Words: 865
The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. [8] In the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed. [9] It ought to be made abundantly clear, however, that the unconstitutionality of Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 is rooted on its having requirements for one aspiring to run for and serve as senator. Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 165, the Court finds no valid Justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes.
In the case of students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicion less drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities. In the case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicion less drug testing proceeds from he reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.
We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutor’s office with criminal offenses punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are “randomness” and “suspicion less. “In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor’s office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicion less. The ideas of randomness and being suspicion less are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion.
When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are amplified against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor’s office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy. [40] To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165.
Drug testing in this case would violate a persons’ right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. Ill of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves. BACKED v. Puns-an G. R. NO. Augustness 14, 2008 FACTS: RA 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIRR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOCA). The law intends to encourage BIRR and BOCA officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a
Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board). It covers all officials and employees of the BIRR and the BOCA with at least six months of service, regardless of employment status. The Fund is sourced from the collection of the BIRR and the BOCA in excess of their revenue targets for the year, as determined by the Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (ODBC). Any incentive or reward is taken from the fund and allocated to the BIRR and the BOCA in proportion to their contribution in the excess collection of the targeted amount of tax revenue.
Petitioners, invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition challenging the constitutionality of RA 9335, a tax reform legislation. They contend that, by and employees of the BIRR and the BOCA into mercenaries and bounty hunters” as they will do their best only inconsideration of such rewards. Thus, the system of rewards and incentives invites corruption and undermines the constitutionally mandated duty of these officials and employees to serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency ISSUES: 1 . W/N RA 9335 constitutional? 2.
W/N the limitation the scope of the system of rewards and incentives only to officials and employees of the BIRR and the BOCA violates the constitutional guarantee of qualification. 3. W/N the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President RATIO: Yes. The presumption is disputable but proof to the contrary is required to rebut it. Petitioners’ claim that the implementation of RA 9335 will turn BIRR and BOCA officials and employees into “bounty hunters and mercenaries” is not only without any factual and legal basis and purely speculative. Public service is its own reward.
Nevertheless, public officers may by law be rewarded for exemplary and exceptional performance. A system of incentives for exceeding the set expectations of a public office is not anathema to the concept of public accountability. In fact, it recognizes and reinforces dedication to duty, industry, efficiency and loyalty to public service of deserving government personnel. 2. No. Both the BIRR and the BOCA are bureaus under the DOFF. They principally perform the special function of being the instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of its great inherent functions – taxation.