THE Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed petitions challenging the constitutionality of numerous regulations issued by the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF) in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as directives issued by local government units and other government offices.
A briefer issued by the SC Public Information Office said the en banc “unanimously voted to dismiss the consolidated petitions for violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.”
Among the issuances assailed by petitioners Jose Montemayor Jr., activist Nicanor Perlas and transport group Passengers and Riders Organization Inc. were IATF issuances No.148-B, 148-G, 149, 150, 155, 163 and 164, IATF Guidelines on the Nationwide Implementation of Alert Level System for COVID-19 dated February 27, 2022, as well as related issuances issued by the Department of the Interior and Local Government, Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, Department of Health, Department of Education, and the Makati City government.
IATF Resolution No.148-B mandated all public and private establishments to require their employees tasked to do onsite work to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus, on pain of subjecting themselves to RT-PCR testing every two weeks at their own expense, among other provisions.
The petitioners have argued that the IATF issuances “trampled on their right to life and liberty” without due process of law and constituted an infringement on their right to travel and the equal protection clause for applying only to those without access to private vehicles, and for being discriminatory against the unvaccinated.
They also argued that the measures embodied a mandatory vaccination policy for public transportation despite of the fact that commuting is an essential part of everyday life of many Filipinos.
But the magistrates said the petitioners should have followed the hierarchy of courts instead of lodging their petitions directly with the High Court.
“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 stance,” the briefer said.
