PACHICO A. SEARES:
Rep. Robert Ace Barbers wants prehigh school students to be included in compulsory drug testing using the precept “Parens patriae (guardian of the country),” the inherent power of the state to protect those who can’t protect themselves. Solicitor General Jose Calida used “nullum tempus occurit regi (no time runs against the king) to argue that the one-year prescriptive period on the filing of the “quo warranto” case against then Supreme Court chief justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno would not apply against the state. However, Seares reminds that “when the state, ‘acting through the legislature,’ already expresses its will, other actors of the state cannot use the precept to change that will.”
They wave these Latin precepts on power and duty of the state. But there is a law on drug testing among students as there is a rule on prescription of quo warranto
Robert Ace Barbers, chairman of the House committee on drugs, argues that drug testing of elementary schoolers is not provided for by law but the state can do it under the doctrine of “parens patriae.”
“Parens patriae” (guardian of the country) is inherent power of the state to protect the person and property of the incapacitated, disadvantaged and handicapped. They include persons of tender age, particularly pre-high school students whom Barbers wants to be included in compulsory drug testing.
“Parens patriae” is a precept, rooted in common law, one of those general principles that lawyers and lawmakers tend to use against specific law.
Just like “nullum”
Remember “nullum tempus occurit regi (no time runs against the king)”? Solicitor General Jose Calida used it to argue that the one-year prescriptive period on the filing of the “quo warranto” case against then Supreme Court chief justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno would not apply against the state.
“Parens patriae” and “nullum tempus” are waved in public and the courtroom to justify actions of the state. But here’s the obscured fact: when the state, “acting through the legislature,” already expresses its will, other actors of the state cannot use the precept to change that will.
State through Congress
Since Congress and the president already approved Republic Act #9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Acts of 2002), the law of the land in dealing with the drugs problem, that should prevail. PDEA cannot say pre-high school pupils must be included in the drug test. And even Barbers, a lawmaker, cannot decide for himself. He needs to have the law amended to revise the state’s decision on drug testing. Yes, under “parens patriae.”
The state already decided as parent or guardian of the young when it passed the Dangerous Drug Law. If Barbers wants to expand the scope of compulsory drug testing, then he may seek its amendment. Limiting own right
The same misleading argument was raised by the solicitor general in the Sereno case. “Nullum tempus,” he said, the state can file its “quo warranto” petition anytime. Not when the state through the Rules of Court, promulgated by the constitutionally empowered Supreme Court, fixed the prescriptive period. In effect, it was the state, through the court, that limited its own “nullum tempus” right.
If the state, through the SC, wants “quo warranto” not to prescribe, it must change the rules of procedure. The phrase “within one year” (Sec. 11, Rule 16) must be struck out or modified with qualifier: “except when the state files the petition.” Besides, as SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said in his dissent on the Sereno case, “nullum tempus” applies only to actions of the state for recovery of public domain fraudulently acquired by private individuals, “not to all state actions.” Especially not when the state itself sets the prescriptive period.
The need, the rush
There are reasons for and against the PDEA suggestion to include pupils in lower grades in mandatory drug testing. The agencies tasked to enforce the anti-illegal drugs law can weigh the pros and cons. Most important, they must assess the need for the testing. People remember the drug testing for motor vehicle drivers, which turned out to be unnecessary and wasteful.
No figures are given on the extent of drug addiction, especially among the young. DepEd’s Briones asks PDEA to wait for the results of the random testing already made. Why the rush? To spend budgeted amount or ask for more money? To increase the figures and supply “factual basis” to wage a stronger war on drugs?