DoJ exec in hot water over Dengvaxia mess

Parents of children who died after getting inoculated with Dengvaxia on Monday called for the removal of Undersecretary Jesse Hermogenes Andres as head of the panel of state prosecutors handling more than 100 cases of deaths attributed to the vaccine.

They requested President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla to effect the transfer of Andres to another position due to a conflict of interest.

The call came after the Department of Justice dismissed 24 cases last month due to the lack of Dengvaxia cards.

Sumachen P. Dominguez, president of Samahan ng mga Magulang, Anak at Biktima ng Dengvaxia, said Andres should inhibit from his position because he was a former lawyer of Rep. Jeanette Garin, one of those charged criminally for the Dengvaxia deaths.

“He should inhibit from the handling the panel of prosecutors handling the cases for delicadeza because he is a lawyer of one of those accused which was filed before the DoJ,” Dominguez said.

She added that they have been fighting for five years only to receive the bad news about the dismissal.

“How can that be when in fact former Health Secretary Francisco Duque lll admitted before the Senate investigation that not all those inoculated were given the Dengvaxia card,” Dominguez said.

Andres was tasked to supervise the National Prosecution Service following the issuance of DoJ Department Circular 029 dated 13 September.

Under a 10 October memorandum, Andres’ supervisory functions include overseeing the panel handling the Dengvaxia cases.

The Public Attorney’s Office said it already sent a letter to Marcos and Remulla asking for the inhibition of Andres due to conflict of interest.

It cited the case of Palacios versus Amora Jr., A.C. 11504, 1 August 2017 quoting the decision on Hornilla vs Salunat, A.C. 5804, 1 July 2003: “Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof.”

The PAO, in a statement, said it is clear in the mentioned cases that acceptance of a lawyer of another obligation or client is treated as a conflict of interest if the said lawyer is prevented from performing his obligation due to his new job with faithfulness.