photo: screengrab from PCO
NO.
Here’s the Truth.
There is no law that totally prohibits public discussion of the President’s health—but there are legal and constitutional limits on how it’s discussed and what must be officially disclosed.
Constitutional rule (very important)
Under Article VII, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution:
“If the President suffers from a serious illness, the public must be informed.
The nature of the illness and its effect on the President’s ability to govern must be disclosed.”
This disclosure is made through an official medical bulletin, usually to Congress and the public.
There is no law that forbids the public from discussing or questioning the President’s health, especially when it concerns his capacity to govern. In fact, the 1987 Constitution is clear: when the President suffers from a serious illness, the public must be informed of its nature and its effect on his ability to perform official duties.
This does not mean the President must expose every medical detail. Like any citizen, he still enjoys the right to privacy. What the Constitution demands is transparency on fitness to govern, not secrecy disguised as privacy.
Public discussion becomes illegal only when false information is deliberately spread to mislead or malign. But asking questions, raising concerns, and demanding clarity is not a crime—it is a democratic duty.
When official disclosures are vague, delayed, or reduced to “the President is in good health” soundbites, public doubt is inevitable.
Transparency builds trust; silence fuels speculation.
In a democracy, power comes with accountability. The President is not just a private individual—he is a “public servant whose health directly affects national leadership”.
Secrecy is not stability. Transparency is.
-3o-
