Solicitor General asks SC to junk petition seeking drug test, physical exam for Marcos

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss a petition seeking to direct President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. to submit himself to physical and mental examination, including a hair follicle drug test.

In a 23-page comment, the OSG said that the petition is a violation of the doctrine of presidential immunity, which protects a president from suit during his tenure.

The OSG cited a previous ruling in De Lima v. Duterte where it held that any litigation will serve as a distraction to the sitting president.

“Applying the ruling and rationale in De Lima, the present petition must be dismissed outright. It is not enough to merely drop the President as a respondent, as the relief sought necessarily and directly demands his personal attention, time, and physical well-being,” it said.

“These matters cannot be delegated even to his closest alter ego. To give due course to this case would inevitably burden the President and divert his limited time from the discharge of essential governmental functions,” it added.

The OSG also argued that the petitions have no legal standing.

The petition was filed by former House speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, Virgilio Garcia, Juan Raña, and Raymundo Junia, against Marcos and Executive Secretary Ralph Recto as respondents.

The petitioners invoked their status as voters and taxpayers.

Aside from a physical and mental examination, they also sought to direct Marcos to disclose and publish the medical report indicating the results of the examination, including medical and clinical confirmation of his physical and medical fitness to discharge the powers and duties as president.

This came amid rumors that the president was sick.

However, the OSG said that the SC previously defined legal standing as a ‘Personal and substantial interest in the case arising from the direct injury they sustained, or will sustain, as a result of the challenged governmental action.”

“Petiitoners do not assail any election law. Their assertion of standing based on their being registered voters is therefore untenable,” it said.

Meanwhile, it said that the rule that a taxypayer’s suit must involve illegally disbursed public funds or an unconstitutional tax measure. It said that the petitioners did not establish any illegal disbursement or misapplication of funds.

Aside from this, the OSG said that they cannot file the petition as concerned citizens as they have not claimed to have suffered any injury.

According to the OSG, there is also no constitutional basis for the request.

It cited the dismissal of Dino De Leon’s mandamus case against former President Rodrigo Duterte.

As it listed Marcos' public activities from April 9 to May 13, the OSG also said that the petitioners’ allegations can be negated by the president’s public appearances.

“The above public engagements dispel any doubt on the President’s health and capacity to discharge his duties,” it said.

“The same likewise completely negate any prima facie proof of serious illness that would reasonably justify a case for mandamus against the president,” it added.

Further, the OSG said that the petitioners’ invocation of the Right to Information under Section 7, Article III of the Constitution is “utterly misguided.”

It said that Section 12, Article VII is the specific constitutional provision governing the president’s health disclosure and cannot be displaced by Section 7.

The OSG also said that Section 7 is not absolute.

“As this Honorable Court explained, the constitutional guarantee to information ‘does not open every door to any and all information’,” it said.

“It is limited to matters of public concern, and is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law,” it added.

It also said that Marcos retains the right to privacy, including informational privacy. — BM, GMA News