The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the petition filed by “Pepe and Pilar” who challenged the constitutionality of the creation of the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF) in 2014 under Executive Order No. 168, and the various issuances by the task force in 2021 at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Among the resolutions challenged in the pseudonymously filed and undocketed petition were the mandatory vaccination, 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 Wednesday, Aug. 31, 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 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.

Among other allegations, “Pepe and Pilar” claimed that the creation of IATF and the issuance of various resolutions by the task force should be declared unconstitutional, null and void, and without legal effect because the President has no power to create a public office, a function lodged exclusively with Congress.

The petition stated that some of the resolutions issued by the task force curtail personal liberties of individuals and are regulatory in nature that entails police power which was not validly delegated to IATF.

Also, the petition claimed that the provisions of the many resolutions discriminate against unvaccinated individuals and thus violate equal protection clause of the constitution.

“Pepe and Pilar” pleaded that they be allowed to file the petition pseudonymously and that their pleadings and service of notices be coursed through the electronic mail.

They cited, among other things, “reasonable fear of threats, harassment, reprisals or severe retaliatory harm, whether physical or mental, from either the supporters of the government or private interests, if their identities will be revealed; lack of any compelling interest from the public to know their identities; and the issues presented in the petition are purely legal in nature, making petitioners' identities irrelevant and unimpo1iant.”

In its resolution that dismissed the petition, the SC ruled:

“After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the present petition, DENY the motion for leave to proceed pseudonymously, and DENY the application for the issuance of a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction.

“In a plethora of cases, the Court has pronounced that the rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation but to provide for a system under which a suitor may be heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before a judge whose authority they acknowledge.

“These rules must be complied with and shall not be relaxed just to cater to the pleas of the party litigants.

“In this petition, there appears to be no legal and factual basis to grant the motion for leave to proceed pseudonymously. In the subject motion and petition, petitioners primarily cite their reasonable fear of threats, harassment, reprisal, or severe retaliatory harm to justify the grant of the subject motion.

“While We do not intend to invalidate these fears, they appear to be theoretical, not grave, imminent, or real. In addition, there appears to be no legal basis, either under the law, jurisprudence or relevant rules to grant petitioners' plea to litigate pseudonymously.

“Even if the procedural requirements are to be relaxed, the petition should likewise be dismissed for being substantially infirm. Petitioners' choice to file the instant petition pseudonymously and their failure to allege concrete facts preclude the Court from exercising its power to review this case on the merits.

“Fundamentally, for this Court to exercise the immense power that enables it to undo the actions of the other government branches, it is required that there be an actual case or controversy involving legal rights that are capable of judicial determination, among other requisites.

“We find that there is no actual case or controversy presented which may warrant the exercise of Our power of judicial review. An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.

“There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. The Court can decide the constitutionality of an act or treaty only when a proper case between opposing parties is submitted for judicial determination.

“In this case, petitioners failed to demonstrate how they were adversely affected by or how their legal rights had been violated by the subject IATF Resolutions such that it would warrant judicial review.

“Petitioners' mere allegation of the unconstitutionality of EO 168 and the subject IATF Resolutions is not sufficient to warrant the Court's exercise of its judicial power of review.

“In addition, a cursory review of the petition will show that petitioners failed to adduce sufficient and concrete facts to enable Us to intelligently adjudicate the issues presented.

“As such, their petition may be considered to be based on purely abstract or hypothetical grounds, warranting its outright dismissal. Verily, for the same reasons, petitioners failed to show that they possess the legal standing to file the instant petition.

“For the foregoing reasons, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The motion for leave to proceed pseudonymously and the application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction are DENIED."