8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  570

SO  ORDERED.

Puno(C..J),Quisumbing,Ynares­antiago,SCarpio,Austria­
Martinez,Corona,Carpio­orales,MAzcuna,Tinga,Chicoazario,­N
Velasco,r.,JachuraN andBrion,J.,concurJ.
Reyes,.,OnJ  Official  Leave.

JudgeIreneoL.Gako,Jr.metedwithP30,000fineforundue delay in 
renderingdecision/resolutionandviolationofCourt 
directives;whileManuelG.Nollora metedwithfineequivalentto 
one(1)monthsalary, withstern warningagainstrepetitionof similar ofense.

Note.—Themandatetopromptlydisposeofcasesormatters
appliesalsotomotionsorinterlocutorymattersorincidentspending   before   a
magistratePesaycov..ayague,L( 447 SCRA 450)
——o0o——

*
G.R.  No.  157870November.  3,  2008.

SOCIALJUSTICESOCIETY(SJS),petitioner,vs.DANGEROUS
DRUGS BOARD  and PHILIPPINEDRUG  ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY  (PDEA),  respondents.

G.R.  No.  158633November.  3,  2008.*

ATTY.MA NUEL J.LASERNA,JR.petitioner,,vs.DANGEROUS
DRUGS BOARD  and PHILIPPINEDRUG  ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY,  respondents.

G.R.  No.  161658November.  3,  2008.*

AQUILINO.PIMENTEL,JR.petitioner,,vs.COMMISSIONON
ELECTIONS,  respondent.

_______________

*EN BANC.
 411

VOL.570,NOVEM BER 3,2008 411

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165846dab64c16d7a6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/26
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  570

SocialJusticeSociety(SJS)vs.DangerousDrugsBoard

RemedialLaw;Actions;Power   ofJudicialReview;Parties;Party­in­
Interest;The  power   ofjudicialreview   can  only   be   exercised   in   connection
with   a   bona   fide   controversy   which   involves   the   statute   sought   to   be
reviewed;Even with thepresenceofan actualcaseorcontroversy,thecourt may
refuse   to   exercise   judicialreview   unless   the   constitutionalquestion   is
broughtbeforeitbya partyhaving therequisitestanding to challengeit.— It is
basic that the power of judicial review can only be exercised in connection
with   abona   fidecontroversy   which   involvesthestatutesoughtto   be
reviewed.Buteven   with   the   presence   ofan   actualcase   orcontroversy,   the
Courtmay   refuse   to   exercise   judicialreview   unless   the   constitutional
question is brought before it by a party having the  requisite  standing to
challengeit.To havestanding,onemustestablish thatheorshehassuffered some
actualorthreatened   injury   asa   resultofthe   allegedly   illegalconduct
ofthegovernment;theinjury   isfairly   traceableto   thechallenged   action;and
theinjury islikely to beredressed by afavorableaction.
Same;   Same;   Same;   Same;   The   rule   on   standing   is   a   matter   of
procedure;   hence,   it   can   be   relaxed   for   non­traditional   plaintiffs,   like
ordinary   citizens,   taxpayers   and   legislators   when   the   public   interest   so
requires,   such   as   when   the   matter   is   of   transcendental   importance,   of
overarching   significance   to   society,or   ofparamountpublic   interest.—   The
ruleon   standing,however,isamatterofprocedure;hence,itcan   berelaxed   for
non­traditional   plaintiffs,   like   ordinary   citizens,   taxpayers,   and
legislatorswhen   thepublicinterestso   requires,such   aswhen   thematterisof
transcendental   importance,   of   overarching   significance   to   society,   or   of
paramountpublic   interest.There   isno   doubtthatPimentel,assenatorofthe
Philippines   and   candidate   for   the   M   ay   10,2004   elections,possesses   the
requisite standing since he hassubstantialinterestsin the subjectmatterof the
petition,among   other   preliminary   considerations.Regarding   SJS   and
Laserna,thisCourtiswontto relax theruleon locusstandiowing primarily to the
transcendentalimportance   and   the   paramountpublic   interestinvolved   in
theenforcementofSec.36 ofRA 9165.
ConstitutionalLaw;Statutes;Itis   basic   thatifa   law   or   an   administrative
ruleviolatesanynorm   oftheConstitution,thatissuanceisnulland   void   and
hasno effect.— Pimentel’scontention iswell­taken.Accordingly,Sec.36(g) of
RA   9165   should   be,as   itis   hereby   declared   as,unconstitutional.Itis
basicthatifalaw oran adminis­

412
 412 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED

Social usticeJocietyS(SJ) sv.  ngerousDa ugsDr oardB

trative   rule   violates   any   norm   ofthe   Constitution,thatissuance   is   nulland

void and has no effect.The Constitution is the basic law to which alllaws
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165846dab64c16d7a6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/26
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  570

mustconform;no actshallbe valid ifitconflicts with the Constitution.In the
discharge   of   their   defined   functions,   the   three   departments   of
governmenthave   no   choice   butto   yield   obedience   to   the   commandsofthe
Constitution.W hateverlimitsitimposesmustbeobserved.
Same;   Same;   Definition   of   the   limits   on   legislative   power   in   the
abstract.—   Congress’inherentlegislative   powers,broad   asthey   may   be,are
subjectto certain limitations.Asearly as1927,in Governmentv.Springer, the
Courthasdefined,in   the   abstract,the   limitson   legislative   powerin   the
following   wise:   Someone   has   said   that   the   powers   of   the   legislative
department   of   the   Government,   like   the   boundaries   of   the   ocean,   are
unlimited.In   constitutionalgovernments,however,as   wellas   governments
acting under delegated authority,the powers of each of the departments xxx
arelimited and confined within thefourwallsoftheconstitution orthe charter,
and   each   department   can   only   exercise   such   powers   as   are   necessarily
implied from the given powers.The Constitution isthe shore of legislative
authority   againstwhich   the   waves   oflegislative   enactmentmay
dash,butoverwhich itcannotleap.
Same;   Same;   The   right   of   a   citizen   in   the   democratic   process   of
election  should   notbe   defeated   by  unwarranted   impositionsofrequirement
not otherwise specified in the Constitution.— In the same vein, the COM
ELEC   cannot,in   the   guise   of   enforcing   and   administering   election
lawsorpromulgating   rulesand   regulationsto   implementSec.36(g),validly
impose   qualifications   on   candidates   for   senator   in   addition   to   what   the
Constitution prescribes.IfCongress cannotrequire a candidate forsenator to
meetsuch additionalqualification,the COM ELEC,to be sure,is also without
such  power.The   right   of   a  citizen  in  the   democratic   process   of   election
should   notbe   defeated   by   unwarranted   impositionsofrequirement
nototherwisespecified in theConstitution.
Same;Same;Sec.36(g)ofRA   9165,as   soughtto   be   implemented   by   the
assailed   COMELEC   resolution,   effectively   enlarges   the   qualification
requirementsenumerated in the Sec.3,Art.VIofthe Constitution;Whether or
not the drug­free bar set up under the challenged provision is to be hurdled
before   or   after   election   is   really   ofno   moment,as   getting   elected   would
beoflittlevalueifonecannotas­

413

VOL.  570,  NOVEMBER  3,  2008 413

Social usticeJocietyS(SJ) sv.  ngerousDa ugsDr oardB
 sume office for non­compliance with the drug­testing requirement— Sec.
36(g)ofRA 9165,assoughtto be implemented by the assailed COM ELEC
resolution,effectively   enlargesthe   qualification   requirementsenumerated   in
the   Sec.   3,   Art.   VI   of   the   Constitution.   As   couched,   said   Sec.   36(g)
unmistakably requires a candidate  for  senator  to be certified illegal­drug
clean, obviously as a pre­condition to the validity of a certificate of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165846dab64c16d7a6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/26
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  570

candidacy   for   senator   or,with  like   effect,a   condition   sine   qua   non   to  be
voted   upon   and,ifproper,be   proclaimed   as   senator­elect.The   COM   ELEC
resolution completesthe chain with the proviso that“[n]o person elected to
any   public   office   shall   enter   upon   the   duties   of   his   office   until   he   has
undergone   mandatory   drug   test.”   Viewed,therefore,in   its   proper   context,
Sec.36(g)ofRA   9165   and   the   implementing   COM   ELEC   Resolution   add
anotherqualification   layerto   whatthe   1987   Constitution,atthe   minimum,
requiresformembership in the Senate.W hetherornotthe drug­free barset up
underthechallenged provision isto behurdled beforeorafterelection is really
ofno   moment,asgetting   elected   would   beoflittlevalueifonecannot
assumeofficefornon­compliancewith thedrug­testing requirement.
Same;Same;Courtis ofthe view and so holds thatthe provisions of RA
9165   requiring   mandatory,random,and   suspicionless   drug   testing   of
studentsare constitutional.— Guided by Vernonia and Board ofEducation,
the   Court   is   of   the   view   and   so   holds   that   the   provisions   of   RA   9165
requiring   mandatory,random,and   suspicionlessdrug   testing   ofstudentsare
constitutional.Indeed,itiswithin the prerogative ofeducationalinstitutions to
require,asa condition foradmission,compliance with reasonable school rules
and   regulations   and   policies.To   be   sure,the   right   to   enroll   is   not
absolute;itissubjectto fair,reasonable,and equitablerequirements.
Same;Same;A   random   drug   testing   ofstudents   in   secondary   and   tertiary
schools is notonly acceptable butmay even be necessary ifthe safety and
interest   of   the   student   population,doubtless   a   legitimate   concern   of   the
government,areto   bepromoted   and   protected.—   TheCourtcan   takejudicial
notice   ofthe   proliferation   ofprohibited   drugs   in   the   country   thatthreatens
thewell­being   ofthepeople,particularly   theyouth   and   schoolchildren   who
usually   end   up   asvictims.Accordingly,and   untilamoreeffectivemethod   is
conceptualized   and   put   in   motion,a   random   drug   testing   of   students   in
secondary and tertiary schoolsisnotonly acceptablebutmay even be

414

414 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED

Social usticeJocietyS(SJ) sv.  ngerousDa ugsDr oardB

necessary   if   the   safety   and   interestof   the   studentpopulation,doubtless   a

legitimate concern ofthe government,are to be promoted and protected.To
borrow from Vernonia,“[d]eterring drug use by ourNation’sschoolchildren
is   as   important   as   enhancing  efficient   enforcement   of   the   Nation’s   laws
against   the   importation   of   drugs”;   the   necessity   for   the   State   to   act   is
magnified by the factthatthe effects ofa drug­infested schoolare visited not
 just upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty. Needlessto
stress,therandom   testing   schemeprovided   underthelaw   argues   againstthe
idea thatthe testing aimsto incriminate unsuspecting individual students.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165846dab64c16d7a6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/26
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  570

Same;Same;The mandatory butrandom drug testprescribed by Sec. 36
ofRA   9165   for   officers   and   employees   ofpublic   and   private   offices   is
justifiable,albeitnotexactly   for   the   same   reason.—   Justas   in   the   case   of
secondary   and   tertiary   levelstudents,the   mandatory   butrandom   drug   test
prescribed   by   Sec.36   ofRA   9165   forofficersand   employeesofpublic   and
private offices is justifiable,albeit not exactly for the same reason.The Court
notes in this regard that petitioner SJS, other than saying that “subjecting
almosteverybody to drug testing,withoutprobable cause,is unreasonable,an
unwarranted intrusion ofthe individualrightto privacy,” has failed to show
how   the   mandatory,   random,   and   suspicionless   drug   testing
underSec.36(c)and   (d)ofRA   9165   violatestherightto   privacy   and
constitutesunlawfuland/orunconsented  search  underArt.III,Secs.1  and  2  of
the   Constitution.   Petitioner   Laserna’s   lament   is   just   as   simplistic,
sweeping,and gratuitousand doesnotmeritseriousconsideration.
Same; Same; If RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private 
employees,the more reason thatitshould pass the testfor civilservants, 
who,byconstitutionalcommand,arerequired to beaccountableatalltimes to the
people and to serve them with utmostresponsibility and efficiency.— 
Taking into accountthe foregoing factors,i.e.,the reduced expectation of 
privacy on the partofthe employees,the compelling state concern likely to be
metby the search,and the well­defined limits setforth in the law to properly 
guideauthoritiesin theconductoftherandom testing,wehold that the 
challenged drug testrequirementis,under the limited contextof the case, 
reasonable and, ergo, constitutional. Like their counterparts in the 
privatesector,governmentofficialsand employeesalso

415

VOL.  570,  NOVEMBER  3,  2008 415

Social usticeJocietyS(SJ) sv.  ngerousDa ugsDr oardB

labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the Civil
Service law and otherlawson public officers,allenacted to promote a high
standard ofethicsin the public service.And ifRA 9165 passesthe  norm  of
reasonableness forprivate employees,the more reason thatitshould pass the
testforcivilservants,who,by   constitutionalcommand,are   required   to   be
accountable   atalltimes   to   the   people   and   to   serve   them   with   utmost
responsibility and efficiency.
Same;Same;In   the   case   ofpersons   charged   with   a   crime   before   the
prosecutor’s   office,   a   mandatory   drug   testing   can   never   be   random   or
suspicionless;To   imposemandatorydrug   testing   on   theaccused   isa   blatant
 attempt   to   harness   a   medical   test   as   a   tool   for   criminal   prosecution,
contraryto thestated objectivesofRA 9165.— W e find the situation entirely
differentin thecaseofpersonscharged beforethepublicprosecutor’soffice with
criminal   offenses   punishable   with   six   (6)   years   and   one   (1)   day
imprisonment.The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165846dab64c16d7a6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/26