Palace tells Robin Padilla to first study proposed mandatory drug testing bill

Metro Manila, Philippines - Malacañang on Wednesday reminded Senator Robin Padilla to carefully review existing jurisprudence before pushing through with his proposed law mandating annual drug tests for all elected and appointed government officials.

Padilla filed Senate Bill 1200 or the “Drug-Free Government Act,” which would require the President and all public officials to undergo yearly hair follicle and urine drug testing. His office said the measure seeks to “ensure early detection and foster a culture of responsibility.”

But Palace Press Officer and Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said the proposal runs counter to a Supreme Court ruling.

“So, ang nais po ni Senator Robin Padilla ay lahat ng public officers? Sana po ay nabasa niya na po ang desisyon ng korte patungkol po dito. Social Justice Society versus Dangerous Drugs Board 2008 kung saan hindi po hinahayaan at ito ay labag sa konstitusyon at sa privacy kung lahat po. Kapag sinabi po nating lahat, universal testing – mandatory universal or universal testing; ang allowed lamang po ay ang random drug testing,” Castro said.

[Translation: What Senator Padilla wants is for all public officers to be tested? I hope he has read the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board. The Court said universal mandatory testing is unconstitutional and violates the right to privacy. The only type allowed is random drug testing.]

She warned the senator that his measure may not stand legal scrutiny.

“So, baka magsayang lang po ng oras at pera o pondo si Senator Robin Padilla, aralin po muna niya po ang nais niyang gawing batas,” Castro said.

[Translation: Senator Padilla may just be wasting time and government funds. He should study his proposed law more carefully.]

When pressed if this meant the Palace was against the measure, Castro clarified:

“Hindi ko sinasabing hindi pabor, iyan ay labag sa batas,” she said.

[Translation: I’m not saying we are against it, I’m saying it is against the law.]