By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
In the first half of April 2021, President Rodrigo Duterte, who is 76 years old, was not seen in public for around 2 weeks. This caused the rumor mills around the country to overheat. They spewed all kinds of wild imaginations, including one which alleged that he has died in Singapore. This ended only on April 12, 2021, when he spoke publicly from the Malacanang Palace:
“Kung sabihin mo may sakit ako, may sakit ako. Pero kung sabihin mo may sakit ako ngayon that would be preventing me from exercising the powers of the presidency, wala po,”
The recent case of Dino S. de Leon vs. Rodrigo Roa Duterte, President of the Republic of the Philippines, and the Office of the President through Salvador C. Medialdea, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, G. R. 252118, promulgated by the Supreme Court en banc on May 8, 2020 is relevant. The Court ruled on a mandamus case filed by Atty. Dino S. De Leon to compel the release of the health records of the President.
Apparently, Atty. Dino de Leon had watched the President’s COVID-19 live press conference on March 12, 2020. He said that “the President appeared incoherent.”
On the same day, he filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) Request as he wanted to be “clarified on the status of the President’s health.” He also asked “for copies of the President’s latest medical examination results, health bulletins, and other health records.”
After failing to get an answer from the Malacanang Records Office, Atty. Dino de Leon filed a petition for mandamus, which sought to compel the disclosure of all the health records of the President since he assumed the position and to compel him to undergo “confirmatory medical and psychological/psychiatric examinations.” He based his petition on Section 12, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. This states that:
“Section 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health. x x x.”
Atty. Dino argued that Buerger’s Disease, Barrett’s Esophagus, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Myasthenia Gravis, migraine and spinal issues, which are all illnesses acknowledged by the President, are serious illnesses pursuant to the said Sec. 12. He added that, in a case for declaration of absolute nullity of his marriage, a report was filed, stating that the President has “Antisocial and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” These illnesses and psychological disorders, he alleged, “provide sufficient basis to trigger the right of the people to be informed” under Sec. 12.
The Supreme Court defined a mandamus “as a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the act required to be done when it, he/she: (1) unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or (2) unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of the law. It is an extraordinary remedy that issued only in extreme necessity, and the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and speedy relief to one who has a clear legal right to the performance of an act compelled.”
The Court then enumerated the elements of mandamus “to sufficiently allege a cause of action,” which are ”(1) the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect that legal right; and (3) an act or omission of the defendant that violates such right. The cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated refuses, expressly or impliedly, to comply with the duty.”
It applied these elements to the petition, and held that:
“After a punctilious evaluation of the petition, the Court finds that the averments and arguments in the petition failed to establish a prima facie case for mandamus, i. e., that the reliefs sought constitute ministerial duties on the part of the respondents, and that there is a clear legal right on petitioner’s part to demand the performance of these ministerial duties.”
It cited the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, which drafted the 1987 Constitution, on Sec. 12. Atty. Dino de Leon himself had quoted the deliberations in his petition. Thus:
“It was also further expressed in the deliberations that ‘the state of health or analysis as to the actual condition of the of the President should be left to the President and his doctor’ and that ‘the burden [is left] to the Office of the President to choose the appropriate means of releasing information to the public.”
Thereafter, Court took up the allegations of serious illnesses suffered by the President in the petition, and stated that:
“However, the above-stated claims are merely based on what he perceived from online news articles discussing the President’s illnesses. Worse, these news articles are, as the Court has consistently rules, characterized as ‘hearsay evidence, twice removed, and are thus without any probative value, unless offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted.”
It noted that the “President has been visibly holding regular cabinet meetings” and has held “regular televised addresses” on the government’s response against the pandemic. It then stated that “petitioner’s allegation that the President is ill is unsubstantiated and is based merely on petitioner’s surmises and conjectures x x x.”
The dictionary defines a surmise as a supposition that something maybe true, even though there is no evidence to confirm it. On the other hand, it defines a conjecture as an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. In short, the Supreme Court considered Atty. Dino’s claims as baseless.
It then concluded that:
“Based on the allegations in the petition itself, petitioner failed to establish the existence of a clear legal right that was violated, or that he is entitled to the writ of mandamus prayed for.”
The Court then ended with this dispositive portion:
“WHEREFORE, the Extremely Urgent Petition for Mandamus is DISMISSED.”
Atty. Dino seasonably filed his motion for reconsideration. He then filed a manifestation with an urgent motion to resolve, stating that “(t)he President appeared lethargic and edematous with his right eyelid visibly dropping and contrary to Secretary Roque’s claims, the Presidential Security Group actually had to support the President while walking.”
On Sept. 8, 2020, the Supreme Court denied his motion for reconsideration, which stated that the same arguments had been judiciously considered. In addition, the Court said:
“No further pleadings will be entertained in this case.”
This case had prompted an editorial dated July 16, 2020 from the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the country’s most popular broadsheet, entitled: Not mere gossip but valid concern. Thus:
“That the President’s health is not a mere subject for gossip but a valid concern should be obvious. The lawyer Dino de Leon shouldn’t be viewed as impertinent in imploring the Supreme Court to compel Malacanang to disclose Mr. Duterte’s health records. Yet the tribunal appeared indifferent, even hostile, to the young man’s suit.”
Well, a close reading of the case would have cleared the air for the Inquirer and its editorial. Need I say more?
