NON-NECESSITY SPEECH

1. Ladies and gentlemen, Your Honors, good evening. Tonight, Team

Cor Jesu strongly argues that the PNP’s conduct of house-to-
house drug testing is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Before I
proceed to my main arguments, allow me to rebut first the
arguments advanced by the first affirmative speaker:
a. Old program, not the reimplementation

b. Unlawful search and seizure, voluntary program in the

reimplementation

c. Self-incrimination, testimonial evidence only

2. Now on to my main arguments. THE PNP’S CONDUCT OF HOUSE-

TO-HOUSE DRUG TESTING IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
IT WILL BE DONE VOLUNTARILY WITH THE FULL CONSENT
AND VOLITION OF THE RESIDENTS.

3. Your Honors, let this point be clear: The reimplementation of the

House-to-House drug testing is not the same as that which was
conducted last year. Also, this drug testing is not the same as
TOKHANG nor will the watchlist obtained in this operation be used for
extrajudical arrrests and killings. The reimplementation of the drug-
testing this time, according to reports from the PNP as of May 11,
2018 involves Barangay officials conducting FREE AND VOLUNTARY
DRUG TESTS IN BARANGAY HALLS WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF
PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS WITH THE POLICE ONLY SERVING AS
SECURITY AND INFORMATION DESSIMINATION.

4. No coercion will be had. No intimidation. And definitely, no Do-It-

Yourself Drug Tests. According to QCPD Director Eleazar, the
reimplementation of the House to house drug test will be in line with
the anti-illegal drug initiatives of the barangay which will then aid the
further examination and subsequent rehabilitation of drug users.
 Instead of declaring it unconstitutional at this stage when it is still to
be implemented, it would be proper to focus on making guidelines
and mechanisms that would ensure that the constitutional rights of
the people are protected.

5. This House to House Drug Test Partnership of the PNP and the
Barangay is hinged on the following laws:

Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 2017 issued by the Dangerous

Drugs Board to Strengthen the Implementation of the Barangay
Clearing Program,

Chapter IV, Section 39, paragraph 20 of RA 7160 of the LGC

mandating Barangays to adopt measures to prevent and eradicate
drug abuse

and Memorandum Circular No. 2015-063 of the DILG calling for the
revival of the respective Barangay Anti-Drug Abuse councils.

This will be discussed further by the 3rd negative speaker.

6. Being VOLUNTARY, this new house to house drug test is NOT

violative of people’s right to privacy.

7. Take note that in the conduct of this drug test, CONSENT MUST
FIRST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE DRUG TEST. This means
that there is no unlawful intrusion to the privacy of the person. Let’s
take the case of Social Justice Society VS. DDB as an analogy. A
compelling state interest was invoked in ruling that the mandatory
drug testing is constitutional. But in the present program, although
there is a compelling state interest, it need not be invoked since it is
primarily voluntary. It is the person himself who consents to undergo
drug testing.
 8. It is no less than the Constitution which laid down the principle: ‘The
maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and
property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for
the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.’
Hence, the government is justified in its efforts to stop the rampancy
of drug use by conducting VOLUNTARY and FREE drug tests to pave
way for rehabilitation.

Voluntariness- explanation as to why this is being done

1. Setup- what is going to happen
2. Voluntariness- why this would debunk the myth that there is a
violation of constitutional rights, in connection to search and seizure,
privacy, right against self-incrimination