The underlying assumption behind disclosing criminal offences is that it is an effective measure to promote public safety by, in this case, allowing drivers’ licenses to bear records of illegal drug use. However, such proposal unfairly discriminates, especially for those who have fully rehabilitated and turned their backs on the use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances after undergoing proper interventions. Instead of allowing them to fully reintegrate, the proposal may bar them from accessing opportunities for employment, as well as other means to be productive members of the society—worse, possibly pushing them back to drug use and sale again. At the same time, it must be noted that not everyone who is undergoing or underwent rehabilitation was a result of a criminal offence. It seems to be a punishment for all those who voluntarily submitted themselves for treatment to always bear that mark for simply wanting to be better. Republic Act No. 10586 or the Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013 already penalises acts of driving under the influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs, and other intoxicating substances. This law already recognises the importance of protecting the people from accidents and violences that may arise from drunk or drugged driving. It also includes a provision on driver’s education as a preventive measure by instilling the value of safe driving and mandates the Philippine Information Agency, in coordination with the Land Transportation Office, local government units, and other concerned agencies to conduct information, education, and communication campaign for the attainment of the objectives of the said law. While the intent may be noble, the Commission on Human Rights stresses that laws and policies should always be fair and should be mindful of the complexities of any social issue it seeks to address.
Comments