The Supreme Court (SC) was asked to deny for lack of merit the petition to compel President Marcos to submit himself to physical and mental health examinations, including a hair follicle test to determine a habitual or long-term illegal drug use.

In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) told the SC the petition should be dismissed outright not only because the petitioners lack legal standing to sue but also because it violates the President’s absolute immunity from suit while in office.

It said the petition filed by former congressman and former House speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez, Virgilio R. Garcia, Juan C. Rana and Raymundo L. Junia failed to show any legal or constitutional basis to compel the President to submit to any medical examination and publish its results, nor demonstrated any factual basis to assert any serious illness on the part of the President.

It stressed: “Stripped clean of bombast and rhetoric, this Petition is nothing more than a fishing expedition. It must be resolutely denied.”

In the mandamus petition filed by Alvarez and his group, also named respondent was Executive Secretary Ralph G. Recto.

A writ of mandamus is a directive to a government official, agency, or corporation to perform a mandatory duty that they have neglected or refused to perform.

The petitioners told the SC that “the complete state of the President's health and well-being is a matter of utmost concern for the public. His physical and mental ability to stir the country's policy and operational direction ought to always be ensured and disclosed to the people. Especially so when timely and appropriate action is called for amid a declared national emergency.”

They cited Section 12, Article VII of the Constitution on the right of the public to be informed of the state of the President’s health in case of serious illness, and Section 7 of Article III on the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern.

They added that the President’s “disturbing behavior and impressions” during his public interviews and public appearances include slurring speech, incoherent statements and apparent weakness in his physical demeanor.

They also cited media reports about alleged hospitalization of the President for serious but undisclosed health conditions.

They added: “Despite the gravity of such reports, there has been no official confirmation, denial or medical bulletin issued by competent medical professionals to clarify the matter. The lack of transparency has caused widespread public uncertainty and concern.”

In its comment, the OSG – led by Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe – said that under Section 12 of Article VII of the Constitution Cabinet members for national security and foreign relations are the officials expressly recognized by the Constitution as having access to the President in case of serious illness.

Thus, it said, “petitioners do not even have the requisite legal standing to initiate this case, to begin with.”

The OSG pointed out that an overly broad interpretation of the Constitutional requirement to inform the public of the state of the President’s health “may open the gate to political harassment and undermine governmental stability.”

It stressed that “the President has no constitutional duty to undergo any physical and mental examination, let alone a hair follicle drug test, and disclose the report, to demonstrate his fitness to discharge the powers and duties as Chief Executive.”

It pointed out: “The duty to inform the public becomes operative only in cases of serious illness of the President. The term ‘serious illness’ must be read in relation to the succeeding sentence, which ensures that key cabinet members shall not be denied access to the President during such illness. Implicit in this section is its aim of ensuring that the President is unhampered in the performance of his official duties and where a condition is sufficiently serious as to impair such capacity, this fact is not concealed from the public.”

The OSG also explained that under Section 12, the disclosure of the President’s health to the public is needed only when his serious illness already exists as a fact.

“It cannot be based on unfounded allegations, bare assertions, or, worse, on mere speculation, as in this case,” it said.

It also said that the President “has repeatedly informed the public that he is healthy and well and that he continues to discharge the functions of his office, and, thus, there is no factual basis to justify the extraordinary remedy of mandamus as herein prayed.”

At the same time, the OSG pointed out to the SC: “Attention must be given to petitioners’ admission that this case for mandamus has no evidentiary support. In their Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, petitioners categorically stated that evidentiary support will be available only after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.”

The OSG said the right to information “affords access to existing official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions.”

“It does not authorize courts to create new official records by compelling the President to undergo a hair follicle drug test or any other medical procedure. Here, the reliefs prayed for would not draw upon any existing repository of official records. Rather, they would manufacture new clinical data through a court-ordered intrusion upon the person of the President. This is beyond the scope of Section 7,” it added.

It asked the SC that the petition “be denied/dismissed for utter lack of merit.”