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.

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.

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.

The so-called Anakpawis 7 were flagged down at the Barangay Bigte quarantine
checkpoint on their way to distribute relief goods to the hungry as a result of the
enhanced community 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.”

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 to justify arresting and pressing charges against those deemed to have
violated the varying quarantine measures enforced at the local government unit level.

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.
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 he “will check on this case first.”

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.
Gov’t updates IRR of disease surveillance
law
The government has initiated moves to “update” the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the law
requiring disease surveillance and reporting as well as study the possible inclusion of penalties for quarantine
violators.

As the country battles the coronavirus outbreak, Cabinet Secretary Karlo Nograles said the Department of
Health (DoH) and Department of Justice (DoJ) have started to review the IRR of Republic Act No. 11332 or the
Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Concern Act.

Nograles bared the latest efforts to amend RA 11332’s rules and regulations after being asked about the
sanctions for people who won’t follow the mandatory use of face shields in public transportation and
workplaces.

Any penalty for violators of the latest health precaution will either depend on the ordinance that may be issued
by the local government units or the results of the IRR update of RA 11332, according to Nograles.

“Ang pinaka nakikita natin with that two things. No. 1, if may ordinance na gagawain ‘yung iba’t-ibang syudad,
then puwede may sanction o penalty ‘yan via ordinance (The two things we see are the following:No. 1, if the
different cities implement an ordinance, then there can be sanction or penalty via ordinance),” Nograles said
during his first Facebook Live event Saturday night about penalties for those who refuse to wear face shields.

Nograles said it was prudent to just wait for the revised IRR of RA 11332, a  public health measure signed by 
President Duterte in April 2019.

“Right now, DoH and DoJ are finalizing the language ng implementing rules and regulations. May IRR na ‘yan
RA 11332 but they are updating the implementing rules and regulations niyan. so abangan na lang natin kung
ano lalabas doon (RA 11332 already has IRR but they are updating the implementing rules and regulations so
let’s wait for the results),” he said.

The law aims to protect the people from public health threats through mandatory reporting of notifiable
diseases and health events, disease surveillance, and effective response system.  

Among the prohibitions of the law are unauthorized disclosure of private information about a patient’s medical
condition, tampering of records, non-cooperation of persons and entities that should report and respond
respond to diseases or health events, and non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having the
disease.

Violators of RA 11332 could face fines ranging between P20,000 and P50,000 and or imprisonment of not
more than six months.

The government recently ruled that the use of face shields will be mandatory for people taking public
transportation as well as employees in the workplace.
 Nograles said face shields, alongside wearing a mask and observing one-meter physical distancing, may
reduce the vulnerability to the coronavirus infection especially in “closed settings” like public transportation.  

He said experts have reported that wearing face shields if accompanied by other health precautions may boost
a person’s protection to 99 percent.

Meanwhile, RA 11332 focuses more on disease surveillance. The law requires hospitals
and patients who have illnesses listed in the infectious diseases to report to the
government.
Colmenares said violations under Section 9 of the law are the following:
 Unauthorized disclosure of private and confidential information pertaining to a patient’s medical
condition or treatment;
 Tampering of records of intentionally providing misinformation;
 Non-operation of the disease surveillance and response system;
 Non-cooperation of persons and entities that should report and/or respond to notifiable diseases
or health events of public concern;
Non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having the notifiable disease, or
affected by the health event of public concern;
“Because RA 11332 is mainly on mandatory reporting of diseases, the prohibited acts must
be strictly construed to relate to the intention and the police cannot, as the Supreme Court
in Centeno vs. Villalon
declared,” said Colmenares.
He said the police cannot make another interpretation of the law and suddenly create a new
offense. Thus, the charges against former Anakpawis Rep. Ariel Casilao and aid volunteers
for supposedly violating RA 11332 is inappropriate. Colmenares explained that those who
were charged were not even identified as persons who have a disease listed in the DOH’s
infectious diseases.

“What does RA 11332 provide? Section 9 of the law requires any person or entity to
report ‘notifiable disease’ to proper authorities. Anyone who refuses to do so will be
punished accordingly.”
“Under the present circumstances, a person identified to be affected by COVID-19, or
as a person under investigation (PUI) or a person under monitoring (PUM), or anyone
who knows one to be as such, must inform the proper authorities of such a case,” the
group explained.
“In other words, the law requires a prior identification as a COVID 19 patient, PUI or
PUM for the provisions to apply. Such is not the case here with the arrest of these 20
rights activists. Clearly, persons who have not been identified as having the dreaded
virus cannot be arrested or charged under this law,” the NUPL pointed out.
The lawyers group then said that it was “trying hard to outdo” the police, adding that
the “ludicrous” charges are “obviously and totally devoid of factual and legal basis” 
and should be dismissed.

Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1298324/no-legal-factual-basis-on-arrest-of-
activists-during-lgbt-pride-month-rally#ixzz6YBqAMuF4
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

In a series of tweets, the human rights lawyer explained in a mix of English and Filipino: “The PNP cannot arrest and detain you for violating
public health emergency measures. They can stop you and bar your entry, that is just right if needed, but they cannot arrest and detain you
because entering Metro Manila is not a crime.”

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra had a similar stance. He told reporters that “law enforcement agents can physically prevent actual
movements (entry into or exit from Metro Manila), unless covered by the exceptions or on highly justifiable grounds.”

But can they be arrested and detained? Only when there are other violations, said Guevarra.

“No. Just being physically prevented from entering or exiting. But if the person assaults the law enforcement agent, or slanders him, or bribes
him, then that’s cause for warrantless arrest,” he added.