INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed in 2017 by the women’s group Gabriela and more than 70 children who sought to compel the government to address the health risks posed by the controversial Dengvaxia dengue vaccine.
In a 28-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the high court dismissed the petition for mandamus filed against government officials led by then Health Secretary Francisco Duque III and former Education Secretary Leonor Briones.
It said the court cannot claim superiority over the respondent-government agencies and decide policies for them in managing the immunization program.
“In all, this Court refrains from intervening in the discretionary functions and prerogatives of the Executive department. Moreover, considering that mandamus may only be granted to enforce clear legal rights provided by law, this Court should dismiss the petition for mandamus,” the high court said in a decision promulgated in September but only made public on Feb. 6.
Sanofi admission
Among other things, the petition asked the high court to order free medical services and treatment to the 74 children, all of whom were inoculated with Dengvaxia, as well as a regular public dissemination of reports of the Department of Health (DOH) task force created to monitor and review the immunization program.
They filed the petition after drug manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur admitted that persons who had not had dengue fever before their vaccination might suffer severe dengue later.
Sanofi’s announcement sparked public uproar and congressional investigations on the role played by officials during the Aquino administration when it began administering Dengvaxia shots to thousands of schoolchildren in April 2016, shortly before the May elections.
Discretionary
Apart from Duque and Briones, also named respondents in the petition were former Interior Secretary Catalino Cuy; the late Dr. Lyndon Lee Suy, who was then program director of the DOH National Center for Disease Prevention and Control; and former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Director General Nela Charade Puno.
But the high court said the reliefs sought for by the petitioners involved purely administrative and discretionary functions.
“Mandamus does not lie unless the acts to be performed are enjoined by law. The duty of respondent-government agencies to perform the acts must be clearly provided for by law. Neither petitioners nor this Court can order respondent-government owned agencies how to perform their functions with respect to any immunization program; otherwise, this Court will effectively usurp the power and prerogatives of the executive in their enactment of their programs,” it stressed.
No technical expertise
The court also explained that it did not have supervisory powers over executive departments and agencies.
“These administrative agencies possess the competence, experience, and specialization in their respective fields. On the other hand, this Court does not have the expertise to resolve these technical issues,” it added.
Lack of substance
The high tribunal also said the petitioners could not pray for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus because the controversy did not involve the enforcement or violation of an environmental law or right.
While admitting that their cause of action does not arise in relation to an environmental law, petitioners banked on the importance and urgency of the relief sought.
However, the high court said: “Clearly, the petition for a writ of continuing mandamus before this Court does not involve any ecological right nor does it allege any right involving protection of the environment or the ecology. It mainly invokes alleged violations on the right to health.”
“Thus, petitioners cannot resort to this kind of writ. Even if it does, the petition must be dismissed for insufficiency of substance. The acts sought by petitioners to be performed are not enjoined by law as a duty. They are ministerial acts,” it added.
Constitutionality
The Supreme Court also said that it did not find “any serious or systematic inability” of respondents in the performance of their duties.
“Considering that these are agencies possessing the technical knowledge and specialization in their fields, the judgments of the Food and Drug Administration and the DOH are given significant weight and should not be impulsively disturbed,” it said.
It noted that when the vaccine was approved by the FDA, “there is a reasonable presumption that the approval is based on science and the subsequent recommendation by the DOH enjoys a presumption of constitutionality.”
Unsupported
“The presumption becomes heavier and more pronounced when there is a public health crisis such as a pandemic. Therefore, litigants who challenged the rolling out of vaccines, as mandated by the DOH experts in the field, must overcome the heavy presumption of constitutionality,” it said.
The high court also stressed that the petitioners failed to raise scientific and empirical bases to support the petition.
Already satisfied
“They did not present studies and research which demonstrates that the vaccine failed to satisfy safety and health standards. There are no sufficient scientific grounds proving grave error in the Food and Drug Administration’s and the Department of Health’s approval and distribution of the vaccines,” the high court said.
It likewise said the reliefs sought by the petitioners were already satisfied by the respondents. In their memoranda, the court noted, the respondents reported that they had been disseminating information on the DOH immunization program.
The DOH also submitted its reports to Congress while the FDA had been studying and reviewing the safety and efficacy of Dengvaxia. The health department also said it had been monitoring the children inoculated with Dengvaxia and offered them free medical services.