The Palace and the office of Senator Robinhood Padilla are at odds over the constitutionality of a bill that would require government officials to undergo mandatory annual drug tests.
The bill, filed by Padilla, would subject all government officials and employees, including the president, to yearly hair-follicle and urine drug tests. Any official who tests positive would face suspension or removal from office.
According to Padilla’s camp, the bill aims to promote accountability and strengthen the campaign against illegal drugs.
However, Presidential Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said the proposed measure is unconstitutional and violates the right to privacy, citing a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that allows only random, not mandatory, drug testing.
“The operative concept in mandatory drug testing is randomness and suspicion-less,” Castro said in a statement, quoting the Supreme Court’s decision on Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board.
“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,” she added.
Castro cited that Padilla’s bill would fall under the category of “universal” testing, which she said is unconstitutional.
In response, Atty. Rudolf Philip Jurado, Padilla’s chief of staff, urged Castro to review both the Supreme Court case and the bill, saying the context of the two is different.
“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,” Jurado said. He added that those in the highest levels of government should be held to a higher moral standard.
Jurado said lawmakers should be allowed to debate and decide on the proposed measure and let the Supreme Court ultimately decide if it is unconstitutional.