A group of pro-Duterte retired generals is asking the Supreme Court (SC) to compel President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to disclose the status of his health.

Led by Major General Romeo Poquiz, members of the United People’s Initiative (UPI) filed a petition for mandamus with the High Court on April 10 directed at Marcos and Malacañang.

A petition for mandamus is filed to compel the government to enforce a duty or an obligation. In this case, they want Marcos and the Palace to share details about the President’s health condition.

“Wherefore, petitioners most respectfully pray for timely and expeditious issuance of a Writ of Mandamus compelling Respondents to disclose the true state of the physical and mental health of the President pursuant to Section 12 of Article VII of the Constitution,” the petition said.

Apart from this, the retired generals are also asking the SC to require Marcos to:

• To undergo and publicly disclose the result of a hair follicle drug test
• Issue “regular, accurate, and timely medical bulletins in the event of any condition that may affect his capacity to govern.”

UPI is the same group that asked the SC in March to resolve the pending petitions related to former president Rodrigo Duterte’s International Criminal Court arrest.

The Duterte supporters are seeking action from the SC amid rumors surrounding Marcos’ health.

In the last weeks, there had been a lot of allegations on social media claiming that the President is seriously sick or had died. Marcos, responding to the claims, did jumping jacks on April 13 and dared his detractors to “come to the gym with [him].”

But can supporters of the former president really compel a sitting President to disclose the status of his health?

What’s the legal basis?

The former generals are invoking a provision in the 1987 Constitution that mandates the chief executive to disclose his/her health.

“In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health. The Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President during such illness,” Article VII, Section 12 of the Constitution states.

But it’s not easy to invoke this law.

Lawyer Dino de Leon attempted in 2020 to compel no less than Duterte to disclose his health status.

De Leon went to the High Court so that the then-president would release his psychological examination results, health bulletins, and other medical records. The lawyer sought the SC’s intervention due to Duterte’s absences in public events and his admissions of some diseases, including the rare myasthenia gravis muscle disease.

This was the first time the constitutional provision on the president’s health was tested since 1987, but the tide did not turn in De Leon’s favor. The SC voted 13-2 to outrightly dismiss the case, without having to require Malacañang to answer the petition.

What does the Duterte case say?

The SC did not grant De Leon’s petition because it failed to establish a prima facie case for mandamus. Prima facie means evidence “that is not rebutted or contradicted, making it good and sufficient on its face to establish a fact constituting a party’s claim or defense,” according to Wa-acon vs. People.

Meanwhile, the High Court did not discuss much of the decision, but cited a deliberation of the Constitutional Commission on Section 12, Article VII.

The SC said that according to then-commissioner Blas Ople, people should be more “trusting” of the Office of the President because “they will know what appropriate means to take in order to release this information to the public in satisfaction of the public’s right to know of the presidency.”

The SC added that these deliberations also mentioned that the “the state of health or analysis as to the actual condition 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.”

According to the SC, the claims about Duterte’s health were also based on news articles, which the Court called “hearsay evidence.”

But not only that — the High Court also said that Duterte was visibly holding Cabinet meetings, which “belied” the allegations that Duterte was suffering from serious illnesses.

“Further, the President’s regular televised addresses to the nation as regards the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic show that the President has been actively performing his official duties,” the SC said.

“Apparently, petitioner’s allegation that the President is seriously ill is unsubstantiated and is based merely on petitioner’s surmises and conjectures regarding his perception of the declining health of the President,” it added.

If you will ask them, dissenters Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa believed that the SC should have fully litigated De Leon’s petition and interpreted the provision in question.

For Caguioa, the SC decision signaled an “overly deferential attitude” to the then-president. The justice also said that relying on the deliberations of the constitutional commission that say it is up to the President’s sole discretion to disclose his/her health condition “defeats the purpose of the provision and renders it wholly ineffective if not completely inutile.”

But nevertheless, applying the logic drawn from Duterte’s case, Marcos’ display of his exercise routines, on top of televised briefings and engagements, might be enough to set aside the constitutional provision on presidents’ health. At least for now. – Rappler.com