The order of PGMA to launch nationwide random drug testing to students in both secondary and tertiary levels, occasioned as it was by the Alabang Boys’ controversy in recent memory – ought to have been carefully studied first since its implications are not few.
It was the Chairman of the Drugs Dangerous Board, former Senator Sotto who made this recommendation to the president apparently but it is easy enough to doubt if this move could have been founded on some empirical data such that the drug menace has already crawled in every school environment. But existing data tell us that random drug testing done in the past only yielded a negligible occurrence at even less than !% of those randomly drug-tested.
In the US military, drug testing was resorted to and yielded a drop from 30% to 2% and in the US workforce, from 18% to 4%. This ought to be the kind of historical backdrop against which a random drug testing must be proposed. Theoretically, it is an exercise in futility and graphically even absurd if not stupid to have to reduce a possible incidence of less than 1% to an even much lesser rate since it tells us offhand, that the drug menace so-called is a myth. Which part of the equation would we have
to change here, pray tell?
Offhand, the order is therefore barking up on the wrong tree and Chairman Sotto should not have as much as moved to go into this kind of approach since it throws suspicion wholesale – that in every school, there is an x population of drug users to drug pushers which could be rendered false by a
more scientific survey.
The Commission on Human Rights simply thinks it is violative of human rights and when it did think so, this positional view alone should have made it impossible for the proposal to gain any headway. The CHR chair cited specific provisions in the Constitution as well as that of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that would be violated by this executive order. No less than a former UP Law Dean thinks there is no legal basis for a random drug testing and the President of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila shared the same view. How then that we have always thought that the right against self incrimination and the right to privacy are our inviolable rights as citizens of this country?
We then find two institutions not wanting to heed the stand of the Commission on Human Rights on the matter, not wanting to know what the former UP Law Dean and the PLM President have to say. Why would Department of Education have to respond to this order come March 2009? What compelling reason, if any, had the Dangerous Drugs Board have as would justify such a proposal which incidentally, got the president’s approval?
Our problem with knee jerk reactions of this nature is that in the end, it achieves nothing – it will not prove to be preventive, deterrent, nor reductive. At the very least, what existing surveys would validate that students’ substance use has already surfaced as the number 1 concern? Did DDB Chair point to a specific study that validates his proposal?
Absent that, it would have been best that a more thorough preliminary work should have first been undertaken so that better approaches, except this random drug testing, could be tried. What reasons had Sotto for him to believe that students in all schools across the land are into drug abuse or trafficking as the case maybe? Certainly, the case of the Alabang Boys could not have given him the indubitable basis for such a proposal, could it?
Executive Orders, while the sole prerogative of the President should first be studied very carefully and even more so with proposals being submitted especially where there are clear areas of concern that have to be addressed. In that sense, Chairman Sotto failed to provide reliable data that would sustain what he has proposed. Any number of paradoxes can be called to mind. Isn’t it the case that the COMELEC cannot even as much as compel candidates for elective positions to undergo drug testing?
Even when drug testing has been introduced to the American public, a strategy for the last 20 years, to the extent that then President Bush has to spend $15 million to subsidize the program, still major studies show that random drug testing to check student substance use has no deterrent effect. Clearly, this official pronouncement has no two legs to stand on and that it will be a waste of funds in the end since it becomes a whole guessing game.
With a student population at all levels being what it is today, what positive results could we find even if the order would be implemented when everyone can always plan ahead in any case? In fact, the case of the US Supreme Court’s upholding as constitutional drug test to athletes and students involved in competitive extracurricular activities should also be sufficient to tell our leaders that we should not apply random drug testing as a shotgun approach since it will not work.
Certainly, we doubt that this order will be recalled especially so that we now have an overzealous Department of Education as well as a Department of Health and Commission on Higher Education reacting patronizingly. As far as we know, similar drug testings being required for other such purposes
have become a profitable cottage industry – driver’s licence, firearms license, whatever.
Contributing Writer: PRIMER C. PAGUNURAN
UP Diliman, Quezon City Email: nielsky_2003@yahoo.com
Popularity: 2% [?]
Have you checked the COmprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This provision is in article 3 section 38 and not just a random order from a president based on the recommendation of a chairman.
What is the law for if it is not implemented? If it is not effective, why was it passed as a law?
The drug testing for students are paid for by government so that random testing is just but ideal considering the costs that it would entail if all students are required to submit to testing.
There are millions. In marketing when there is a huge population, only a sample size is tested randomly and gets a pattern or a trend.
This human rights defense tactic is getting too overused that it would lose its power in checking the enforcers. In this case, it suddenly decreases in relevance when the debate shifts from a law enforcement issue into a public health issue. It is better to argue against student drug testing in terms of practicality and effectiveness.
I’m no lawyer but I do know about parental rights and authority. Since high school students are minors, shouldn’t the parents give their consent first?
Also since I am recycled adolescent :-), I do know that peers can be cruel. So I wonder what the gang would say if you are randomly selected?
If this were the USA, the kid would have to go to therapy!
Maybe she should be tested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCI5c1jxTAI&eurl=http://reynaelena.com/
This should be the next victim of our collective condemnation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCgQd1ZdNQI&eurl=http://reynaelena.com/
Talk to them, even spy on them!!!!
The better solution is for parents to observe the behavior of their own kids (as opposed to dumping the responsibility onto the State).
Upn,
do you thin they will admit that they are hooked on drugs.
the students spend more time in school than at home.
what the children have become can’t be attributed to the parents alone.
the peer pressure has a lot more influence than the parents.
Besides when you reach the age of reason, the self is also responsible for the action.
UPn,
just to clarify, i am not opposed to your suggestion.
Blackshama,
Drug Testing, either random or regular can be undertaken by the government under two well-known doctrines: Police Power and Parens Patriae.
Police power is the capacity of a state to regulate behaviors and enforce order within its territory often framed in terms of public welfare, security, morality and safety.
Police power is legally considered an inherent power, limited only by prohibitions specified in the constitution of a state, making it the most expansive authorized power exercised by a state.
Parens patriae is latin for “father of the people”. In law it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent natural parent, legal guardian informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. (sources: Wikipedia).
In the U.S., some schools require drug testing for admission and workers applying for work are required to undergo drug testing as a precondition for employment. The process is not invasive as some would think. All you have to do is to allow the technician to cut few strands of your hair to determine if you have drugs in your system. Not being invasive, the constitutional infringement for whatever concept of “privacy” rights is avoided other than the fact that before testing is made, you are required to sign a paper that you agree to be subjected to this test.
In case of minors, parental consent is not required because the State is undertaking it either of the two principles above. Meaning parents can be temporarily denied of their rights over their minors in favor of the state because the state is acting in the best interest of the minor, or on the issue of which the state has a paramount interest; society’s conformity to some moral standard.
In the case of health workers, drug testing is mandatorily required of them for additional reasons that their drug dependence can affect the quality of care they are dispensing to their wards/patients and they could have access to prohibited drugs lawfully prescribed to terminally ill patients. The latter case can be compared to an alcoholic hired to be a liquor storekeeper.
OFF TOPIC BUT I THINK IS IMPORTANT.
I WONDER WHY NO BLOGGER IS TAKING THE CUDGELS FOR QUEZON CITY SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO WERE THREATENED WITH SUSPENSION OVER THEIR BLOG ITEMS.
WHERE ARE THE TENACIOUS BLOGGERS WHO JUMPED AND DOWN LIKE CHIMPANZEES OVER THE DE LA PAZ-PANGANDAMAN DRAMA.
NAPAHIYA KASI KAYO DUN ANO. TATAPANG NYO EH SA WALA DIN NMAN NAUWI YUNG INGAY NYO.
sorry blackshama, i may have to agree with Sotto’s proposal. Preparing non mandantory or mandatory law will protect the state from future liability. Non mandatory in my opinion is a soft law that will not violate human rights. Soft law is beneficial because it often contains inspirational goals and wish-list type aspirations that aim for the best of possible scenarios. It is more like an AWARENESS program and Preventative measures.
The opposite of not doing anything will pose a greater risk in our society. Survey has nothing to do with soft law or hard law ( employer/employee type)
Your blog suggest that there must be surveys and statistical study to support the Law. This is a backward strategy- a manana habit. sorry :) It’s not a management of future risk.
Passing the soft law is beneficial for our society. It is not a human right issue. I’ll give you an example of soft law: Educational institutions can add one or two questions on its enrollment application about drug use.
Soft law can be a supplement to the current school’s standard. To implement it , a law must be passed.
For employer/employee, a hard law can be passed.
Employers should be required to do a drug test because it guarantees productivity , ethics, moral conduct and performance. It further limits corporation from business liability and loss of profits.
With all this brouhaha… passing the law will create new employment in this industry. It’s positive and I think we should not be worry about it.
let me change the example ( enrollment application)
this might be a better one: soft law can be incorporated to the current school’s policy ( rules and regulations), both private and public institutions. It’s up to the school to implement it ( soft law)
kantero,
merong nagblog niyan. hanapin mo hindi yong nagsisigaw ka dito in all caps. besides, that issue is still under investigation because the students claimed that the blog under question is not theirs.
I for one blogged about circumstances when students are used by people who can not fight their own battle.
uy, hindi pala si backshama ang nag blog. my comments were intended to the writer not blackshama. sorry po. :)
kantero,
I know I heard Undersecretary Sunga of DepEd, my colleague, pointing out that what those students from that Quezon City Science High School (or Manila?)did is a form falling within the right of self expression and freedom of speech.
Thus, even if the teachers will have to punish the students with suspension, still the Dep Ed can act on the case in favor of the students than the teachers who seem to compete with the fact that their students are a pack of intelligent individuals.
The teachers are well-advised not to react negatively less they earn the wrath of more bloggers damning them than they can take.
The cat is out of the bag.
“that the drug menace has already crawled in every school environment.”
this is so stupid. you will wait for the drugs to crawl instead of preventing it from crawling? and it becomes a human right issue? this country doesn’t have human rights. wake up..
jcc
The parens patriae doctrine will have to be tested in court. Your definition says that parents should be negligent before the State assumes custody. But in random drug testing, no one can assume that the student to be tested is under influence of drugs and his/her parent is negligent. The State could be extending its power beyond its rights here. The courts as far as I know require more than a suspicion of negligence before it takes over parental authority. The point here is that minors cannot give consent on their own. In your USA example, applicants can agree to be tested and in doing so give consent. I presume that these people can legally give consent on their own.
Example here in UP, a college student who is a minor cannot give consent to go on an out of town field trip. It’s the parents who do so. However if the student is above 18, he/she can act legally on her own. The parental consent blank is considered as a sort of FYI. That’s why for seniors on practicum (19-20 yr olds) parental consent is appreciated but not required.
Karlpopper
I don’t see the sense why some “balat sibuyas” teachers will have to go as far as to suspend students who blog unflattering remarks about them.
It is a high school tradition that you give a carinyo brutal bansag to your beloved teachers. For example in my high school, generations of students have given the epithet “musical frog, or singing frog” to one music teacher (for reasons easily imaginable)! Another operatic music teacher was given the tag “frustrated madrigal”!
The physics teacher was given the tag “Richie d Horsie”, the Filipino language teacher was given “Yoda”, the CAT commandant was called “Ziggy”, the prac arts teacher was “Mr Clean”, and so on.
I’m sure that the teachers were not dense enough not to know these! None of the teachers ever filed a complaint knowing that these were adolescent stuff. Of course it would have been different if a student plotted to blow up the teachers’ lounge!
“Balat sibuyas” teachers have no business teaching in high school. They should teach in college!
You’re right blackshama. I remember that too in my high school days in a public school set up when Sections 1 and 2 of the graduating class did pull up a joke – a big brawl, a really frightening one.
We were sent to the principal’s office even threatened that should the pregnant teacher have induced abortion as a result of this incident, all of us will be held accountable.
We graduated. The teacher gave birth to a child. We went home with a ‘lesson in history’.
blackshama,
in the country you can always go to court for anything. but drug testing in the U.S. has never been found to be worthy of any court challenge.
and what is the difference between going to UP medical clinic and subject yourself to medical exam to find out if you are not suffering from any communicable diseases before you can enroll, to that of testing to find out if your drug problems make you unfit to undertake the rigor of the pursuit for academic excellence?
parens patriae and police power sometimes go together and while you posited that it is no applicable to drug-testing, you did not process the “police power doctrine”. you also did not process the info that drug-testing is not invasive as to constitute infringement of whatever civil liberties you have in mind.
guys? will you give your ideas regarding the bad inflications of Random drug testing?txn for classroom purposes
tnx..i got some infos from u which help me in my debate later..tc..=)
iOXiXV comment1 ,