ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1927 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 27484 September 1, 1927 - ANGEL LORENZO v. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

    050 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 26957 September 2, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMEON YUSAY

    050 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 26360 September 7, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIBERTO CALLE

    050 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 27234 September 7, 1927 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    050 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 26659 September 9, 1927 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN SERNA

    050 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 26672 September 9, 1927 - PROCESO ECHARRI v. FELICIANO GOMEZ

    050 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. 27054 September 9, 1927 - MACARIA SOLIS v. CHUA PUA HERMANOS

    050 Phil 636

  • G.R. Nos. 26853-26855 September 10, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO UNDIANA

    050 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 27143 September 10, 1927 - QUINTILLANA SAMSON v. MANUEL CARRATALA

    050 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 27178 September 10, 1927 - TIMOTEO UNSON v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    050 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 27213 September 10, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO S. TAN

    050 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 27449 September 10, 1927 - CHUA PUA HERMANOS v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BATANGAS

    050 Phil 670

  • G.R. Nos. 26598 & 26599 September 17, 1927 - SIA SIMEON VELEZ v. RAMON CHAVES

    050 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 26671 September 17, 1927 - MUNICIPALITY OF ORION v. F. B. CONCHA

    050 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 27209 September 17, 1927 - ANDRES M. GABRIEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA

    050 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 27020 September 19, 1927 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. M. J. MCCUENE

    050 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 27498 September 20, 1927 - IN RE: JOSEFA TONGCO v. ANASTACIA VIANZON

    050 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 28320 September 20, 1927 - RUFO SAN JUAN v. PERFECTO ABORDO

    050 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 26849 September 21, 1927 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MARTINO TOMBIS TRIÑO

    050 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 26771 September 23, 1927 - RUPERTO SANTOS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    050 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 27180 September 24, 1927 - TEODORO DE CASTRO v. MARINO OLONDRIZ

    050 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 26538 September 27, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO SORIANO

    050 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 26844 September 27, 1927 - ISABEL FLORES v. TRINIDAD LIM

    050 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 26941 September 27, 1927 - JUAN ARQUIZA LUTA v. MUNICIPALITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    050 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. 27048 September 27, 1927 - SILVESTRA BARON v. ANSELMO SAMPANG

    050 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 27552 September 27, 1927 - MANILA MERCANTILE Co. v. MARIANO FLORES

    050 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. 28117 September 27, 1927 - LORENZA SUÑGA v. FRANCISCO TINGIN

    050 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 27110 September 28, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO MIANA

    050 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 27120 September 28, 1927 - JUANA AGAPITO v. CANDIDO MOLO

    050 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. 26708 September 29, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJO RESABAL

    050 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. 27483 September 29, 1927 - ENCARNACION RAMOS v. JUSTO DUEÑO

    050 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 27895 September 30, 1927 - CLEMENTE REYES v. PABLO BORBON

    050 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. 27040 September 29, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO GARALDE

    052 Phil 1000

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 27484   September 1, 1927 - ANGEL LORENZO v. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH<br /><br />050 Phil 595

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 27484. September 1, 1927.]

    ANGEL LORENZO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, Respondent-Appellee.

    Gregorio Perfecto for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SEGREGATION OF LEPERS; DETERMINATION OF FACTS INVOLVED IN CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES. — Section 1058 of the Administrative Code empowering the Director of Health and his authorized agents "to cause to be apprehended, and detained, isolated, or confined, all leprous persons in the Philippine Islands" was enacted by the legislative body in the legitimate exercise of the police power which extends to the preservation of the public health.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — In the case of a statute purporting to have been enacted in the interest of the public health, all questions relating to the determination of matters of fact are for the Legislature. If there is a probable basis for sustaining the conclusion reached, its findings are not subject to judicial review.

    3 ID.; ID.; ID. — Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded from society, and that compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the disease is supported by high scientific authority. The appellate court refuses to require the trial court to receive evidence to determine if leprosy is or is not a contagious disease.

    4. "HABEAS CORPUS;" PROCEDURE. — When an application for the writ of habeas corpus is presented and allowed, the return of the writ provided by law is made. Unless the petitioner traversed the return, the only issue is whether the facts stated in the return as a matter of law authorized the restraint.


    D E C I S I O N


    MALCOLM, J.:


    The purpose of this appeal is to induce the court to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila sustaining the law authorizing the segregation of lepers, and denying the petition for habeas corpus, by requiring the trial court to receive evidence to determine if leprosy is or is not a contagious disease.

    The petition for the writ of habeas corpus was in the usual form. Therein it was admitted that the applicant was a leper. It was, however, alleged that his confinement in the San Lazaro Hospital in the City of Manila was in violation of his constitutional rights. The further allegation was made that leprosy is not an infectious disease. The return of the writ stated that the leper was confined in the San Lazaro Hospital in conformity with the provisions of section 1058 of the Administrative Code. But to this was appended, for some unknown reason, the averment that each and every fact of the petition not otherwise admitted by the return was denied. Although counsel for the appellant makes mention of the form which the return of the writ of habeas corpus took, so as not to complicate matters unnecessarily, we prefer to give attention only to so much of the return as is contemplated by law and to disregard the rest as surplusage. The petitioner not having traversed the return, the only issue is whether the facts stated in the return as a matter of law authorized the restraint (Code of Civil Procedure, chap. XXVI; Code of Criminal Procedure, secs. 77 et seq.) .

    The Philippine law pertaining to the segregation of lepers is found in article XV of chapter 37 of the Administrative Code. Codal section 1058 empowers the Director of Health and his authorized agents "to cause to be apprehended, and detained, isolated, or confined, all leprous persons in the Philippine Islands." In amplification of this portion of the law are found provisions relating to arrest of suspected lepers, medical inspection and diagnostic procedure, confirmation of diagnosis by bacteriological methods, establishment of hospitals, detention camps, and a leper colony, etc.

    In its simplest aspects, therefore, we have this situation presented: A leper confined in the San Lazaro Hospital by the health authorities in conformity with law, but with counsel for the leper contending that the said law is unconstitutional, and advancing as the basis for that contention the theory to be substantiated by proof that human beings are not inoculable with leprosy, and that the disease may not be communicated by contact.

    Section 1058 of the Administrative Code was enacted by the legislative body in the legitimate exercise of the police power which extends to the preservation of the public health. It was placed on the statute books in recognition of leprosy as a grave health problem. The methods provided for the control of leprosy plainly constitute due process of law. The assumption must be that if evidence was required to establish the necessity for the law, that it was before the Legislature when the act was passed. In the case of a statute purporting to have been enacted in the interest of the public health, all questions relating to the determination of matters of fact are for the Legislature. If there is a probable basis for sustaining the conclusion reached, its findings are not subject to judicial review. Debatable questions are for the Legislature to decide. The courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting theories (1 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., pp. 379; 380; 6 R. C. L., pp. 111 et seq.; Jacobson v. Massachusetts [1904], 197 II S., 11; Segregation of Lepers [1884], V Hawaiian, 162; People v. Durston [N. Y. ] [1890], 7 L. R. A., 715; Blue v. Beach [Ind. ] [1900], 50 L. R. A., 64; Nelson v. Minneapolis [Minn. ] [1910], 29 L. R. A., N. S., 260.)

    Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded from society, and that compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the disease is supported by high scientific authority. (See Osler and McCrea, The Principles and Practice of Medicine, 9th ed., p. 153.) Upon this view, laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over. Similarly, the local Legislature has regarded leprosy as a contagious disease and has authorized measures to control the dread scourge. To that forum must the petitioner go to reopen the question. We are frank to say that it would require a much stronger case than the one at bar for us to sanction admitting the testimony of expert or other witnesses to show that a law of this character may possibly violate some constitutional provision.

    For more reasons than one, we think that Judge Concepcion took exactly the correct stand in deciding this test case, and that consequently his decision should be upheld. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

    Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 27484   September 1, 1927 - ANGEL LORENZO v. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH<br /><br />050 Phil 595


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED