IN November 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory drug testing for all candidates for public office was unconstitutional. In Pimentel v. the Commission on Elections (GR 161658), the Court declared that neither Congress nor the Comelec could prescribe any additional qualifications for holding office, beyond what was specifically contained in the Constitution—citizenship, voter registration, literacy, age and residency. Needless to say, this was as uncontroversial as any decision could be, particularly in how clearly it upheld the primacy of the Constitution.
Two weeks shy of nine years later, however, it needs to be pointed out that the Pimentel decision side-stepped, what I believe, was—and remains—a crucial question: should drug users be allowed to run for, and occupy, public office?
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the answer ought to be no.
In the Comelec Resolution struck down by the Court in Pimentel, the poll body required drug-test results to be submitted together with their certificates of candidacy, arguing that “by requiring candidates to undergo mandatory drug test, the public will know the quality of candidates they are electing, and they will be assured that only those who can serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency would be elected.”
The Comelec’s premise, of course, was that people wouldn’t vote for a drug user. After all, even taking some exceptional cases into consideration, substance abuse and addiction hardly inspire confidence that the user can act with “responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.”
First off, the mere fact of drug use clearly signals a diminished sense of responsibility, not to mention self-discipline. While I agree that most addicts should be considered victims of circumstance, I see no contradiction in considering their addiction a substantial risk to their ability to act in anyone’s best interest, let alone the best interest of the public. They shouldn’t be given up on, certainly; but neither should they be given the keys to the kingdom.
Similarly, drug addiction undercuts a person’s integrity and—in the specific case of public officials—their loyalty to laws and the public welfare. Leaving aside the question of the possibility that addicted individuals are essentially at the mercy of their chemical dependency, the fact remains that such a person would most probably prioritize feeding the need over everything else; ethics, compliance with laws and duty to the country included.
As for efficiency, the effects of drug use on a person’s functional abilities are simply too well-documented to ignore. For instance, crystal meth—shabu—causes acute anxiety, paranoia, severe mood swings, and unpredictable behavior, all of which have been repeatedly shown to have negative effects on a person’s decision-making. Even recreational use of cannabis might give you pause. In the short term, puffing weed causes confusion, sleepiness and can cause anxiety, fear and panic. Long term, marijuana is known to cause impairment to memory, concentration and decision-making. Considering how powerful elected officials tend to be, any impairment in the ability to think, and decide clearly and promptly, can have disproportionately large effects on the public welfare.
And then there are the physical effects, such as irregular heart rhythms, elevated blood pressure and significant weight loss. Clearly, an elected official suffering from any one of these symptoms cannot be considered even remotely healthy.
Which brings me back to Pimentel v. Comelec. That decision was the right one. Neither Congress nor the Comelec ought to go beyond the parameters set by the Constitution. But the reasons that led to that unconstitutional expansion of the qualifications of elected officials have largely been ignored since then, to the detriment of the nation. Time, therefore, to find a way to correct that oversight so that we don’t have to keep on just dealing with drug abusers in positions of power; so that we’re denying them that power in the first place.