The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed three petitions against the alleged unconstitutionality of the issuances on Covid-19 pandemic by the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF), local government units (LGUs) and other government agencies.

In a resolution issued during the SC’s full court session on Tuesday, July 11, the tribunal’s public information office (PIO) said: “The Court held that petitions were dismissible for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts as the resolution of the issues raised therein required the determination and adjudication of extremely technical and scientific facts that necessitates the conduct of a full-blown proceeding before a court of first instance.”

This means that the petitions should have been filed first before the trial courts for proper proceedings.

A copy of the resolution was not released by the PIO.  It has not been uploaded in the SC website – sc.judiciary.gov.ph.

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.

The PIO 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, specifically: 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 that 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.”

It also said the petitioners alleged that “the impugned measures embody a mandatory vaccination policy considering that the use of public transportation is an essential part of Filipino life.”

It assured that it “will upload the resolution once it receives a copy from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc.”

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 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 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 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.