Case Summary (G.R. No. 157870)
Key Dates
– Republic Act No. 9165 (“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”) enacted June 7, 2002
– COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 promulgated December 23, 2003 (applicable to May 10, 2004 elections)
– Supreme Court decision handed down November 3, 2008
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 3 (qualifications for Senator); Article III, Sections 1–2 (due process; protection against unreasonable searches and seizures); equal protection clause
– Republic Act No. 9165, Section 36(c), (d), (f), (g) (mandatory drug testing of students, employees, accused persons, and candidates)
– COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 implementing Section 36(g)
Standing and Justiciability
– Pimentel possessed direct, substantial interest as a candidate, satisfying traditional standing requirements.
– SJS and Laserna, though non-traditional plaintiffs, were granted relaxed standing due to the transcendental importance of issues implicating privacy, search-and-seizure, and equal protection.
Issue 1: Additional Qualifications for Senators
Does Section 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution 6486 impose a qualification for Senator beyond those set by the Constitution?
– Constitution enumerates only five qualifications: natural-born citizenship, minimum age of 35, literacy, registered voter status, and two-year residency.
– Section 36(g) mandates certification of drug-free status as prerequisite to candidacy and to assumption of office.
– COMELEC Resolution requires filing of drug-test certificate and bars assumption until compliance.
Analysis and Holding on Issue 1
– Congress and COMELEC lack power to add to constitutional qualifications. Any law or rule contravening a clear constitutional requirement is void.
– Section 36(g) and COMELEC Resolution 6486 were declared unconstitutional for effectively enlarging eligibility criteria for Senate candidates.
Issue 2: Mandatory, Random Drug Testing of Students and Employees
Do Sections 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 violate rights to privacy, unreasonable searches and seizures, equal protection, or constitute undue delegation of legislative power?
Students (Section 36(c))
– Testing is random, suspicionless, conducted under school rules with parental notice.
– Under “in loco parentis” doctrine and drawing on Vernonia School District v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls, schools may impose reasonable conditions to safeguard student welfare.
– Randomness minimizes targeting; procedural safeguards (screening and confirmatory tests; DOH-accredited labs; confidentiality rules) limit intrusion.
Employees (Section 36(d))
– Workplace privacy expectations are diminished by employer’s right to maintain discipline and by existing work rules or collective-bargaining agreements.
– Random testing aimed at reducing workplace risk; conducted with procedural safeguards (chain of custody; accredited laboratories; confidentiality).
– Balancing compelling state interest in combating drug abuse against reduced privacy expectations yields a reasonable administrative search.
Analysis and Holding on Issue 2 (Students and Employees)
Sections 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 were upheld as constitutional. The mandatory random drug testing regimes for secondary/tertiary students and public/private employees satisfy the reasonableness standard under Article III, Sections 1–2, and do not amount to undue delegation given detailed statutory and IRR safeguards.
Issue 3: Mandatory Drug Testing of P
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 157870)
Facts and Procedural History
- Three consolidated Rule 65 petitions: G.R. No. 157870 (SJS), G.R. No. 158633 (Laserna), G.R. No. 161658 (Pimentel)
- All challenge Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), which mandates drug testing for certain groups
- Comelec Resolution No. 6486 implements mandatory drug testing for candidates in the May 10, 2004 elections
- Relief sought: nullify Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), (g) and the Comelec resolution; enjoin enforcement
Provisions Challenged
- RA 9165 Sec. 36: authorized drug testing by government or accredited labs, using screening and confirmatory methods
- Sec. 36(c): random testing of secondary and tertiary school students
- Sec. 36(d): random testing of officers and employees of public and private offices
- Sec. 36(f): mandatory testing of persons charged with offenses punishable by ≥ 6 years + 1 day imprisonment
- Sec. 36(g): mandatory testing of all candidates for public office
- Comelec Resolution No. 6486 prescribing rules for implementing Sec. 36(g) in the 2004 elections
Issues
- Does Sec. 36(g) and Comelec Resolution No. 6486 impose an extra-constitutional qualification for senatorial candidates?
- Do Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), (g) of RA 9165 violate:
• Right to privacy
• Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Right against self-incrimination
• Equal protection clause
• Prohibition on undue delegation of legislative power
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Pimentel: Sec. 36(g) and Comelec rules unlawfully add a drug-free certification to the five constitutional qualifications for senators (Art. VI, Sec. 3)
- SJS: Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), (g) vest unbridled discretion in schools and employers (undue delegation), and breach equal protection and privacy guarantees
- Laserna: Same provisions infringe privacy, constitute unr