Title
Supreme Court
Nepomuceno vs. Duterte
Case
UDK No. 16838
Decision Date
May 11, 2021
Former mayor challenges COVID-19 vaccine procurement, citing efficacy concerns; Court dismisses petition, citing presidential immunity, lack of ministerial duty, and improper direct filing.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227457)

Ground for the Petition

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to adhere to the rules set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the procurement and use of drugs, and to cease the purchase and use of COVID-19 vaccines until required trials are conducted. The underlying concern emphasized by the petitioner was the absence of robust evidence on the efficacy of the Sinovac vaccine in addressing COVID-19.

Presidential Immunity

The Court determined that President Rodrigo Duterte must be dismissed as a respondent due to the principle of presidential immunity. This immunity protects the incumbent President from being sued, irrespective of the lawsuit's nature. The Court referenced established case law affirming that this concept, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is understood within Philippine jurisprudence, ensuring that the President can carry out his functions without the distraction of litigation.

Lack of Ministerial Duty

The petition was dismissed on the grounds that it did not establish the existence of a ministerial duty that the respondents were required to undertake. The petitioner failed to point out a governing law obliging the respondents to conduct trials for the procurement of the Sinovac vaccine. The Court highlighted that during the time of procurement, no law mandated the completion of clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines, as the relevant requirement was suspended for a defined period.

Discretionary Powers of Respondents

The Court recognized that the respondents had been granted discretion to address the pandemic and procure COVID-19 vaccines as illustrated in Republic Act No. 11494. This law allowed the President to exercise necessary powers to implement COVID-19 response initiatives without being bound by typical legal requirements for procurement, including legal mandates for trials.

Emergency Use Authorization

Additionally, the issuance of Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) by the FDA further exempted the vaccines from standard clinical trial requirements, as long as they were endorsed by recognized health organizations. The Sinovac vaccine had obtained an EUA, which permitted its use without comprehensive trials, indicating that the procurement and subsequent administration of the vaccine were conducted in compliance with legal procedures.

Jurisdictional Considerations

The Court noted that the direct filing of the petition was improper, as challenges regarding vacc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.