THE Supreme Court has junked “Pepe and Pilar’” petition seeking to declare as unconstitutional Executive Order No. 168, which created the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-MEID) as well as its mandatory vaccination issuances against Covid-19.
In an eight-page resolution made public on August 31, 2022, the Court also denied the plea of “Pepe and Pilar” for issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the IATF-MEID from exercising its duties and functions and from implementing its resolutions.
The Court dismissed the petition due to its “procedural defects and non-compliance with the Rules of Court” and for being “substantially infirm.”
Among the procedural defects of the petitioner 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.
“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,” the SC said.
“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,” it added.
Furthermore, the SC said the petitioners’ decision to file the petition pseudonymously and their failure to allege concrete facts prevented the Court from exercising its power to review the case on the merits.
“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,” the SC declared.
It held that the petitioners failed to present an actual case or controversy which would warrant the magistrates to exercise their power of judicial review.
“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 IA TF Resolutions such that it would warrant judicial review,” the SC said.
“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,” it added.
In seeking that they be allowed to file the petition pseudonymously, the petitioners cited reasonable fear of threats, harassment, reprisal from the supporters of the government or private interests.
The petitioners argued that E.O, 168 and IATF Resolutions were issued with grave abuse of discretion and should be declared unconstitutional, null and void, and without legal effect
They claimed that the President has no power to create an office such as the IATF-MEID since such power is exclusively granted to Congress.
They insisted that IAT Resolution No. 148-B, Sections A,B,C,D,F, and G giving preferential treatment to COVID-19 vaccinated employees and individuals is unconstitutional as these curtail personal liberties.
The said resolutions, according to the petition, violate equal protection clause under the Constitution as it discriminates against unvaccinated individuals.