Case Digest (G.R. No. 235891)
Facts:
Princess Sherisse A. Abines, et al., G.R. No. 235891, September 20, 2022, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are seventy‑four children inoculated with Dengvaxia (represented by their parents) and several citizen/taxpayer/legislator petitioners; the respondents are Dr. Francisco T. Duque III (Secretary, Department of Health), Dr. Lyndon L. Lee Suy (DOH program director), Nela Charade G. Puno, RPh (Director General, Food and Drug Administration), Hon. Leonor Magtolis Briones (Secretary, Department of Education), and Hon. Catalino S. Cuy (Officer‑in‑Charge, Department of the Interior and Local Government), sued in their official capacities.In late 2015 the DOH engaged with Sanofi Pasteur about Dengvaxia; the FDA subsequently approved the vaccine and the DBM released a P3.5 billion Special Allotment Release Order. The Philippine Children’s Medical Center procured vials through a private distributor, and the DOH and DILG rolled out a school‑based immunization program covering elementary pupils nine years and older in selected regions. In mid‑2016 the program was briefly suspended by Secretary Ubial for safety concerns, later resumed and expanded; between 2016–2017 studies and media reports raised safety questions. In November 2017 Sanofi issued an advisory that Dengvaxia benefits those with prior dengue infection and may pose risks to seronegative vaccinees; by December 1, 2017, Secretary Duque suspended the program and the FDA halted sale, marketing, and distribution.
Petitioners filed a verified petition (styled as a Petition for Mandamus invoking a writ of continuing mandamus under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court) directly with the Supreme Court in December 2017, seeking directives requiring respondents to, among other things, disseminate task force reports, conduct open safety reviews, create and (where permitted) publish a registry of vaccinees, provide free monitoring and medical care for vaccinees, and hold clinics for initial consultations. Respon...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners have legal standing to file the Petition?
- Is the direct filing an exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts so that original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court is proper?
- Are petitioners entitled to a writ of continuing mandamus (or mandamus under Rule 65), and would issuance of such writ violate the princip...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)