View full case

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD

FACTS:

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165, which mandates drug testing for various individuals. On December 23, 2003, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued a resolution implementing the mandatory drug testing for candidates in the May 10, 2004 elections. Senator Aquilino Pimentel filed a petition to nullify Section 36 and the COMELEC resolution, arguing that they imposed an additional qualification for candidates not provided for in the Constitution. The issue of locus standi is also addressed, with the Court stating that Pimentel has standing due to his position as a senator and candidate. The main issues to be resolved are whether Section 36 and the COMELEC resolution impose an additional qualification for candidates for senator, and whether certain provisions of the law violate constitutional rights. The Court declares Section 36 unconstitutional and rules that the COMELEC cannot impose qualifications beyond those prescribed by the Constitution. The Court also notes that compliance with the drug testing requirement is mandatory and infringes upon the constitutional provision on qualifications for senators. The Court clarifies that the COMELEC resolution is no longer enforceable but reviews its validity as an implementing issuance.

ISSUES:

  1. Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional qualification for candidates for senator? Corollarily, can Congress enact a law prescribing qualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those laid down by the Constitution?

  2. Are paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165 unconstitutional? Specifically, do these paragraphs violate the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and the equal protection clause? Or do they constitute undue delegation of legislative power?

RULING:

  1. Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486

The Supreme Court ruled that Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 are unconstitutional. They impose an additional qualification on candidates for senator that is not prescribed by the Constitution. The Constitution's provisions on qualifications for senators are exclusive and cannot be added to by legislative or administrative acts.

  1. Sec. 36(c), (d), and (f) of RA 9165

  • Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 These provisions are constitutional. The mandatory, random drug testing for secondary and tertiary students, as well as for public and private officers and employees, is justified by compelling state interests and is implemented with adequate safeguards to protect privacy.

  • Sec. 36(f) of RA 9165 This provision is unconstitutional. Mandatory drug testing for persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with crimes punishable by imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day is not random or suspicionless and violates the right to privacy and the protection against self-incrimination.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Legislative bodies cannot impose qualifications for public office in addition to those set by the Constitution.

  • The right to privacy and protection against unreasonable searches must be balanced with compelling state interests.

  • Administrative searches, such as random drug testing, do not require probable cause but must be reasonable.

  • The concept of "random" and "suspicionless" testing is incompatible with mandatory drug testing for accused persons.

  • Constitutional rights may yield to paramount state interests, provided that adequate safeguards are in place to protect individuals' privacy and dignity.

  • Delegation of legislative power to administrative bodies must be accompanied by clear guidelines and limitations to avoid undue discretion.