RA 9165. The Supreme Court ruled Sections 36(f) and (g) unconstitutional for violating privacy and adding qualifications, while upholding Sections 36(c) and (d) as reasonable measures to combat drug abuse.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157870)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Statutory Provision
    • Republic Act No. 9165, Section 36, mandates drug testing by government or DOH-accredited labs using a two-step method (screening and confirmatory).
    • Persons covered include:
      • Students of secondary and tertiary schools (random, with notice to parents).
      • Officers and employees of public and private offices (random, per company work rules).
      • All persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with offenses punishable by ≥ 6 years and 1 day imprisonment.
      • All candidates for public office (mandatory).
  • COMELEC Implementing Rule
    • COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 (Dec. 23, 2003) requires all May 10, 2004 election candidates to undergo mandatory drug tests in accredited labs.
    • COMELEC to publish lists of candidates who complied or failed to comply; non-compliant winners barred from entering office until compliance.
  • Petitions Filed
    • Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. (G.R. No. 161658): certiorari and prohibition to nullify Sec. 36(g) and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 as adding a constitutional qualification for senators.
    • Social Justice Society (G.R. No. 157870): prohibition to enjoin enforcement of Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), (g) for undue delegation, equal protection violation, and unreasonable search.
    • Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. (G.R. No. 158633): certiorari and prohibition to strike down Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), (g) for violating privacy, unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, due process, and equal protection.
  • Procedural Posture
    • Cases consolidated and heard En Banc.
    • Court addressed justiciability and standing, relaxing locus standi for SJS and Laserna due to the public interest.

Issues:

  • Qualification for Office
    • Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional constitutional qualification on candidates for senator?
    • Can Congress or COMELEC validly add qualifications beyond those in Sec. 3, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution?
  • Constitutionality of Other Drug-Testing Provisions
    • Do Sec. 36(c) and (d) (students and employees) violate the right to privacy or constitute unreasonable search and seizure?
    • Does Sec. 36(f) (persons charged with crimes) violate privacy, self-incrimination, due process or equal protection?
    • Do any of these provisions represent an undue delegation of legislative power?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.