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.
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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete