Agovernmentalactionthatrestrictsfreedomof speech or

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: ants for admission that are fair, just and non‐discriminatory. (SJS v. DDB, G.R. No. 157870, Nov. 3, 2008) Q: Is a law requiring mandatory drug testing for officers and employees of public and private offices unconstitutional? A: No. As the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution is couched and as has been held, “reasonableness” is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion. And whether a search at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing of the government‐mandated intrusion on the individual’s privacy interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest. In the criminal context, reasonableness requires showing probable cause to be personally determined by a judge. Given that the drug‐ testing policy for employees—and students for that matter—under R.A. 9165 is in the nature of administrative search needing what was referred to in Veronia case as “swift and informal procedures,” the probable cause standard is not required or even practicable. (SJS v. DDB and PDEA, G.R. No. 157870, Nov. 3, 2008) f. RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Q: The general rule is that the right to privacy of communication and correspondence is inviolable. What are the exceptions? A: 1. By lawful order of the court; 2. Public safety or public order as prescribed by law Q: Is the use of telephone extension a violation of R.A. 4200 (Anti‐Wire Tapping Law)? 84 A: No. The use of a telephone extension to overhear a private conversation is neither among those devices, nor considered as a similar device, prohibited under the law. (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L‐69809 October 16, 1986) Note: Anti‐Wiretapping Act only protects letters, messages, telephone calls, telegrams and the like. The law does not distinguish between a party to the private communication or a third person. Hence, both a party and a third person could be held liable under R.A. 4200 if they commit any of the prohib...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online