1 
 Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City, Metro Manila 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
3rd Regular Session 
House Bill No. ________ 
Introduced by Representative PAOLO Z. DUTERTE 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Among the declared principles of the State is the maintenance of peace and order and 
the protection of the people’s life, liberty, and property. The 1987 Constitution, in 
emphasizing that “public office is public trust”, also highlights the importance of 
accountability of public officers and employees, with high regard to the service 
equipped with “utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency”, actions 
toward patriotism and justice, and lives with modesty.  
Despite this mandate, the country is still muddled with a remarkable number of drug 
use and abuse cases, particularly three thousand eight hundred sixty-five (3,865) 
related admissions across the seventy (70) treatment and rehabilitation facilities in the 
country, as reported by the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) for 2022.  The DDB further 
noted that compared with the 2021 cases, there was almost a forty-three percent 
(42.73%) increase in admissions that can be attributed to the resumption of operation 
by the different rehabilitation centers and the seeming willingness of the Persons Who 
Use Drugs (PWUDs) to undergo treatment and rehabilitation as evidenced by roughly 
forty-one percent (40.78%) of voluntary submission and twenty-nine percent (29.00%) 
cases who availed of plea bargaining.  However, it is also of primordial importance 
that drug testing becomes the norm in order to bridge the gap between reported and 
unreported cases—that is, taking drug use and abuse cases under control. 
Being at the forefront of public service with the mandate towards integrity and 
modesty, it is imperative that public officials and government employees should be 
the very first to uphold such Constitutional mandate by submitting themselves 
towards accountability measures that serve as a tool in addressing the fulfillment of 
this mandate. This is the rationale behind the compulsory nature of drug testing in 
Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 
In fact, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) issued CSC Resolution No. 1700653 or The 
Guidelines in the Mandatory Random Drug Test for Public Officials and Employees and for 
Other Purposes for the implementation of the said measure. However, the Dangerous 
Drugs Board (DDB) thereafter issued the DDB Regulation No. 13, s. 2018 which 
exempted elective officials and presidential appointees from the aforementioned 
CSC’s policy on mandatory random drug testing.  
10744
August 12, 2024
3:00 pm


2 
In the case of Conrado L. Tiu, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127410, January 20, 
1999, the equal protection of the law, prescribed by the Constitution is further defined 
as: 
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, 
as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. […] It does not demand 
absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, 
under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. 
Considering the initiatives towards the deterrence of drug use and abuse, exemptions 
or favors in the mandatory nature of random drug testing shall not extend to certain 
class privilege such as the elected and appointed officials, since it becomes imperative 
upon their own mandate that they shall lead the life of modesty and integrity. In fact, 
the constitutionality of mandatory random drug testing in students, officers and 
employees of private and public offices was uphold in the case of Social Justice Society 
v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008, in which only candidates
for public office was struck down as unconstitutional for just mere inconsistency with
the qualifications of candidates for public office set forth in the 1987 Constitution. Such
inconsistencies do not extend to elected and appointed public officials, who are
forthright considered as officers and employees of public offices. However, the said
ruling does not necessarily preclude the prerogative of candidates of electoral
positions to undergo drug testing at the expense of showing the transparency and
accountability to the electorate they ought to serve. In the application of the equal
protection clause, mandatory random drug testing every six (6) months shall become
binding among elected and appointed officials and voluntary drug testing is
encouraged to candidates of electoral posts, pursuant to what this Bill foremost seeks.
In fact, the recent 2022 national election shows the outward willingness of
Presidentiables to undergo drug testing for sake of transparency and accountability.
It is also in this pursuit that this proposed measure also seeks to include the Hair 
Follicle Drug Test as a mode of drug testing. Hence, although the RA 9165 does not 
explicitly provide for what type of methods shall be employed in drug testing, the 
said law provides further that two (2) testing methods should be employed for 
authorized drug testing—a screening test and a confirmatory test, the latter to be only 
performed if the screening test yields a presumptive positive result. The guideline for 
the accreditation of drug testing laboratories in the Philippines was released jointly by 
the Department of Health and the Dangerous Drugs Board where immunoassays, thin 
layer chromatography, and point of care testing kits were identified as acceptable 
methods for screening, while confirmatory tests had to be conducted in an analytical 
laboratory that uses gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or “some such 
modern and accepted method.”  
Hence, while neither RA 9165 nor the Implementing Rules and Regulations for RA 
9165 specified a biologic specimen for drug testing, the Guidelines only stated 
procedures for urine collection and no other biologic matrix was mentioned. It is in 
this regard that Hair Follicle Drug Test shall be incorporated as the screening test in 
drug tests in the country, given that in the study conducted by Palamar et al. in “A 


3 
comparison of the utility of urine and hair testing in detecting self-reported drug use 
among young adult opioid users” in 2019, the results show that hair testing does 
appear to be particularly efficacious and determinative in detecting unreported recent 
use of cocaine and/or oxycodone, and it often adds to the detection power of urine—
making it ideal as a screening test coupled by the urine test in the confirmatory stages 
of drug testing.  
In addition, it is just to establish substantial evidence, before accusing an individual 
of recent drug use and abuse. Such substantial evidence is coherent to establishing 
drug use at the initial phase of drug testing—the screening test. DuPont & 
Baumgartner in “Drug testing by urine and hair analysis: complementary features and 
scientific issues” in 1995 upholds that the Hair Follicle Test can detect the intensity or 
the quantitative result of usage of the person being tested within the ninety (90) days, 
in contrast with the Urine Drug Test which is needed to be conducted frequently, (at 
least once a week or more). Granted such wide time frame of detection or what is 
termed as “surveillance window”, occasional drug testing, that this Bill also proposes, 
will eventually become the norm, not only to government employees but also to 
elected and appointed officials, as well as candidates for electoral posts however on 
their own accord.   
In view of the foregoing, the immediate passage of this proposed measure is earnestly 
sought. 
HON. PAOLO Z. DUTERTE 


1 
Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City, Metro Manila 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
3rd Regular Session 
House Bill No. ________ 
Introduced by Representative PAOLO Z. DUTERTE 
AN ACT 
MANDATING ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF PUBLIC OFFICES, 
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, TO 
UNDERGO RANDOM DRUG TESTING THROUGH HAIR FOLLICLE DRUG 
TEST EVERY SIX (6) MONTHS AND INSTITUTIONALIZING VOLUNTARY 
RANDOM DRUG TESTING OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTORAL POSTS 
WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS PRIOR THE ELECTION DAY, AMENDING FOR 
THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 OR THE COMPREHENSIVE 
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress 
assembled: 
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy of the state to maintain 
peace and order, protect one’s life, liberty, and property, and promote the general 
welfare of the people. The Constitution also reiterates that the state shall maintain 
honesty and integrity in the public service, highlighting the importance of 
accountability of public officers and employees, with high regard to the service 
equipped with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, actions toward 
patriotism and justice, and lives with modesty. Hence, a public office being a public 
trust, public officials shall also be subject to accountability measures such as 
mandatory random drug testing inclined with the officials’ mandate of promoting the 
general welfare of the people, especially in terms of mitigating, if not totally 
eliminating, drug use and abuse in the community.  
SEC 2. Amendment. – Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 or Comprehensive 
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is amended to read as follows: 
SECTION 36. Authorized Drug Testing. – Authorized drug testing shall be 
done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing 
laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of 
test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of the drug test with 
DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug 
test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the 
10744


 
2 
screening test which SHALL BE DONE THROUGH HAIR FOLLICLE DRUG 
TEST will determine the positive result as well as the type of the drug used 
and the confirmatory test which SHALL BE DONE THROUGH URINE 
DRUG TEST will confirm a positive screening test. Drug test certificates issued 
by accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the 
date of issue which may be used for other purposes.  
 
(1) The following shall be subjected to undergo MANDATORY RANDOM 
drug testing: 
 
(a) Applicants for driver's license. – No driver's license shall be issued 
or renewed to any person unless he/she presents a certification that 
he/she has undergone a mandatory drug test and indicating thereon 
that he/she is free from the use of dangerous drugs; 
 
[xxx] 
 
(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. – Officers and 
employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or 
overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as 
contained in the company's work rules and regulations, which shall 
be borne by the employer, for purposes of reducing the risk in the 
workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of 
dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be 
a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of 
Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil 
Service Law; 
 
 
     [xxx] 
 
[(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the 
national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test] 
 
(G) ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS IN PUBLIC OFFICES. – 
ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT, 
GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES, OR GOVERNMENT-OWNED 
AND 
CONTROLLED 
CORPORATIONS 
(GOCCS), 
WHETHER 
DOMESTIC OR OVERSEASES, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO UNDERGO 
A RANDOM DRUG TEST EVERY SIX (6) MONTHS THROUGH HAIR 
FOLLICLE DURG TEST, WHICH SHALL BE BORNE BY THE EXPENSES 
OF 
THEIR 
RESPECTIVE 
OFFICES 
UNDER 
THE 
GENERAL 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT. ANY OFFICIAL FOUND POSITIVE FOR USE 
OF 
DANGEROUS 
DRUGS 
SHALL 
BE 
DEALT 
WITH 
ADMINISTRATIVELY 
WHICH 
SHALL 
BE 
A 
GROUND 
FOR 
SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION FROM OFFICE, SUBJECT TO 
CERTAIN PERTINENT LAWS. 
 


 
3 
(2) CANDIDATES FOR ELECTORAL POSTS ARE NOT PRECLUDED 
FROM UNDERGOING VOLUNTARY HAIR FOLLICLE DRUG TEST 
WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS PRIOR THE ELECTION DAY.  
 
           SEC. 3. Separability Clause. - If any of the sections or provisions of this Act is 
held invalid, all other provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid. 
 
           SEC. 4. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, issuances, rules and regulations 
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified 
accordingly. 
 
           SEC. 5. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its 
complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
 
 
 
Approved,