Basic information			Substance of the ruling			Accessibility of the case and further relevant links
Date	Name of the case (or case number)	The body delivering the decision	Keywords, topic	Executive part	Brief summary	Full text	Page at the website of the issuing court	Page in other databases	Unofficial materials, press communications
May 11. 2021.	Decision UDK No. 16838.	Supreme Court of the Philippines	Vaccination; right to an effective remedy	The Supreme Court of the Philippines rejected a mandamus claim concerning the procurement of Sinovac vaccinations against the Covid-19 pandemic.	An act adopted by the Parliament provided broad margin of discretion for the President of the Republic to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic, including the procurement of vaccinations. The President ordered to to acquire Sinovac vaccinations, which was contested by a mandamus claim before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition since it did not raise any relevant constitutional issue. Moreover, such a petition should be submitted first to an ordinary court instead of the Supreme Court.	https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/may2021/udk_16838_2021.html		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/philippines-supreme-court-philippines-decision-udk-no-16838-2021-05-11	https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1146781
January 13. 2021.	Decision G.R. No. 247611.	Supreme Court of the Philippines	Rights of prisoners; right to a fair trial; right to an effective remedy	The Supreme Court of Philippines dismissed the urgent petition of a detained woman sentenced for plunder for bail or house arrest during the public health emergency.	The Supreme Court of Philippines heard an urgent request of a woman sentenced for plunder and detained during the trial of her still pending appeal. During the Covid-19 pandemic, she requested her bail or house arrest on humanitarian grounds, she mentioned her diabetes as a compelling reason to lift her inprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim, since presomption of innocence and right to bail were deemed to cease once the first instance ruling convicted her for capital offence. Apart from this, the alleged humanitarian reasons are not compelling, therefore, the urgent request was dismissed.	https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67088		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/philippines-supreme-court-philippines-decision-gr-no-247611-2021-01-13
September 1. 2020.	Case No. 1: G.R. No. 252556.	Supreme Court of the Philippines	Freedom of movement; right to an effective remedy; protection of personal data; right to information	The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a writ of mandamus challenging the lack of a coherent public health strategy, the lack of mass testing and the lack of transparent and thorough information from the global pandemic accessible for the public.	The claimants submitted a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court arguing that the Government failed to implement an effective curfew mechanism to combat Covid-19 pandemic, while mass testing had been also missing, and no special measures had not been taken for the protection of vulnerable groups. Moreover, precise and extensive information was not shared with the public from the rise of the pandemic which allegedly violated right to public information. The Supreme Court noted, that writ of mandamus is a remedy to be lodged when the judiciary should order the executive to perform a mandatory and non-discretionary task. In this case, such task had not been demonstrated, therefore, the petition was dismissed.	https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/wesleyan-university-philippines/political-law/151-taguiwalo-v-duque-gr-no-252556-notice-september-1-20201-dissenting-opinions/34522070		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/philippines-supreme-court-philippines-case-no-1-gr-no-252556-2020-09-01	http://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/9/16/supreme-court-mass-testing-petition-junked.html
July 28. 2020.	No. 252117.	Supreme Court of the Philippines	Rights of prisoners	The Supreme Court of Philippines rejected a claim of vulnerable persons to be released from inprisonment on bail or on recognizance during the Covid-19 pandemic.	The petitioners, members of the Communist Party of the Philippines were charged with capital offences and were detained during the trial of their case. In the light of the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioners submitted a claim to the Supreme Court and requested their release on bail or on recognizance on humanitarian grounds. The petitioners belonged to vulnerable groups during the public  health emergency, they were elder, pregnant persons or persons with serious illnesses, and their protection in the overcrowded jails were not appropriate against the pandemic. The Supreme Court held that in case of capital offences, bail or recognizance is a matter of fact, which should be considered by the ordinary courts. Therefore, the respective trial court was ordered to investigate whether the preconditions of bail or recognizance were fulfilled.	https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66595		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/philippines-supreme-court-philippines-dionisio-s-almonte-et-al-v-people-philippines-2020	http://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/4/8/supreme-court-prisoners-covid-19.html
June 30. 2020.	No. 252167‎.	Supreme Court of the Philippines	Separation of powers; freedom of movement	The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a claim challenging the special authorization given to the President of the Republic during the public health emergency.	The President of the Republic declared a state of calamity and imposed strict quarantine measures during the first vawe of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Congress enacted a law from the national policy against the Covid-19 pandemic, and authorized the President of the Republic to implement the act through executive orders. The claim alleged that the act provided legislative power for the President of the Republic, therefore violated the principle of separation of powers. As a consequence, executive orders issued based on this authorization lacked due delegation of power therefore, they were also unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim and held that the emergency powers provided for the President of the Republic was not overbroad and shall not be nullified.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/philippines-supreme-court-philippines-no-252167-2020-06-30