In the Matter for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo L.

Held:
Sabio vs Hon. Sen. Richard Gordon
This Court holds that the respondent Senate Committees inquiry
G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006 does not violate the petitioners right to privacy and right against
self-incrimination.
Facts:
Anent the right against self-incrimination, this may be invoked by
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced Philippine Senate the PHC officers and directors only when the incriminating question
Resolution No. 455 (Senate Res. No. 455) directing an inquiry in aid is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in advance the
of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippine nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them. That this right
Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine may possibly be violated or abused is no ground for denying the
Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and investigating committees their power of inquiry.
PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged
improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of So long as the constitutional rights of witnesses, like Chairman Sabio
Directors. The Senate invited Presidential Commission on Good and his Commissioners, will be respected by the investigating
Governance (PCGG) Chairman Camilo L. Sabio to be the resource committees, it is the duty of the former to cooperate with the latter
person in a public meeting that would deliberate on the issues in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative
presented in Senate Res. No. 455. action. The unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to
subpoenae, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its
Chairman Sabio, however, declined the invitation, invoking Section Committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within the
4, paragraph (b) of Executive Order No. 1, which provides: No realm of proper investigation.
member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or
produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative
proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance.
Senator Richard J. Gordon issued a subpoena ad testificandum,
requiring Chairman Sabio and the four PCGG Commissioners to
appear in the public hearing scheduled on August 23, 2006 and
testify on what they know relative to the matters specified in Senate
Res. No. 455. Again, Chairman Sabio refused to appear. Another
notice was sent to Chairman Sabio requiring him to appear and
testify on the same subject matter set on September 6, 2006, but
Chairman Sabio still did not comply. Eventually, Chairman Sabio and
the PCGG Commissioners were arrested for contempt of the Senate
and brought to the Senate premises where they were detained.

Chairman Sabio filed the present petition for habeas corpus (G.R.
No. 174340) and, together with the four PCGG Commissioners and
the PCGGs nominees to PHC, petition for certiorari and prohibition
(G.R. No. 174318). They allege that the investigating committees
concerned disregarded Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 without any justifiable
reason, the inquiries conducted by the said committees are not in
aid of legislation, the inquiries were conducted in the absence of
duly published Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid
of Legislation, and the said committees are not vested with the
power of contempt.

Moreover, in G.R. No. 174177, petitioners Philcomsat Holdings

Corporation and its directors and officers alleged: that the conduct
of legislative inquiry pursuant to Senate Res. 455 constitutes
violations to petitioners rights against self-incrimination.

Issue: W/N petitioners rights against self-incrimination were

violated.
 Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board
G.R. No. 157870, 158633, 161658, November 3, 2008
Facts:
Before the Court are 3 consolidated petitions assailing the
constitutionality of Section 36 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 insofar as it requires mandatory drug
testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and
tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices,
and persons charged before the prosecutors office with certain
offenses.
According to Aquilino Pimentel Jr., a senator of the RP and a
candidate for re-election in May 2004 elections, said mandatory
drug testing imposes an additional qualification for Senators beyond
that which are provided by the Constitution. No provision in the
Constitution authorizes the Congress or the COMELEC to expand the
qualification requirements of candidates for senator.
and "suspicionless." In the case of persons charged with a crime
before the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never
be random or suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being
suspicionless 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 impleaded 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. III of
the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably
forced to incriminate themselves.

Meanwhile, SJS contends that Section 36(c)(d)(f) and (g) are

constitutionally infirm as it constitutes undue delegation of
legislative power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and
employers to determine the manner of drug testing. It also violates
the equal protection clause as it can be used to harass a student or
employee deemed undesirable. The constitutional right against
unreasonable searches is also breached.

In addition to the abovementioned contentions, Atty. Manuel J.

Laserna, Jr., as a citizen and taxpayers maintains that said provision
should be struck down as unconstitutional for infringing on the
constitutional right to privacy, the right against unreasonable search
and seizure, and the right against self-incrimination, and for being
contrary to the due process and equal protection guarantees.

Issue: W/N Sections 36 (c) (d) (f) and (g) should be struck down as
unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional right to
privacy, against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right
against self-incrimination.

Held:

Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165, 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 suspicionless
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 suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the 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"