Lorenzo vs. Director of Health [No. 27484 September 1, 1927]

Summary of the Case:

The statute 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 public health.

The petitioner and appellant, Angel Lorenzo is a leprous person and is confined in the San Lazaro Hospital in the City of Manila. He made an appeal to induce the court to set aside the judgment of the Court of the First Instance of Manila sustaining the law authorizing the segregation of lepers. Lorenzo alleged that his confinement in the San Lazaro Hospital was in violation of Constitutional rights and alleged that leprosy is not an infectious disease.

Relation to Article 3:
Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws.

I pity Angel Lorenzo for having leprosy. However, the law enacted was for the public safety and not just to make lepers an outcast of society. Petitioner claims that his constitutional rights were violated and I believe that he was referring to the deprivation of liberty. It is true that he is deprived of liberty but he is deprived with due process of law. His confinement and treatments is a compensation for his freedom. It should be taken as an advantage for him. He is helping the country so as the citizens won’t be infected of leprosy and helping his self to get proper treatment and attention to his illness.

As discussed in class, there are two types of due processes, the substantive and procedural. In this case, his confinement is part of the procedural due process. He is isolated, but in exchange, he is treated. So, there is no violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. The judgment was affirmed.

On the grounds that Leprosy is not a contagious disease. People in the past used to think that only by touching a leper, or by having contact, one would get infected but it isn’t really true. The bacteria that causes leprosy is a weak disease-causing agent, as to be compared from other contagious disease. And it was till the mid 19th century that the 1st effective drug was discovered. So, the mystery of Leprosy still clouded the minds of the people in the time of Lorenzo, that’s why the law was enacted because it was believed to be a very grave threat to the public health. Unlike the AH1N1 virus, wherein the modes of transmission are really known, the people infected with the virus voluntarily isolated and quarantined themselves. In this case, the petitioner could not really defend himself in saying that it is not a highly contagious disease because the facts about this disease were not yet very well known. That’s why the law was taken as a necessary measure to prevent the spread of the disease which was believed to be highly contagious.

Robin Padilla vs. Court of Appeals [Gr No. 121917 March 12, 1997]

Summary of the Case:
One night, Enrique Manarang noticed the accused appellant’s car running fast. After a while, a screech of tires was heard and thus, made the officer run out and investigate. Not so long, the car continued to run, so a hot-pursuit took place. Manarang then radioed the incident to the Police.
When the car was put to a stop, the driver rolled down the windows with his hands raised. The officers then noticed that it was the famous actor, Robin Padilla. While apprehended, because of the hit-and-run incident, the police saw the revolver tucked in the left waist of Robin. So, the police insisted that the gun be shown in the office if it was legal. The crowd had formed and Robin was shaking their hands and pointing to the police while saying “iyan kinuha ang baril ko”, as if it was in the movies. The gesture then revealed a magazine clip of a rifle which made the police suspect that there is a rifle inside the vehicle. Then the rifle was seen. The other firearms were voluntarily surrendered by Robin.
Now, Robin’s defense was that his arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.
Robin Padilla was arrested, tried, and convicted for illegal possession of firearms. He was in possession of a .357 caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson with 6 live ammunitions, One M-16 baby Armalite Rifle with ammunitions, One .380 Pietro Barreta with 8 live ammunitions, and six live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.

Relation to Article3: Section 2.

Robin claimed that there was no search warrant or warrant of arrest thus, making his arrest illegal and the evidences inadmissible. The Bill of rights’ purpose is to put limit to the government’s power. In the People vs. Marti case, the government was not involved. In this case, the government is involved but it was not illegal.
Why? According to what’s written in the case, a peace officer or a private person may arrest a person: (a) when the person has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit and offense, (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
The instances above clearly explain the legality of the arrest. Robin Padilla, my idol had first sideswept a balut vendor and the incident was heard by Manarang and he saw Robin fled away from the scene, thus, committing a hit-and-run. And Enrique Manarang was a peace officer.
When he was halted, the firearms were revealed to the police officers without their act of searching. The firearms were in “plain view”. And the firearms were found by the police in their pursuit of their official duties. And the police have the right as to where they are because they were in pursuit of Robin when they found the firearms.

CAUNCA VS. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851; NO.L-2690; 1 JAN 1949]

Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita Flores who was employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau, owned by Julia Salazar, respondent herein. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency, for her to work as a maid. However, Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence, which was disallowed by the employment agency. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment, which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave.


Issue: Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to restrain and detain a maid without returning the advance payment it gave?


Held: An employment agency, regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid, has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. The fact that no physical force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent does not make less real the deprivation of her personal freedom of movement, freedom to transfer from one place to another, freedom to choose one’s residence. Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed, to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another, the victim is entitled to the protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by duress or physical coercion.