7 De Leon v.
Duterte (“anti-social and narcissistic personality disorder”) submitted in the course of the
G.R. No. 252118
DATE: 8 May 2020
By:
Topic: General Considerations; Presidency
Petitioner: Dino S. De Leon
Respondent: Rodrigo Roa Duterte
Ponente:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
 Petitioner alleged that the President has been absent from several arrangements
due to health reasons and also had prolonged absences from public view. He
averred that the president looked incoherent during the COVID-19 live press
conferences on March 12, 2020.
 Petitioner filed a Freedom of Information Request under E.O. No. 2 (2016) with the
OP. Seeking to be clarified on the status of the president’s health, petitioner
specifically asked for copies of the president’s latest medical examination results.
 In response to his request, the Malacanang Records Office (MRO) sent to him an
electronic mail dated March 13, 2020 stating that it is unable to provide the
information requested. MRO explained that the records requested are neither on
file not in its possession and that it shall accommodate petitioner’s request as soon
as the requested information becomes available for release.
 Petitioner allegedly failed to get a response from the MRO despite follow-ups
 Petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus seeking to compel respondents to (1)
disclose all medical and psychological/psychiatric examination results, health
bulletins, and other healthy records of the president ever since he assumed
presidency and (2) compel the president to undergo additional confirmatory
medical and psychological examinations which shall be publicly disclosed in order
to ensure the accuracy of the health records to be released.
 Petitioner anchors his alleged right to be informed in the basis of Sec. 12, Art. VII
and Sec. 7 Art. III in relation to Sec. 28 Art. II of the 1987 Constitution.
Sec. 12 Art. VII
SECTION 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the
state of his health. The Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign
relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied
access to the President during such illness.
Sec. 7 Art. III
SECTION 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official
acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.
 Petitioner argued that illnesses acknowledged by the president (Buerger’s Disease,
Barret’s esophagus, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, and Myasthenia Gravis
together with migraine and spinal issues) are serious illnesses within the ambit of
Sec. 12 Art. VII of the Constitution. He also considers the psychological report
trial court proceedings for the declaration of nullity of his marriage.
ISSUE:
WON petitioner is entitled to grant of Urgent Petition for Mandamus (No)
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
 "Mandamus is defined as a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or
person to do the act required to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment
of a right or office or which such other is entitled, there being no other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Writ of mandamus is
an extraordinary remedy that is issued only in extreme necessity, and the ordinary
course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and speedy relief to one
who has a clear legal right to the performance of the act to be compelled.
 Petitioner seeks to avail himself mandamus but he himself cited the deliberations
on the Constitutional Commission on Sec. 12, Art. VII wherein the proponent
thereof, Ople stated that “we are called upon to be more trusting with respect to
the Office of the President that they will know what appropriate means to take in
order to release information to the public on its satisfaction of the public’s right to
know of the presidency.”… “The state of health or analysis as to the actual
condition of the president should be left to the president and his doctor”
 Further, the stated claims of serious illnesses purportedly suffered by the president
were merely based on what he perceived from the online news articles discussing
the president’s illnesses. These news articles are, as the Court consistently ruled,
characterized as “hearsay evidence, twice removed, and are this without any
probative value”
 In the recent months the president has been visibly holding regular cabinet
meetings, regular televised addresses to the nation as regards to the government’s
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 Based on the allegations itself petitioner failed to establish the existence of a clear
legal right that was violated, or that he is entitled to the writ of mandamus prayed
for.
WHEREFORE, the Extremely Urgent Petition for Mandamus is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.
SEPARATE OPINIONS
LEONEN, J. (dissenting)
 The president should maintain fealty to the people he represents. The Constitution,
in my view, requires that upon demand and, even on his own, respondent should
publish a regular and official medical bulletin from doctors of his own choice.
Anything should of this violates the constitutional proscription against the right of
the people to matters of public concern. It is suggestive of obfuscation and an
intent to hide the true state of his health.
CAGUIOA, J. (dissenting)
 The president’s capacity to govern is a matter of public interest whether during
ordinary times or in “an awkward moment in the life of a nation where national
survival ought to be secured in the face of a major threat.” The latter is precisely
what confronts the country now – its continued survival given the gravity of a
pandemic which affects not only the entire country but the whole world. It is a fair
and reasonable requirement for the public to be informed of the state of health of
the president when threats and emergencies affecting the country are present –
including emergencies involving public health.
 The wording of Sec. 12 Art. VII itself, as well as the intention of the Framers
imposes a positive duty and recognizes the right of the public to be informed. To
interpret the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission as a grant to the
president of the absolute choice between divulging and concealing serious illness,
and by extension the state of the president’s well-being, defeats the purpose of the
provision and renders it wholly ineffective if not completely inutile. This is a
dangerous path which should not be taken.