[ G.R. No. 42199. January 14, 1936 ] 62 Phil. 835
[ G.R. No. 42199. January 14, 1936 ]
THE PEOPLE OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE ABAD LOPEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
HULL, J.:
Appellant was convicted in the municipal court of Manila for a violation of section 2694 of the Administrative Code and appealed to the Court of First Instance. He was again convicted and brings this appeal. Section 2694 of the Revised Administrative Code, under which appellant was prosecuted, reads:
“SEC. 2694. Failure of person in charge of child to present same for vaccination.—Any parent, guardian, or other person having charge of any child over one month old who shall fail to present the same for vaccination, as required by law, or who shall fail to return any such child to the vaccinating officer for verification of the effect of the operation, or for later vaccination, as the case may be, shall be fined ten pesos for each offense.”
Appellant is the father of twin baby girls. He is a doctor in good standing, practicing his profession in the City of Manila, and belongs to the homeopathic school. He contends that vaccination can be accomplished by administering drugs through the mouth. The prosecution contends that the vaccination required by section 2694 above quoted is by the scarification method. It is not disputed that the children have not been vaccinated by the scarification method and that the father will not have it done unless compelled by law. The right of the State to compel compulsory vaccination is well established (Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, 197 U. S., 11), and not put in question in these proceedings. The decisions of American courts are uniform to the effect that whatever dispute may exist between the various schools of medicine as to how smallpox is to be prevented, that question is for the legislature, not for the courts, to determine. The word “vaccination” standing alone means to the common man, scarification, not drugging, and this is the definition given by the standard dictionaries and likewise is the interpretation given by American judicial decisions. There is no reason to believe that the legislature used this term in any other sense, but we are not left in any doubt because in the same section they speak of a vaccination as an “operation”. In the immediate preceding section of the Revised Administrative Code, section 2693, the legislature says:
“Any person liable to vaccination who shall refuse to submit to the operation * * *.”
Certainly taking a drug by the mouth is not submitting to an operation. Appellant also contends that he cannot be convicted as he signed a certificate as a practicing physician that the two children had been vaccinated and bases his contention upon section 1054 of the Administrative Code, which reads:
“SEC. 1054. Persons liable to vaccination.—Every person in the Philippine Islands shall submit to vaccination when thereunto lawfully required, unless he shall furnish satisfactory evidence either by a certificate from a physician or vaccinator, or otherwise, to the effect that he is immune from the disease of smallpox. Such vaccination shall be performed gratis.”
As he admits that he had not vaccinated the children as required by law, the certificate which he furnished himself is of no value. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed, with costs. So ordered. Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, Diaz, Butte, and Vickers, JJ., concur.