Paragraphs c, d and f of Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 provide:
“Sec. 36. Authorized drug testing. xx x The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: xx x
c. Students of secondary and tertiary schools x x x;
d. Officers and employees of public and private offices x x x;
f. All persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an imposable imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day;”
Petitioners contend that the assailed portions of Sec. 36 are unconstitutional for violating the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the equal protection clause. Decide if the assailed provisions are unconstitutional. (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Section 36(c) and (d) are constitutional, whereas Section 36(f) is unconstitutional. Under Social Justice Society versus Dangerous Drugs Board, random, suspicionless drug testing for students and employees is valid due
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Which provision of Section 36 of R.A. 9165 was declared unconstitutional in Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board?
Section 36(f) was declared unconstitutional for violating the right against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination.
Why is mandatory random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary schools constitutionally permissible?
Student drug testing is constitutional due to reduced privacy expectations in schools and compelling state interests.
What makes random drug testing of public and private employees under Section 36(d) of R.A. 9165 constitutional?
Employee drug testing is valid as a reasonable administrative measure aimed at workplace safety rather than prosecution.
Why did the Supreme Court invalidate Section 36(f) requiring drug testing for persons charged before the prosecutor?
Choices available with full access.
Under Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, what key factor distinguishes constitutional drug testing from unconstitutional drug testing?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Student Drug Testing
Under Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing of secondary and tertiary students under Section 36(c) of Republic Act No. 9165 is constitutional. Students in educational institutions have a reduced expectation of privacy, as schools act in loco parentis to safeguard student welfare. The state has a compelling interest in protecting youth from drug abuse. Because the drug testing is random, suspicionless, and non-prosecutorial—with results held confidential and not used for criminal charges—the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated.
2. Employee Drug Testing
Section 36(d) of Republic Act No. 9165, requiring random and suspicionless drug testing for public and private employees, is constitutional. Workplaces carry a reduced expectation of privacy, particularly where public safety and productivity are at stake. The drug testing procedure is administrative, random, and non-custodial, aimed at ensuring a drug-free workplace rather than gathering evidence for criminal prosecution. Because the results cannot be automatically used to initiate criminal proceedings against employees, the procedure satisfies the constitutional reasonableness standard under the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
3. Mandatory Accused Testing
Section 36(f) of Republic Act No. 9165, mandating drug testing for all persons charged with crimes punishable by at least six years and one day, is unconstitutional. Unlike random testing for students and employees, testing accused individuals targets specific individuals for criminal law enforcement. It violates the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right against self-incrimination because it forces an accused person to create self-incriminating physical evidence without probable cause or a search warrant. Singling out persons charged with offenses lacks suspicionless administrative justification.