A 1 if ground affects intrinsic validity of

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: elf, that is, by the judge, the court is ousted of its jurisdiction, all its proceedings are null and void, and it is as if no judgment has been rendered . (Chavez v. CA, G.R. No. L‐29169, Aug. 19, 1968) Q: R.A. 9165 requires mandatory drug testing for persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with criminal offenses punishable with 6 years and 1 day imprisonment. Petitioner SJS questions the constitutionality of the law on the ground that it violates the rights to privacy and against self‐incrimination of an accused. Decide. A: The Court finds the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutor’s office with criminal offenses punishable with imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are “randomness” and “suspicionless”. In the case of ACADEMICS CHAIR: LESTER JAY ALAN E. FLORES II U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S VICE CHAIRS FOR ACADEMICS: KAREN JOY G. SABUGO & JOHN HENRY C. MENDOZA Facultad de Derecho Civil VICE CHAIR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE: JEANELLE C. LEE VICE CHAIRS FOR LAY‐OUT AND DESIGN: EARL LOUIE M. MASACAYAN & THEENA C. MARTINEZ 109 UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 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. 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 objectiv...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/12/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online