Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
11581832 G-11
__________________________________________________________________
Thesis Statement:
drug testing should be abandoned because it violates a persons right against self-
incrimination and right against warrantless search and seizure. The ruling allows
criminally charged with a penalty on not less that six years and one day
imprisonment1. This kind of drug testing is a violation of ones right against self
incrimination because the result gathered may be used to incriminate him. Also, it
violates a persons right against warrantless search and seizure because the test
may be conducted without warrant and probable cause. It has been argued that it is
in the interest of the state to promote a drug-free society but the government should
not overstep its authority by neglecting the inalienable right of its people.
This paper will address the issue of the constitutionality of mandatory drug
testing set forth in R.A. 9165 and the validity of the SJS vs DDB ruling in relation
state and public interest in providing drug-free society while preserving the
persons right against self-incrimination and right against warrantless search and
seizure.
The mandatory drug testing as prescribed by R.A. 9165 is noble in its aim to
provide a drug-free society but coupled with the relentless killings allegedly
users and pushers, testing positive would be a death sentence for most people. The
Does the mandatory drug testing violate the right against self-incrimination?
Yes. While it can be argued the Sec. 7, Art. III of the Constitution is limited
to testimonies and documents, the use of such as evidence is similar to the results
of the drug test. If the person tested positive, he may be incriminated using the
findings of the drug test. In the case of Vernonia vs Acton, the Supreme Court held
that urination is an excretory function shielded with great privacy2. It is not a mere
mechanical act.
Does the mandatory drug testing violate the right against warrantless search
and seizure?
and even their breath. These are protected against unreasonable searches and the
reasonable cause. Although the right against unreasonable search and seizure is not
absolute, the guidelines has already been set by earlier jurisprudence such as
in an across-the-board mandatory drug testing. Also, this kind of drug testing may
operation before the election of President Rodrigo Duterte. Since his election last
2016, I have experienced a lot of inconvenience and threats from the police. One of
my branch, had buy-bust operation which I was not informed of. This posts a
danger in case a fire fight erupts and if word spreads, it is bad publicity for my
business. Just recently, there are a number of dead bodies disposed near our place
of business. Not only did it scare me and my employees but it also scared our
because I have a first-hand account of how bloody and senseless the drug war is.
drug users and pushers have died and the number is continuously rising3 . Most of
the people killed are in the poor sector and just recently, minors have fallen victim
into a very questionable operation by the police. Everyday, it is the same story,
suspects dead, police observed self-defense, and fake news aimed to destroy the
administration. Yet given the numbers, it is impossible to turn a blind eye into the
as prescribed by RA 9165. Those who will test positive may be refused admission
by the school. This, in my opinion is counter productive because it will not only
prosecute a child capable of reformation but also it would make the future of the
child dark as it will be hard for him to finish his studies and find work. Proper
reformation and rehabilitation integrated with education is key in solving the drug
menace affecting the youth. Another controversial move by the police is the TOK-
voluntary drug test. This is discriminatory against the poor because it targets
3 https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/07/philippine-president-rodrigo-dutertes-war-drugs
In the US, a recent case in Florida involving an Aid beneficiary won over the
mandatory drug testing required in claiming for government aid. It challenged the
settled jurisprudence of Earl, Wayne, Skinner, Raab and Miller. In the case, the US
Supreme Court ruled that the Florida governments requirement of mandatory drug
testing violates the recipients right against warrantless search and seizure4.
Mandatory drug testing in the US in not across-the-board. There are only certain
groups of people where drug testing is important in the interest of the state to
difference as to the people required to take a drug test. In the SJS vs DDB ruling,
public interest must be balanced with individual privacy. In the cases of Skinner
and Von Raab, the Supreme Court held that there are safety-sensitive jobs that
require mandatory drug testing because it is a matter of public concern and doing
the recent cases, American public schools required mandatory drug testing for
cases shy away from the reasonableness test and individualized-suspicion but their
drug testing is still limited to certain individuals unlike in the Philippines where
Objectives:
The main objective of this paper is to critique the SJS vs DDB ruling which
upheld the constitutionality of the mandatory drug testing as provided for by R.A.
9165 and prove that the said provision is unconstitutional. In order to reach this
This paper is timely and relevant due to the on-going drug war by the
Duterte administration. Thousands have already lost their lives because of this
end. While it is true that the police has the right to defend himself, as we all do, it
is not enough to justify the day-to-day killing of suspected drug offenders. The
TOK-HANG and the TOK-TEST, noble as it may seem, only targets the poor and
rarely do we see that the police was able to penetrate and operate on gated
subdivisions. The CHED memorandum authorizing the mandatory drug test for
incoming first year students7 may be ideal but the way they treat those who would
test positive is not commendable. The proper way to deal with a young drug
drug testing should follow the reasonableness and individualized-suspicion test and
todays society where mere suspicion may lead to prosecution. Drug testing is the
first step used to determine ones innocence without any regard to his circumstance
their killing. This close-minded impunity should stop from the beginning and make
the authorities know and respect peoples rights and also for the people to know
This paper will focus on the mandatory drug testing of student of secondary
and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and all
imprisonment of not less than six years and one day. It will focus on the ruling of
SJS vs DDB and how it is inconsistent with US jurisprudence and the recent Dela
The paper will no longer discuss the mandatory drug testing for applicants
for a drivers license, applicants for firearms license and for permit to carry
firearms outside of residence, and officers and members of the military, police and
state may require these group of people to undergo mandatory drug testing because
the nature of their work or the necessity of their permits, it is the state interest to