THE Supreme Court has required Malacañang to comment on a petition seeking to compel President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to undergo physical and mental examinations, including a hair follicle drug test, and to disclose the results to the public.
Without giving due course to the petition, the Court ordered respondents President Marcos and Executive Secretary Ralph Recto to submit their comment within a non-extendable period of 10 days from receipt of notice.
The petition for mandamus, filed on April 15, was lodged by former House speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, retired general Virgilio Garcia, Juan Raña and Raymundo Junia, all acting as registered voters and taxpayers. It also sought to compel the president to undergo medical evaluation and to direct the publication of his medical report, including findings on his physical and mental fitness to discharge the duties of the presidency.
The petitioners anchored their arguments on Article VII, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, which requires public disclosure of the president’s health in cases of serious illness, and Article III, Section 7 on the right of the public to information on matters of public concern.
They argued that the president’s health condition was a matter of “paramount public concern,” citing the declaration of a state of national emergency on March 24, due to surging petroleum prices linked to the conflict in Iran.
The petition cited alleged observations during public appearances, including “slurring speech, incoherent statements and apparent general weakness in physical demeanor,” as well as unverified reports of possible hospitalization.
It also referred to a November 2025 statement attributed to the president’s sister, Sen. Imee Marcos, alleging a “long-standing addiction to illegal drugs,” which the petitioners said warranted further investigation.
The filing acknowledged the president’s recent public appearance where he performed brief physical exercises at Malacañang, but the petitioners argued it was insufficient, claiming he appeared “flustered and out of breath.” The group contended that the constitutional provision on presidential health disclosure is self-executing and enforceable without legislation, arguing that the president has a ministerial duty to respond to public concerns over his fitness.
Citing jurisprudence, the petitioners claimed all requirements for mandamus were present, including a clear legal right, a corresponding ministerial duty and lack of an adequate legal remedy.
They also justified bypassing lower courts, arguing that the case involved “transcendental importance” and national security concerns given the president’s role in government operations and policy direction.
