By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
Just a week apart are separate declarations swirling on the internet about two (2) possible home invasions that the government through the police will be perpetrating, which are: (1) to hunt down COVID-19 patients like criminals in a house-to-house search; and, (2) to hold a “shame-campaign” against those who tested positive of the virus.
It is bad enough that these measures are benign to the common purpose of flattening the curve; what is worse is that they are not only “too close to home” but are already a siege on the person’s hearth.
A COVID-19 patient, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic- or any medical patient for that matter- can never be likened to a criminal. Doing so would be like comparing apples to oranges. And not even criminals deserve to be publicly-shamed as it is not one of the penalties imposed or prescribed within the full spectrum of our legal system. These suggestions are as obnoxious as rotten apples and oranges.
The closest that these planned actions of the government through the police in predicating them to a law would be through REPUBLIC ACT No. 11332 or An Act Providing Policies and Prescribing Procedures on Surveillance and Response to Notifiable Diseases, Epidemics, and Health Events of Public Health Concern, and Appropriating Funds Therefor, Repealing for the Purpose Act No. 3573, Otherwise Known as the “Law on Reporting of Communicable Diseases”.
But the only “prohibited acts” specified by this law, are:
“Section 9. Prohibited Acts. -The following shall be prohibited under this Act:
(a) Unauthorized disclosure of private and confidential information pertaining to a patient’s medical condition or treatment;
(b) Tampering of records or intentionally providing misinformation;
(c) Non-operation of the disease surveillance and response systems;
(d) Non-cooperation of persons and entities that should report and/or respond to notifiable diseases or health events of public concern; and
(e) Non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having the notifiable disease, or affected by the health event of public concern.”
There is nothing in this law that allows for government or police intrusion into the homes of the citizens. On the contrary, Section 9 (a) of this law penalizes the act of “(a) Unauthorized disclosure of private and confidential information pertaining to a patient’s medical condition or treatment”. Thus the legal soundness of these planned actions of the government through the police, therefore, is highly questionable.
More importantly, that the privacy of the home is sacrosanct is not only of social construct but is an established legal and jurisprudential tenet.
The inviolability of the home is one of the most fundamental of all the individual rights declared and recognized in the political codes of civilized nations. No one can enter into the house of another without the consent of its owners or occupants.
The privacy of the home — the place of abode, the place where a man with his family may dwell in peace and enjoy the companionship of his wife and children unmolested by anyone, even the king, except in rare cases — has always been regarded by civilized nations as one of the most sacred personal rights to which men are entitled. Both the common and the civil law guaranteed to man the right of absolute protection to the privacy of his home. The king was powerful; he was clothed with majesty; his will was the law, but, with few exceptions, the humblest citizen or subject might shut the door of his humble cottage in the face of the monarch and defend his intrusion into that privacy which was regarded as sacred as any of the kingly prerogatives. The poorest and most humble citizen or subject may, in his cottage, no matter how frail or humble it is, bid defiance to all the powers of the state; the wind, the storm and the sunshine alike may enter through its weather-beaten parts, but the king may not enter against its owner’s will; none of his forces dare to cross the threshold of even the humblest tenement without its owner’s consent. (THE UNITED STATES v. LORENZO ARCEO ET AL., G.R. No. 1491 March 5, 1904)
Indeed, the most humble abode may be exposed to the elements as its walls and ceilings could be tattered: battered by rain, wind and sun. But the teachings of jurisprudence highlight that not even the king in all his majesty can enter a man’s house without his consent. While the Philippines is not a monarchy, but having been under Spain for a long time in its history, this legal principle had been handed down through time such that most of the privileges of the king are now enjoyed by the State; and so, too, are the obligations. The principle of the sacredness of a home is one of the most fundamental civil liberties that a citizen enjoys more so to this day.
For the government to implement measures that would invade a person’s home would be to convert his place of succor to a place of fear. Home is supposed to be where the heart is- not where fear dwells.
(Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
