SJS v.

Dangerous Drugs Board drug test violate the right to privacy as it opens almost everyone to
November 3, 2008 | Velasco, Jr., J. | Searches and Seizures unwarranted and unconsented searches. Moreover, it further incriminates
individuals by forcing them to waive their right to privacy.
PETITIONER: Social Justice Society The basis for allowing random drug tests to be constitutional is that it is
RESPONDENT: Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement bound by rules, guidelines, and procedures of certain institutions
Agency (PDEA) (schools and public office) that would be able to safeguard the rights of
individuals. However, the mandatory drug testing is different as it is an
SUMMARY: SJS and Lacerna issued a petition questioning the validity of excessive intrusion into the right of an individual, wherein there are no
random drug testing and mandatory drug testing under RA 9165. safeguards present.

The Court ruled that while random drug testing is constitutional, the mandatory
drug testing is not as it violates the right to privacy due to its enforcement of
unwarranted searches to an individual.

DOCTRINE: Searches and Seizures – Right to privacy guarantees freedom

from unreasonable searches and seizures (Sec. 2, Art III). Only when mandatory
testing is reasonable (necessary to the nature and purpose of activity) would it
not warrant a breach of an individual’s privacy.

The essence of privacy is to be let alone or to be free from unlawful intrusion or

exploitation in one’s private activities.

FACTS:
1. SJS questions the validity of Sec. 36 (c, d, f, g) of the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002 (RA 9165) as it gives DDB and PDEA with discretion on the
manner of testing within schools, to the point that it violates right to
unreasonable searches.

ISSUE/s:
1. WoN Sec. 36 (c), (d), (f), and (g) are unconstitutional – PARTIALLY YES,
(f) and (g) are unconstitutional (mandatory drug test)

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 161658 and
declares Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 as
UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition in G.R. Nos.
157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165
CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring its Sec. 36(f) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All
concerned agencies are, accordingly, permanently enjoined from implementing Sec.
36(f) and (g) of RA 9165. No costs.

RATIO:
1. The Court ruled in agreement to the idea that while random drug testing is
constitutional as it is reasonable, the provisions (f and g) citing mandatory