RANDOM DRUG TESTING. Davao Oriental 2nd District Rep. Cheeno Almario, PBA Party-list Rep. Margarita Nograles, Taguig City 2nd District Rep. Amparo Maria Zamora, and 1-Rider Party-list Rep. Rodge Gutierrez (left to right) hold a press conference at the House of Representatives on Tuesday (Aug. 13, 2024). The lawmakers raised concerns about the constitutionality of a proposed bill mandating all elected public officials to undergo random drug testing every six months. (Screengrab)
MANILA – Lawmakers on Tuesday raised concerns about the constitutionality of the proposal to mandate all elected public officials to undergo random drug testing every six months.
In a press conference, PBA Party-list Rep. Margarita Nograles said the mandatory drug testing bill, proposed by Davao City 1st District Rep. Paolo Duterte, could face potential legal challenges, as she cited a Supreme Court (SC) ruling that previously declared mandatory drug testing unconstitutional when included as a qualification for candidates.
“There is a Supreme Court case already that deemed mandatory drug testing unconstitutional if it’s included as one of the qualifications for a candidate, as the Constitution itself determines those qualifications,” Nograles said.
She also pointed out that it would be unconstitutional if the proposed measure singles out specific individuals, noting that such a policy should apply uniformly across all levels of government, including local government units (LGUs).
“Sana this applies to all, hindi lang mag-single out (Hopefully, this applies to all, not just to single out certain individuals),” Nograles said.
Davao Oriental 2nd District Rep. Cheeno Almario said the bill should not be driven by personal motives, adding that previous attempts to pass similar legislation, including those targeting local government officials, have failed due to the SC ruling.
House Bill 10744 specifies that the mandatory random drug testing every six months using hair follicle and urine tests covers elected and appointed officials of public offices, including the President of the Republic of the Philippines.
“To include a specific position might also infer that there might be, as much as I hate to say it, a personal agenda behind the bill,” Almario said.
He called for a thorough examination by all relevant agencies to ensure the bill aligns with constitutional principles and genuinely serves the public interest.
1-Rider Party-list Rep. Rodge Gutierrez said that while the bill might appear beneficial on the surface, it is essential to scrutinize its details, particularly in light of a prevailing jurisprudence.
“Madali lang po mag-file ng panukalang batas, madaling maglagay ng magandang explanatory note na clickbait or catchy, pero (It is easy to file a bill, or add a good explanatory note that is clickbait or catchy, but) it really comes down to the quality of the legislation,” Gutierrez said.
In 2008, the SC declared unconstitutional a provision in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 that required mandatory drug testing for all candidates for public office and individuals facing criminal charges.
The high tribunal ruled that this provision violated the 1987 Constitution by adding an extra qualification for senators beyond what is specified in the Constitution.
The decision also struck down a related Commission on Elections resolution implementing drug testing among candidates, stating that such requirements infringe on a citizen’s right to elect public officials. (PNA)
