Rep. Polong Duterte must have hit a raw nerve when he filed House Bill 10744 proposing a law making it mandatory for elected and appointed public officials, including the President of the Philippines, to undergo random drug testing every six months through a “hair follicle test.”

My doctor friend, Francis Aquino, tells me that such a test can detect drug use up to three months prior to the examination, and is several times more reliable than the a urine test. Much less disgusting and odorous, too.

It is said that Atty. Harry Roque and Rep. Dan Marcoleta have expressed strong reservations to a hair follicle test. Levity aside, some members of the Lower House — the usual suspects when it comes to attacking the Dutertes — lost no time in lambasting the Duterte Bill. It is unconstitutional, they exclaimed, as held in the case of Social Justice Society versus Dangerous Drugs Board. It is discriminatory, they vociferated, as it singles out the President.

Oh, for crying out loud, will these people read before they talk? For it seems that their minds are on vacation, but their mouths are working overtime. The above mentioned Social Justice Case teaches us that mandatory drug testing, insofar as it is made a requirement for running for, and assuming, public office contravenes the Constitution because the qualifications for public office are already stated therein, and no act of Congress short of a constitutional amendment (by any of the three modes permitted by law) may add or subtract therefrom.

In the Duterte Bill, a drug test is not made a condition sine qua non for election or even selection; it becomes obligatory only after the assumption of elective or appointive office. That conditionality places it beyond the ambit of the doctrine in the Social Justice Society case. As for the charge of singling out the President, a simple reading of the bill’s title will show beyond cavil that it applies to ALL, including the President. Now, that’s vastly different from a law applying ONLY to the President.

As to the consequences of failing a drug test, the proposed law is also quite clear: any official found to have tested positive for drug use “shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to certain pertinent laws.”

Clear it thus is that the fate of a drug-using public official shall depend on which laws are applicable to him or her. Hence, in the case of appointed or elected officials of a certain level, they may be subjected to the disciplinary powers of the Office of the Ombudsman, who may suspend or even remove them (as in the case of Mayor Alice Guo). If criminal charges are filed (since drug use is a criminal offense), then they may also be ousted (aside from serving jail time) after conviction and barred from holding public office ever again.

Of course, the President is immune from suit during his term, so the outcome of a Chief Executive testing positive for ingesting illegal drugs can only be political in nature: impeachment. This would then be dependent on how much public uproar is generated by such a result, the President’s hold over the House and the Senate, and whether or not, if impeached, the prosecution can prove betrayal of the public trust or any other ground for conviction.

Nonetheless, it is high time that measures are instituted to make our government officialdom accountable for succumbing to the scourge of illegal drug use. It is becoming a prevalent perception that the Philippines is fast becoming a narco state right after President Duterte’s term. Mandatory drug testing as proposed by Congressman Polong will go a long way in dispelling fears that we have an abundance of HIGH officials in government, which is undoubtedly a hair-raising thought.