In a recent development, the Supreme Court has taken action against three employees of the Court of Appeals (CA) for their involvement in drug use. Garry Caliwan, Edmundo Malit, and Frederick Mauricio were found to have tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, during a random drug test conducted in 2022. The confirmation of the test results was carried out by an accredited laboratory facility of the Department of Health-Dangerous Drugs Board.
Upon receiving the case records from the CA, the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) conducted a thorough investigation and subsequently recommended the dismissal of the three employees. In the case of Frederick Mauricio, who had already retired early, the JIB proposed the imposition of accessory penalties, including the forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
In its per curiam decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the use of prohibited drugs by members, officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary is now considered a serious offense falling under the charge of possession and/or use of illegal drugs or substances, rather than grave misconduct. This distinction highlights the gravity of the offense and ensures appropriate consequences for those involved.
The Guidelines for the Implementation of a Drug-Free Policy in the Philippine Judiciary outline two scenarios in which a court employee may be charged with possession and/or use of illegal drugs or substances. The first scenario occurs when an employee tests positive for drug use during a random drug test. The second scenario arises when an employee voluntarily submits to drug testing and is found positive for drug use for a second time, despite having completed the treatment and/or drug rehabilitation program.
The Supreme Court concurred with the JIB’s recommendation, emphasizing that the penalty of dismissal from service is both fitting and proportionate to the gravity of the offense committed by the respondents. This decision takes into account the fact that this was the second instance in which the employees tested positive for dangerous drugs during a random drug test.
The Supreme Court’s firm stance on drug use within the judiciary sends a clear message that such behavior will not be tolerated. By imposing appropriate penalties and emphasizing the importance of maintaining a drug-free workplace, the court aims to uphold the integrity and credibility of the judiciary system.
It is crucial to address drug use within any organization, and the judiciary is no exception. The dismissal of the employees involved not only serves as a deterrent but also underlines the commitment of the Supreme Court to maintaining a drug-free environment. This action aligns with international efforts to combat drug abuse and uphold the rule of law.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss three employees of the Court of Appeals for drug use reflects the seriousness with which drug offenses are treated within the judiciary. By upholding the guidelines for a drug-free policy and imposing appropriate penalties, the court aims to preserve the integrity and credibility of the judicial system. This action serves as a reminder that drug use will not be tolerated and underscores the commitment to maintaining a drug-free workplace.
Source: The Manila Times
