Social Justice Society v.

Dangerous Drugs Board November 3, 2008

Facts: This case is a consolidation of three petitions assailing the constitutionality of Section 36 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
which requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and
tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the
prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities. The case of our interest is that of
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. who filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking to nullify Sec. 36 (g)
of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 which aimed to implement such provision on the
ground that both are unconstitutional. He further sought to enjoin COMELEC from implementing the
said resolution. On December 23, 2003, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution
No. 6486, prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public
office for the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections. The said resolution is pursuant
to Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165, mandating that all candidates for public office, both in the national or local
government, shall undergo a mandatory drug test. Failure to undergo the mandatory drug test shall bar
an elected official from entering upon the duties of his office until he has undergone the drug test and
file the necessary drug certificates, accordingly. Petitioner Pimentel, a senator and a candidate for re-
election in the May 2004 elections, claimed that both Sec. 36 of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution
No. 6486 are unconstitutional because the two arbitrarily creates additional qualification for senatorial
candidates, that is, they should be certified as drug free which is beyond the only five qualifications
prescribed by the 1987 Constitution in Art. VI, Sec. 3 – “No person shall be a Senator unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of
age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two
years immediately preceding the day of the election.” He added that the Constitution does not
authorize the Congress or COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for
senator.

Issue: WON Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 are unconstitutional on the
ground that they arbitrarily impose an additional qualification for senatorial candidates?

Ruling: Yes, both are unconstitutional as they impose an additional qualification for those who aspire
to serve in the Senate. The 1987 Constitution only prescribes five (5) qualifications, namely: (1)
citizenship, (2) voter registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and (5) residency. It is a basic canon that with
the supremacy of the constitution, all laws, rules and regulations not conforming to it shall be null and
void and that all citizens and even the governmental organs must obey to it. Although it can be argued
that RA 9165 Sec. 36 (g) and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 do not impose an additional
qualification for the validity of the candidacy of a senatorial candidate as the two do not disqualify
those who do not comply with the mandatory drug test, both the statute and resolution in question bar
an elected senator from becoming a member of the Senate. Being elected as a senator, then, becomes
immaterial if one cannot assume his office for not submitting to the mandatory drug test. Hence, the
mandatory drug test deems to become an additional requirement to the requirements for membership
in the Senate prescribed by the Constitution. In order for such requirement to be validly added, they
must follow the proper procedures in amending the applicable provision (Art. VI, Sec. 3) in the
Constitution. The Supreme Court declared both RA 9165 Sec. 36 (g) and COMELEC Resolution No.
6486 as unconstitutional. All concerned agencies were, accordingly, permanently enjoined from
implementing Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165. However, the Court could not enjoin COMELEC from
implementing the resolution in question because it has become moot-and-academic since its coverage
was only the May 10, 2004 elections. Nonetheless, the Court deemed it proper to review and adjudge
the resolution to obviate repetition. Note: The statements that are marked red are, I think, of secondary
importance or supplementary only. SCRA: It I s basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates
any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The right of a citizen in
the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement
not otherwise specified in the Constitution.