Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro on Thursday clarified her statements regarding the mandatory drug test bill filed by Senator Robinhood Padilla after the latter’s camp defended the proposed measure saying let the lawmakers handle it. 

If passed, the bill would require government officials to undergo annual hair-follicle and urine drug tests. If these tests yield positive results for any official, they would face suspension or be removed from office.

According to Padilla, his bill will promote accountability and be a vital in the campaign against illegal drugs.

On Wednesday, Castro criticized the bill saying that mandatory drug testing is illegal and only random drug testing is legal. She then urged the Senator to study related laws and decisions to his bill. 

A day after Padilla’s camp responded, Castro reiterated that random drug testing is legitimate and constitutional noting that she is only explaining the jurisprudence regarding the universal drug testing.

“The decision states that ‘the operative concept in mandatory drug testing is randomness and suspicion-less’. This is compared to persons charged with crimes requiring mandatory drug testing where they will not be ‘randomly picked’ and in such a case, they waive their right to privacy,” Castro said citing the Supreme Court’s decision on Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board case.

She added that it is up to the lawmakers themselves to decide on the proposed bill.

In response, Atty. Rudolf Philip Jurado, Padilla’s chief of staff, urged Castro to review the bill and compare it to the Supreme Court decision she cited.

“Thank you very much to Atty. Claire Castro, for the reminder regarding the decision of our Supreme Court. Yes, we are aware that there is such a decision, that is why, with all due respect again, we are asking her to read the case and our bill again because the context discussed in the case is different,” he said.

“What is clear, it said, is that if the law is reasonable in accordance with its purpose in relation to a compelling state interest, it will pass constitutionality. Our position is that those at the highest levels of government should be held to a higher moral standard when it comes to following this law,” he explained.

Jurado reiterated to let lawmakers do their jobs in the meantime and let the Supreme Court decide if the measure is unconstitutional.

“This was never about singling out the President, in fact in the three years I worked with Senator Robin, he never criticized the President on a personal level, only on social issues. Our senator has great respect for the President,” he said.