The Supreme Court has junked three petitions seeking to declare as unconstitutional the various issuances on the COVID-19 pandemic by the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF), local government units, and other government agencies.
In a resolution adopted during the SC’s en banc session on July 11, the high tribunal resolved to dismiss the petitions for violating the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts.
It said the issues raised required determination “and adjudication of extremely technical and scientific facts that necessitates the conduct of full-blown proceedings before the court of first instance.”
The SC stressed that the petitions should have been filed first before the trial courts for proper proceedings.
Dismissed by the SC were the petitions filed by Jose C. Montemayor Jr. on Feb. 17, 2022; Passengers and Riders Organization (Pasahero) on Feb. 23, 2022; and Nicanor Jesus P. Perlas III on May 12, 2022.
In a statement, the SC Public Information Office said the petitioners “assailed the validity of several issuances by the IATF in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as those issued by local government units and government agencies.”
They specifically cited IATF Resolution No. 148-B, 148-G, 149, 150, 155, 163, and 164; IATF Guidelines on Nationwide Implementation of Alert Level System for COVID-19 Response dated February 27, 2022; MMDA Resolution No. 22-01; DOTr D.O. No. 2022-001; DILG Memorandum Circular Nos. 2022-002 and 2022-008; LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2022-001; DepEd-DOH Joint Memorandum Circular No. 001, Series of 2022; DOH Department Circular No. 2022-0131; and Makati City Ordinance No. 2022-005.
Citing one of the assailed issuances, the PIO said that “IATF Resolution No. 148-B, requires all public and private establishments to require its eligible employees who are tasked to do on-site work to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or else subject themselves to RT-PCR testing every two weeks at their own expense, among others.”
It said the petitioners “collectively contended that the foregoing issuances trampled on their right to life and liberty without due process of law, constituted an impairment of their right to travel, as well as an infringement of the equal protection clause for applying only to those without access to private vehicles, and is discriminatory against the unvaccinated.”
The petitioners also alleged that “the impugned measures embody a mandatory vaccination policy considering that the use of public transportation is an essential part of Filipino life.”
In September 2022, the SC dismissed the petition filed by “Pepe and Pilar” who challenged the constitutionality of the creation of IATF and the various issuances by the task force in 2021 at the height of the coronavirus pandemic.
Among the resolutions challenged in the pseudonymously filed and undocketed petition were mandatory vaccination, the requirement for workers in the public transport system to be fully vaccinated, vaccination of employees in business establishments, and priority for vaccinated persons in availing of government programs and services.
The SC resolution made public on Aug. 31, 2022 also denied “Pepe and Pilar’s” pleas for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an injunction to stop IATF from performing its functions and enforcing its resolutions.
It ruled that the petition had to be dismissed due to its ‘procedural defects and non-compliance with the Rules of Court” and for being “substantially infirm.”
Among the defects cited by the SC in the petition were the lack of names of all the petitioners in violation of Rule 46; failure to pay docket and other fees in violation of Section 5, Rule 64 and Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56; insufficiency of the petition in form as it lacks verification and certification against forum-shopping as required by Section 5, Rule 64 in relation to Section 4 and 5, Rule 7; and violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
