1.

Lorenzo v Director of Health 50 Phil 195

Facts:

Angel Lorenzo was a leper. He was confined in San Lazaro Hospital in Manila in conformity with the
provisions of Section 1058 of the Administrative Code, authorizing the segregation of lepers. Lorenzo
filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that his
confinement in said hospital was in violation of his constitutional rights. He alleged that human beings
are not incurable with leprosy and that the disease may not be communicated by contact. The trial court
sustained the law and denied the petition for habeas corpus. Lorenzo appealed.

Issue:

1. Whether the Administrative Code provision on the confinement of lepers is violative of one's
constitutional right.

2. May the court resolve the question whether or not leprosy is a contagious disease?

Held:

1. No. 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 place 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. 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 of supported by high scientific authority. 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.

2. 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 the 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 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. (Lorenzo vs Director of Health, No. 27484 September 1, 1927)

2. Villavicencio v Lukban 39 Phil 778

Facts : One hundred and seventy women were isolated from society, and then at night, without their
consent and without any opportunity to consult with friends or to defend their rights, were forcibly
hustled on board steamers for transportation to regions unknown. Despite the feeble attempt to prove
that the women left voluntarily and gladly, that such was not the case is shown by the mere fact that the
presence of the police and the constabulary was deemed necessary and that these officers of the law
chose the shades of night to cloak their secret and stealthy acts. Indeed, this is a fact impossible to
refute and practically admitted by the respondents.
ISSUE : Whether or not, Mayor Lukban has the right to deport women with ill repute.

HELD : Law defines power. No official, no matter how high, is above the law. Lukban committed a grave
abuse of discretion by deporting the prostitutes to a new domicile against their will. There is no law
expressly authorizing his action. On the contrary, there is a law punishing public officials, not expressly
authorized by law or regulation, who compels any person to change his residence Furthermore, the
prostitutes are still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled to the same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of
Rights, as every other citizen. Thei rchoice of profession should not be a cause for discrimination. It may
make some, like Lukban, quite uncomfortable but it does not authorize anyone to compel said
prostitutes to isolate themselves from the rest of the human race. These women have been deprived of
their liberty by being exiled to Davao without even being given the opportunity to collect their
belongings or, worse, without even consenting to being transported to Mindanao. For this, Lukban etal
must be severely punished.

3. Rubi v Prov. Board of Mindoro 39 Phil 660

FACTS:
The case is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of
Mindoro. It is alleged that the Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial
officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at
Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial
sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away from the reservation.
The provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in
question to take up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the
provincial governor and approved by the provincial board. The action was taken in accordance with
section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior
as required by said action.

Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows:

SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christian upon sites selected by provincial governor. With the prior
approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian
inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and
order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be
selected by him an approved by the provincial board.

Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitutes an unlawful delegation of
legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to a provincial official and a department head, therefore
making it unconstitutional.

HELD:
No. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of Mindoro, to be
exercised by the provincial governor and the provincial board.
In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or not, the distinction is between the
delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and
conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the
law. The first cannot be done; to the later no valid objection can be made. Discretion may be committed
by the Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature may make decisions of
executive departments of subordinate official thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of
certain acts, final on questions of fact. The growing tendency in the decision is to give prominence to the
"necessity" of the case.

In enacting the said provision of the Administrative Code, the Legislature merely conferred upon the
provincial governor, with the approval of the provincial board and the Department Head, discretionary
authority as to the execution of the law. This is necessary since the provincial governor and the
provincial board, as the official representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge when such
as course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order. As officials charged with the
administration of the province and the protection of its inhabitants, they are better fitted to select sites
which have the conditions most favorable for improving the people who have the misfortune of being in
a backward state.

Hence, Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of legislative
power by the Philippine Legislature to provincial official and a department head.