Lawmakers raised serious concerns about the constitutionality and potential personal agenda behind the controversial bill proposing mandatory random drug testing for government officials.
The bill, introduced by Davao City 1st District Rep. Paolo Duterte, seeks to require elected and appointed public officials to undergo random drug testing every six months using hair follicle test.
House Deputy Majority Leader and PBA Party-list Rep. Margarita Nograles highlighted the importance of ensuring that the bill adheres to constitutional principles and is not driven by personal motives.
Nograles referenced a Supreme Court ruling that previously declared mandatory drug testing unconstitutional when included as a qualification for candidates, signaling potential legal challenges for Duterte’s proposal.
“There is a Supreme Court case already that deemed mandatory drug testing unconstitutional if it’s included as one of the qualifications for a candidate, as the Constitution itself determines those qualifications,” Nograles told reporters.
Nograles said the proposed measure should not single out specific individuals, as doing so would make it unconstitutional. She also stressed that if such a policy were to be implemented, it should apply uniformly across all levels of government, including local government units (LGUs).
Her call for inclusivity is particularly pertinent given recent reports that 37 officials and employees in Davao City Hall—the Duterte family’s political stronghold—tested positive for illegal drugs during random tests.
“Sana this applies to all, hindi lang mag-single out (I hope this applies to all, not just to single out certain individuals),” Nograles urged, stressing that the bill should not be selectively enforced.
Davao Oriental Rep. Cheeno Almario echoed these concerns, warning that including specific positions in Duterte’s bill could imply a personal agenda.
“To include a specific position might also infer that there might be, as much as I hate to say it, a personal agenda behind the bill,” Almario said, urging that the legislation focus on the welfare of the Filipino people rather than targeting specific individuals or positions.
Almario also noted that previous attempts to pass similar legislation, including those targeting local government officials, have failed due to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
He called for a thorough examination by all relevant agencies to ensure that the bill aligns with constitutional principles and genuinely serves the public interest.
1-Rider Party-list Rep. Rodge Gutierrez added that while the bill might appear beneficial on the surface, it is essential to scrutinize its details, particularly in light of a prevailing jurisprudence.
“It’s easy to file a bill, it’s easy to put a nice explanatory note that’s click bait or catchy, but it really comes down to the quality of the legislation,” Gutierrez pointed out.
He expressed interest in seeing how the bill’s wording might navigate the constitutional issues that have hindered similar proposals in the past.
In 2008, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a provision in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 that required mandatory drug testing for all candidates for public office and individuals facing criminal charges.
The high tribunal ruled that this provision violated the 1987 Constitution by adding an extra qualification for senators beyond what is specified in the Constitution.
The decision also struck down a related Commission on Elections resolution implementing drug testing among candidates, stating that such requirements infringe on a citizen’s right to elect public officials.
