Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Pimentel VS Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Sandy Marie David
    The case involved a challenge to a law requiring mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office. The Supreme Court ruled that requiring drug tests imposed an additional, unconstitutional qualification on candidates beyond what is outlined in the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pimentel VS Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Sandy Marie David
    11 views1 page
    The case involved a challenge to a law requiring mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office. The Supreme Court ruled that requiring drug tests imposed an additional, unconstitutional qualification on candidates beyond what is outlined in the Constitution.

    Original Title

    PIMENTEL VS COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a challenge to a law requiring mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office. The Supreme Court ruled that requiring drug tests imposed an additional, unconstitutional qualification on candidates beyond what is outlined in the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    11 views1 page

    Pimentel VS Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Sandy Marie David
    The case involved a challenge to a law requiring mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office. The Supreme Court ruled that requiring drug tests imposed an additional, unconstitutional qualification on candidates beyond what is outlined in the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Pimentel vs.

    COMELEC
    GR # 157870, November 3, 2008
    FACTS:
    Congress passed RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
    2002, and make it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of
    secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and
    private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with
    certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test.
    Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004
    synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law.

    ISSUE:
    Is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an
    unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for
    Senator?

    HELD:
    Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public
    office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local
    government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
    Under Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for
    Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications (1) citizenship, (2) voter
    registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and (5) residency. The Congress cannot
    disregard, evade, or weaken the force of a constitutional mandate, or
    alter or enlarge the Constitution. In the discharge of their defined
    functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to
    yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it
    imposes must be observed.

    You might also like