Case Summary (G.R. No. 27484)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Decision date: September 1, 1927. The case is an appeal from the Court of First Instance of Manila which sustained the statute authorizing segregation of lepers and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellate court reviews whether the facts admitted in the return legally justified the restraint without receiving further evidence.
Applicable Law and Legal Basis
The statutory basis for the detention is Article XV, Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code, specifically codal section 1058, empowering the Director of Health and authorized agents “to cause to be apprehended, and detained, isolated, or confined, all leprous persons in the Philippine Islands.” The court frames the statute as an exercise of the legislative police power directed to preservation of public health and construes the statutory procedures (inspection, diagnosis, bacteriological confirmation, hospitals, detention camps, colony) as providing due process.
Facts as Presented
The petition admitted that petitioner was a leper and that his confinement was pursuant to section 1058. The petition alleged constitutional violations on the theory that leprosy is not infectious and therefore no lawful basis existed for compulsory segregation. The return to the writ asserted confinement in conformity with the Administrative Code and denied other allegations not admitted.
Issue Presented
Whether, in a habeas corpus proceeding where the return admits statutory confinement of an admitted leper under section 1058, the court must receive evidence to determine the scientific question of whether leprosy is contagious and thereby adjudicate the constitutionality of the statute.
Court’s Standard of Review and Reasoning
The court held that when the return to a habeas corpus petition admits the facts authorizing detention under a statute enacted in the exercise of police power, the only question is whether those facts, as admitted, authorize the restraint as a matter of law. For statutes enacted for the public health, factual determinations underlying the legislative judgment are for the Legislature. If there is a probable basis supporting the Legislature’s conclusion, courts will not substitute their own resolution of debatable scientific or factual questions. The judiciary will not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting scientific theories in place of the legislative judgment.
Evidence and Judicial Notice
The court declined to admit extrinsic expert testimony to relitigate whether leprosy is infectious. It took judicial notice that leprosy is commonly believed to be infectious, that segregation of lepers is widely accepted as a preventive public-health measure, and that high scientific authority supports compulsory segregation. The court cited medical authority (Osler and McCrea) and precedents (including Jacobson v. Massachusetts and various state and territorial decisions) to show that segregation laws have been su
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 27484)
Case Citation, Court, and Decision
- Reported at 50 Phil. 595, En Banc; G.R. No. 27484; decision dated September 01, 1927.
- Decision authored by Justice Malcolm; opinion delivered for the Court; Justices Avancena, C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez concurred.
- The appeal challenges the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila which sustained the statute authorizing segregation of lepers and denied the petitioner’s application for habeas corpus.
Purpose of the Appeal and Relief Sought
- The purpose of the appeal is to induce the Court to set aside the trial-court judgment that sustained the law authorizing segregation of lepers and denied habeas corpus.
- The petitioner sought an order requiring the trial court to receive evidence to determine whether leprosy is or is not a contagious disease.
- The writ of habeas corpus was invoked to challenge the legality of the petitioner’s confinement.
Facts Alleged in the Petition for Habeas Corpus
- The petition for the writ of habeas corpus was in the usual form.
- The petition admitted that the applicant was a leper.
- The petitioner alleged that his confinement in San Lazaro Hospital in the City of Manila violated his constitutional rights.
- The petition further alleged that leprosy is not an infectious disease, presenting this as the factual premise to challenge the law justifying confinement.
The Return to the Writ and Procedural Limitation
- The return stated that the petitioner (a leper) was confined in San Lazaro Hospital in conformity with the provisions of section 1058 of the Administrative Code.
- The return inexplicably appended an averment that each and every fact of the petition not otherwise admitted by the return was denied; the Court treated this as surplusage and disregarded it.
- The petitioner did not traverse the return; consequently, the only issue for decision was whether the facts stated in the return, as a matter of law, authorized the restraint, pursuant to applicable provisions governing habeas corpus procedure (Code of Civil Procedure, chap. XXVI; Code of Criminal Procedure, secs. 77 et seq.).
Statutory Basis — Administrative Code, Article XV, Chapter 37, Section 1058
- Section 1058 of the Administrative Code 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.”
- The statute is amplified by provisions concerning:
- arrest of suspected lepers;
- medical inspection and diagnostic procedure;
- confirmation of diagnosis by bacteriological methods;
- establishment of hospitals, detention camps, and a leper colony.
- The petitioner’s confinement was expressly asserted to be in conformity with these codal provisions.
Legal Issue Presented
- Whether, as a matter of law, the facts alleged in the return — namely, that the petitioner is a leper confined pursuant to section 1058 — authorized t