The UE Law Journal believes in the freedom of speech and expression,

and for this legal controversy, this is our view. Our fellow UE Warrior-
Lawyers are welcome to express their opinions regarding this issue,
however, as future lawyers, let us limit ourselves to academic discourse
and avoid using insults or trolling.
Earlier this week, President Rodrigo Duterte released a public statement
threatening to arrest all Filipino citizens who refused to be vaccinated
against Covid 19. This sparked an online debate among government
officials and prominent legal figures on the legality of the president’s
statement.
A vital principle of Criminal law is that there can be no crime if there is no
penal law punishing it. The Rules of Court states that only a judge, upon
a finding of probable cause, can issue a warrant of arrest. Moreover,
since there is no law declaring non-vaccination as a crime, a warrantless
arrest under Rule 113, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court cannot be validly
invoked to arrest someone who refuses to get vaccinated.
However, on Wednesday, Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo
argued that the President’s order is constitutional. According to Panelo,
because of the country’s state of emergency, the Constitutional
provisions found in Article 2, Sections 5 and 15 regarding public health
are operative and subsequent legislation is not needed for its
enforcement and validity, thereby validating the President’s order.
The University of the East - Law Journal, would like to give its take on
the issue through this statement:
In Panelo’s interview, he cited the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in Imbong
vs. Ochoa, wherein the legality of the Reproductive Health Law was
placed in question. The Supreme Court held in this case that provisions
found in Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution do not require any legislation
and are operative in nature. In Imbong vs. Ochoa, the controversy
revolved around the validity of a statue. In this case, however, there is
no statute invoking the power of the President to issue the arrest of
citizens who refuse to get vaccinated. Therefore, the case of Imbong vs.
Ochoa cannot find application in the present situation.
In the case of Tanada vs. Angara, the Court ruled that the provisions
found in Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution are non-self-executing and
that such broad principles need legislative enactments before they can
be implemented. They are used by the judiciary as guides in the
exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislative in its
enactment of laws.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held in the case of People vs.
Madrigal that criminal and penal statutes are to be strictly construed.
This means that criminal statutes cannot be enlarged or extended by
mere implication. Essentially, crimes are punishable only when they
emanate from the sources of Criminal Law in the Philippines, which are:
1) The Revised Penal Code and its amendments, 2) Republic Acts, 3)
Presidential Decrees, and 4) Other Special Penal Laws passed by
Congress. This fundamental rule of Criminal Law does not cite the
Constitution as a source of criminal law; therefore, the Constitution
cannot be used to justify the arrest order for non-vaccination. Even if the
Constitutional provisions on public health are to be held as operative, the
same does not, in any way, punish any criminal conduct, nor is it penal
in nature. 
Lastly, in an interview with former dean of the Ateneo School of
Government Tony La Vina, he stated that the absence of any law
penalizing non-vaccination would be wrong from a policy standpoint.
Filipino citizens have the freedom to choose to be vaccinated or not. The
government’s vaccination program should be reasonable and not
restrictive, otherwise it would be a violation of the constitutional right to
due process.
We are once again, reminded of the age old latin maxim “Nullum
Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege” or there is no crime if there is no penal
law punishing it. As future UE Warrior-Lawyers, we must keep a critical
eye on this story as only the Courts of Law can place this doctrine to the
test.

Sources:
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/06/24/21/bilanggo-o-bakuna-mandatory-
covid-19-vaccination-would-be-wrong-says-lawyer
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/792624/panelo-contradicts-
doj-says-duterte-order-to-arrest-those-refusing-to-get-vaccinated-legal/story/
https://www.rappler.com/nation/roque-says-government-wait-law-before-
arresting-persons-refusing-covid-19-vaccines?
utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1624372273-1
https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2021/6/22/DOJ-Duterte-vaccination-jail-
threat-.html