on mandatory drug testing
INTRODUCTION
The proposed legislation on mandatory drug testing on all prisoners, probationers, and individuals who are under the influence of illegal drugs can be subject to attack on its constitutionality on grounds of its possible violation of a person’s right to privacy. As the Supreme Court held in the case of Social Justice Society versus Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), mandatory drug testing, to be constitutional, must adhere to the principles of “randomness” and “suspicionless”. A discussion of its constitutionality, as well as their respective moral/logical justification, will be made one by one.
DISCUSSION
I. PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES
Probationers and parolees are inmates who were qualified for released after compliance with their respective conditions. They are outside of prison walls and therefore back to the community where they belong and therefore once again open to temptations from former peers. However, their release is subject to a suspensive condition; to become a valuable member of the community, to engage in a productive livelihood and to not to be a menace to the community. Since these persons are still under the jurisdiction of their respective officers, it is imperative upon the our judicial system and our State to see to it that these individuals’ health are being monitored, in the same vain that their well-being, in aspects of psychological, physical, mental as well as spiritual, are restored and sustained. Furthermore, subjecting them to mandatory drug testing is, in effect, monitoring the presence of illegal drugs within our State penitentiaries. It is therefore logical to submit themselves on constant drug testing to be able to continuously monitor their status as a member of the community. Random drug testing is therefore recommended onto these persons.
To pass the constitutionality of the proposed legislation, the operative concepts of “randomness” and “suspicionless” in mandatory
The proposed legislation on mandatory drug testing on all prisoners, probationers, and individuals who are under the influence of illegal drugs can be subject to attack on its constitutionality on grounds of its possible violation of a person’s right to privacy. As the Supreme Court held in the case of Social Justice Society versus Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), mandatory drug testing, to be constitutional, must adhere to the principles of “randomness” and “suspicionless”. A discussion of its constitutionality, as well as their respective moral/logical justification, will be made one by one.
DISCUSSION
I. PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES
Probationers and parolees are inmates who were qualified for released after compliance with their respective conditions. They are outside of prison walls and therefore back to the community where they belong and therefore once again open to temptations from former peers. However, their release is subject to a suspensive condition; to become a valuable member of the community, to engage in a productive livelihood and to not to be a menace to the community. Since these persons are still under the jurisdiction of their respective officers, it is imperative upon the our judicial system and our State to see to it that these individuals’ health are being monitored, in the same vain that their well-being, in aspects of psychological, physical, mental as well as spiritual, are restored and sustained. Furthermore, subjecting them to mandatory drug testing is, in effect, monitoring the presence of illegal drugs within our State penitentiaries. It is therefore logical to submit themselves on constant drug testing to be able to continuously monitor their status as a member of the community. Random drug testing is therefore recommended onto these persons.
To pass the constitutionality of the proposed legislation, the operative concepts of “randomness” and “suspicionless” in mandatory