Law Dictionary

Question XIII, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question XIII, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam

PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorists who have violated traffic rules. The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation where P01 Adrian was caught red-handed demanding and taking PhP500.00 from a motorist who supposedly beat a red light.

After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required to submit a sample of his urine. The drug test showed that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1 Adrian was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibility of the urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the mandatory drug test under R.A. No. 9165 is a violation of the accused’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.

Are PO1 Adrian’s contentions correct? (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:

Yes. Answer

Under jurisprudence, to impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution. Drug testing in this case would violate a person’s right to privacy guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves. Evidence obtained in violation of the right to privacy is inadmissible as evidence Rule

In the case at bar, PO1 Adrian was caught in an entrapment operation for bribery. The imposition of mandatory drug testing on him violated his right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. That being the case, the drug test result should be inadmissible as evidence. Apply

Thus, PO1 Adrian’s contentions are correct. Conclusion

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question IX, Civil Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The couple was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things,

Question X, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts: (2.5% each) (a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for

Top Read

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

renuntiatio non praesumitur

Latin maxim. • “A waiver of rights is not presumed.” (ACD Investigation Security Agency, Inc. v. Daquera, G.R. No. 147473, March 30, 2004, cited in

Read more


Crimes against persons

Title Eight – Crimes against Persons Chapter One: Destruction of Life Section One. – Parricide, murder, homicide ⦁ Parricide ⦁ Death or physical injuries inflicted

You cannot copy content of this page