We use cookies to help give you the best browsing experience.

By continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of

Accept
cookies.

POWERED BY

Watch 

We Do Pulse
INSTALL

June 9, 2020 

June 10, 2020

Bulacan MTC: Notifiable Diseases

Law Can’t Be Used Against People
Without Quarantine Pass, But…
The dismissal of the case against former Anakpawis Rep. Ariel Casilao marks the first known
effort by a trial judge to interpret the vague crime of “non-cooperation” under the Notifiable
Diseases Law.

Vince Nonato

A policeman asks a motorist at a checkpoint in Caloocan City to show a document for identification on May 29, 2020
amid the modified enhanced community quarantine in Metro Manila. Photo by Edd Gumban, The Philippine STAR
ADVERTISEMENT
We use cookies to help give you the best browsing experience. By continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of
Accept
cookies.

POWERED BY

Watch 

A Bulacan court has ruled that traveling outside the residence without a travel permit or a
quarantine pass “does not qualify” as “non-cooperation” in violation of Republic Act No. 11332 or
the Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Concern Act.

This is the first known effort to interpret the relatively new law in the context of lockdowns
imposed in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Ads by Innity

Norzagaray Municipal Trial Court Judge Julie Rita Suarez-Badillo made the pronouncement in
her order dismissing the charges against former Anakpawis congressman Ariel Casilao and six
volunteers for violation of Section 9(d) of RA 11332.
We use cookies to help give you the best browsing experience. By continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of
Accept
cookies.
The so-called Anakpawis 7 were flagged down at the Barangay Bigte quarantine checkpoint on
POWERED BY

their way to distribute relief goods to the hungry as a result of the enhanced communityWatch 
quarantine imposed by the government since mid-March. The Department of the Interior and
Local Government accused them of using an “unauthorized food pass” to travel.

In throwing out the “non-cooperation” charges, the court said: “While such act illustrates
defiance to the open directive to observe the enhanced community quarantine, such infraction
however does not fall under the prohibited acts of RA 11332.”

The Philippine STAR recently obtained from Anakpawis its copy of the two-page dismissal
order dated May 13.

Suarez-Badillo’s interpretation in the Anakpawis case does not bind other courts. Under the
doctrine of stare decisis, binding precedents are established in Supreme Court decisions. The
judge also did not render the decision after a full-blown trial – the case could not move forward
since “the facts charged… do not constitute an offense” under RA 11332.

Yet the case is worth noting in the absence of any decision by the highest court of the land so
far.

No definition for ‘non-cooperation’

Section 9(d) of the law, which President Duterte signed on April 26, 2019, prohibits the act of
“non-cooperation of persons and entities that should report and/or respond to notifiable
diseases or health events of public concern.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The word “non-cooperation” was neither defined in the law nor the implementing rules and
regulations that the Department of Health (DOH) released on March 20 and published in two
newspapers (including The STAR) on April 23. The IRR usually clarifies how the provisions of
the law should be interpreted to guide enforcers, but in this case, it merely restates what is
contained in the law.
The vagueness of the term “non-cooperation” enabled authorities to use Section 9(d) of the law
We use cookies to help give you the best browsing experience. By continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of
Accept
to justify arresting and pressing charges against those deemed to have violated the varying
cookies.

quarantine measures
POWERED BY
enforced at the local government unit level.
Watch 

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra on March 16 mentioned the act of “non-cooperation” under
RA 11332 as among the laws that could be used to go after quarantine and curfew violators
(the other offense he cited was disobedience to persons in authority under Article 151 of the
Revised Penal Code).

On March 25, the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) issued a statement pointing out
that the term was not sufficiently defined and may be prone to abuse. “Malabo ang probisyong
pagpaparusa rito kung kaya’t nagbubukas ito ng samu’t saring interpretasyon at nagbibigay
daan sa pag-abuso ng mga kinauukulan. Maaaring makuwestiyon ito sa hukuman (This penal
provision is so vague that it is open to interpretation and may give way to abuse by authorities.
It can be questioned before the courts),” NUPL said.

On April 19, Casilao and the other Anakpawis members were arrested at the checkpoint. They
were freed on bail only on the night of April 22.

Department of the Interior and Local Government Undersecretary Jonathan Malaya claimed the
group “conducted an unauthorized travel outside of Metro Manila, and attempted to organize a
mass gathering in Norzagaray, Bulacan in the guise of distributing relief goods.”

He said the group placed an “unauthorized food pass in the windshield of their jeep,” although
Pamalakaya argued that the pass was issued by Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
National Director Eduardo Gongona. Malaya also alleged that the group brought “propaganda
materials,” although media outfit Pinoy Weekly said the group carried back issues of its
magazine.
Some residents were rounded up by roving police and detained at a covered court on April 24, 2020 for violating the
We uselockdown’
‘hard cookies to imposed
help give you the best browsing
in Sampaloc, Manilaexperience. By continuing
for 48 hours to curb to use this site
COVID-19 means you agree
transmission. to our
Photo byuse of de
Miguel Accept
cookies.
Guzman, The Philippine STAR
POWERED BY

Watch 
On May 13, the court said “non-cooperation” was not the proper case to file against those who
allegedly breach the quarantine or fail to secure travel permits.

The judge deemed the law to be limited to, as the title implies, the “mandatory reporting” of the
existence of contagious diseases.

It used the House and Senate bills in the 17th Congress that eventually became the law to
provide context for the meaning that lawmakers intended for the word “non-cooperation.”

For one, Section 12 of Senate Bill No. 1647 (authored by former senator Joseph Victor Ejercito
and incumbent senator Nancy Binay) “shows that the prohibited act covers the non-cooperation
of persons or entities that should report the public health events to the appropriate public health
authority.”

Meanwhile, the court said Section 9 of SB 1864 (authored by Sen. Risa Hontiveros) and Section
9(c) of House Bill No. 7134 (sponsored by Quezon 4th District Rep. Angelina Tan) “both suggest
the non-cooperation of persons and entities that should report and/or respond to notifiable
diseases of health events of public health concern to qualify as one of the prohibited acts.”

Suarez-Badillo thus concluded: “RA 11332 therefore makes obligatory the reporting of a
condition… to the (DOH). The law also mandates the cooperation to the response system
institutionalized by the (DOH) to address the public health emergency.”

“Hence, RA 11332, refers to mandatory reporting of health information about the notifiable
diseases as well as cooperation to the response systems to health related events,” the court
added.

Since this was deemed to be the real thrust of the law, the court said: “This specific act, to the
mind of the (court), does not constitute or at the very least contemplate the prohibited act under
Section 9(d) of RA 1332.”

Reactions

Casilao said the group felt vindicated and criticized the “failure of judgment by the police to
apprehend the volunteers, which was followed by the filing of a garbage case to the court.”

“By simply reading the provisions, it is already clear that they are not applicable against us, but
still the PNP had the absurdity to file it,” he said.

The Anakpawis members would still have to face a separate case of inciting to sedition. Casilao
was also charged with usurpation of authority because the group allegedly dropped his name
even if he was no longer an incumbent member of Congress. He expressed confidence that
these charges were “weaker than the first case.”
The STAR asked Guevarra if prosecutors should be guided by the Anakpawis case, but he said
We use cookies to help give you the best browsing experience. By continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of
Accept
he “will check on this case first.”
cookies.

POWERED BY

Watch
Guevarra said the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan was still “studying whether they


will file a motion for partial reconsideration.”

The justice chief noted that Casilao and the Anakbayan members would still be arraigned on
June 24 to face the charges of inciting to sedition and usurpation of authority.

Malaya said he “can’t comment yet” on the question of how the court order might affect the
government’s efforts to go after quarantine violators, as he had not yet read it.

Asked if the court order would affect the government’s efforts to go after quarantine violators,
Malaya said no.

“It’s just one count. The violations of the Revised Penal Code and the Bayanihan Act are
proceeding anyway,” he said. “Meaning, the court saw probable cause and it’s now up to the
(Department of Justice) prosecutor to make the case. It’s no longer in our hands.”

Meanwhile, NUPL president Edre Olalia said the dismissal of the case “validates our firm legal
opinion for the longest time that these acts or activities are not illegal much less criminal.”

Olalia said prosecutors and judges “should deliver the message to the barangay, police and
military that they are shamelessly wrong” about the use of RA 11332 to file charges.

“While not binding in other cases and courts, it proves that there are still competent, prudent
and independent judges out there who can provide judicial refuge against silly, mechanical if not
malicious charges versus citizens,” Olalia stressed.

“The problem is, you can get arrested illegally, harassed, demonized, thrown in jail and be
burdened with such judicial processes meanwhile,” he said.