Validity of the Mandatory Drug Testing Requirement Under RA 9165, The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

In Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870 (and other consolidated petitions), November 3, 2008, the petitioners sought the nullification of the drug testing requirement under Sec. 36, paragraphs (c), (d), (f) and (g) of R.A. No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

More particularly, the consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory drug testing on (1) students of secondary and tertiary schools; (2) officers and employees of public and private offices; and (3) persons charged before the prosecutor’s office of a crime with an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day, and (4) candidates for public office.

Search Warrants : Examination Under Oath or Affirmation of the Applicant and His Witnesses

Today, I am sharing my notes on one of the requisites of a valid search warrant: examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses. I compiled most of these notes in the course of my preparation for my Constitutional Law 2 class. I enriched them after a family friend’s dwelling house was searched by agents of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) by virtue of a search warrant issued by an RTC judge from another local government unit. (But that is another story better left for another entry.)

The constitutional and legal basis for the requirement

Sec. 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

Search Warrants : Use of the Phrase “Used or Intended to be Used [For the Alleged Crime]” Not Per Se Determinative of the Question of Particularity of Description

In Columbia Pictures vs. Flores, G.R. No. 78631, June 29, 1993, paragraph (c) of the subject search warrant authorized the search and seizure of “[t]elevision sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories, equipment and other machines and paraphernalia or materials used or intended to be used in the unlawful sale, lease, distribution, or possession for purpose of sale, lease, distribution, circulation or public exhibition of the above-mentioned pirated video tapes which they are keeping and concealing in the premises above-described . . .”

Mandatory Random Drug Testing Policy in the Workplace : A Valid Form of Invasion to the Right to Privacy

I am about to wrap up my discussions on Search and Seizure in my Constitutional Law 2 class at the University of Cebu College of Law this week. I am therefore sharing in this entry my notes on the Supreme Court ruling discussing the issue on the validity of the random drug testing policy in the work place as mandated by RA No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002.