By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
SC: We are the court of last resort, not the first
The petitions filed by Dr. Jose C. Montemayor, Jr. and other petitioners assailing
the constitutionality of the issuances of the Inter-Agency Task Force on COVID-19 and
Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF) could have been a seminal case on the state’s
power to restrict, if not to deprive, basic human rights during a public health
emergency.
Montemayor, in his capacity as a doctor and an unvaccinated person, asked the
Supreme Court to declare IATF Resolution No. 148-B unconstitutional for being violative
of the right to travel and of due process, as well as to seek clarity on what constitutes
‘public interest.’ He claims that the unconstitutionality of IATF Resolution No. 148-B is
reviewable under the Court’s expanded power of judicial review and asserts that there
is no solid scientific evidence to suggest that unvaccinated individuals have low
immunity, are contagious and infectious, and should be avoided or otherwise
imprisoned in their own homes to curtail their mobility. In the same vein, he prays for
the issuance of a restraining order to enjoin the implementation of IATF Resolution No.
148-B.
PASAHERO, et al., challenge the constitutionality of the assailed issuances for
having no legal basis. Even assuming that these have basis, they nevertheless violate
Section 1, Article III of the Constitution for trampling on the right to life and liberty
without due process of law, an impairment of the right to travel, as well as an
infringement of the equal protection clause for applying only to those without access to
private vehicles, and is discriminatory against the unvaccinated. They aver that the
impugned measures embody a mandatory vaccination policy considering that the use of
public transportation is an essential part of Filipino life. There is also neither proof that
the spread of the virus occurs in public vehicles nor the prohibition for travel of the
unvaccinated will help ease the undue burden on the public health system.
After a perspicacious review of the pleadings, the Court ruled that the petitions
had passed the procedural roadblocks. It held that there was an actual case or
controversy ripe for judicial determination; petitioners have the locus standi; they have
raised the issue of constitutionality at the earliest opportunity; and the petitions have
passed the lis mota test.
Despite successfully satisfying the procedural requirements for the high tribunal
to take cognizance of the case, the Court still dismissed the case on another ground:
the petitions violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
‘We are the court of last resort, not the first.’
Despite the presence of all the requisites of judicial review, there is yet another
crucial procedural barrier that the consolidated Petitions must overcome. This relates to
the propriety of seeking direct audience with this Court.
It is an elementary principle that the Court exercises original jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. This
authority is bestowed by none other than the Constitution, particularly Section 5 (1),
Article VIII 96 thereof. This, however, is not within the Court’s exclusive province. Such
power is also exercised by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals pursuant to
Sections 9 (1) and 21 (1) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129.
This shared original jurisdiction notwithstanding, the Court has consistently
reminded parties that they do not have unfettered discretion in selecting the forum to
which their application will be directed. Verily, the litigant must first seek relief from
lower courts sharing concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court. The failure to do so will
be sufficient for the dismissal of the case. This is what is known as the doctrine of the
hierarchy of courts. Simply put, the doctrine ‘serves as the general determinant of the
appropriate forum for [petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs].’ Applying this
rule, such petitions against first level courts should thus be filed with the Regional Trial
Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. The direct invocation of
the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs, meanwhile, is allowed only
when there are special and important reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out
in the petition.
||| (Montemayor, Jr. v. Inter-Agency Task Force, G.R. Nos. 258619, 258746 &
260327 (Notice), [July 11, 2023])