Constitutionality of mandatory vaccination
Published Aug 23, 2021 12:04 am
VIEWS FROM THE RIDGE
COVID-19 cases are on the rise again and a growing number of US companies, including news network giant CNN, are now requiring workers to get vaccinated as a condition of continued employment.
Mandatory vaccination is not a new issue; it has long been debated across the globe. More than a century ago, its constitutionality was settled in the 1905 US Supreme Court case of Jacobson v Massachusetts. The challenge was against the Massachusetts law requiring smallpox adult vaccination and providing penalty for refusal. The US Supreme Court – in a seven-two vote – upheld the State’s authority to enact measures to promote public health in the exercise of police power. The Courtheld that the exercise of one’s right is not absolute and is subject to restraint – i.e., for the common good.
Although inherent, police power has limitations. In Jacobson, the US Supreme Court stressed that police power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, and clearly held that necessity was the sole justification for theCourt’s ruling: Mandatory inoculation was necessary for public health and safety because of the increasing number of cases within the locality.
In our jurisdiction, police power is also an inherent attribute of sovereignty and is the seedbed of the State’s obligation to protect public health. Our jurisprudence is thus replete with cases emphasizing that the right of the State to protect the health of its citizens stems from the exercise of its police power. Repeatedly and relentlessly, the Supreme Court recognized the valid restriction on the exercise of a person’s right or the enjoyment of his property when his action would tend to destroy public health, public morals, public safety, and the general welfare.
More so, the protection of public health by the government is a State policy under the 1987 Constitution. Its significance is reinforced in several cases reiterating its self-executory nature.
The question confronting us is: Can a law compel COVID-19 mass vaccination in the Philippines?
While the factual milieu in Jacobson is not exactly similar to our situation today, the legal principles it laid down continue to be relevant. Within the domain of police power, the validity of any statute that mandates vaccination must be reasonably necessary for the promotion of public health and general welfare. Reasonable necessity guarantees protection of the constitutional right to due process. It shields the people from any attempt to whimsically exercise the all-encompassing police power of the State.
Undeniably, the State may order mandatory vaccination by virtue of a valid exercise of its police power and in observance of a constitutional state policy.
The next question is: Does this exercise give employers the license to bar their employees from entering the workplace when they refuse to be vaccinated?
Management prerogative permits employers to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the proper conduct of its business, provided that the policy is proven to be reasonably necessary and rationally connected to the performance of the job. Thus, a company policy that punishes employees for failure to comply with a mandatory vaccination law would be valid if and only if such policy passes the test of reasonableness. Failure of employees to follow a valid company policy may warrant imposition of disciplinary measures or even dismissal from service. However, imposition of punishment against an employee who refuses to be inoculated for valid reasons would be unjust. Thus, at both ends of the question, the issue is reasonableness.
In all, mandatory vaccination is constitutional. It is an exercise of the State’s police power and the discharge of the constitutional State policy of protecting and promoting the people’s right to health. As French Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rosseau had put it in The Social Contract, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Certainly, one’s right to freely choose cannot be exercised in complete and utter disregard of the rights of others. The unavoidability of hampering rights to respond to such indispensable need to protect public health is clear. Nevertheless, citizens are expected to uphold and participate in the promotion of common good. Invocation of constitutional rights perceived to be violated by a mandatory inoculation, such as the right to privacy, should not prevail if it would be detrimental to the common good. The exercise of a right is not absolute.
However, let it be emphasized that this does not bestow upon the State unbridled power that may result in arbitrariness. Such power must be exercised within the walls of reason and necessity. Only when it is demonstrated, after a careful and exhaustive study, that mandatory vaccination is indispensable to advance public health would it be valid for the State to enact measures for that purpose.
COVID-19 cases are on the rise again and a growing number of US companies, including news network giant CNN, are now requiring workers to get vaccinated as a condition of continued employment.
Mandatory vaccination is not a new issue; it has long been debated across the globe. More than a century ago, its constitutionality was settled in the 1905 US Supreme Court case of Jacobson v Massachusetts. The challenge was against the Massachusetts law requiring smallpox adult vaccination and providing penalty for refusal. The US Supreme Court – in a seven-two vote – upheld the State’s authority to enact measures to promote public health in the exercise of police power. The Courtheld that the exercise of one’s right is not absolute and is subject to restraint – i.e., for the common good.
Although inherent, police power has limitations. In Jacobson, the US Supreme Court stressed that police power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, and clearly held that necessity was the sole justification for theCourt’s ruling: Mandatory inoculation was necessary for public health and safety because of the increasing number of cases within the locality.
In our jurisdiction, police power is also an inherent attribute of sovereignty and is the seedbed of the State’s obligation to protect public health. Our jurisprudence is thus replete with cases emphasizing that the right of the State to protect the health of its citizens stems from the exercise of its police power. Repeatedly and relentlessly, the Supreme Court recognized the valid restriction on the exercise of a person’s right or the enjoyment of his property when his action would tend to destroy public health, public morals, public safety, and the general welfare.
More so, the protection of public health by the government is a State policy under the 1987 Constitution. Its significance is reinforced in several cases reiterating its self-executory nature.
The question confronting us is: Can a law compel COVID-19 mass vaccination in the Philippines?
While the factual milieu in Jacobson is not exactly similar to our situation today, the legal principles it laid down continue to be relevant. Within the domain of police power, the validity of any statute that mandates vaccination must be reasonably necessary for the promotion of public health and general welfare. Reasonable necessity guarantees protection of the constitutional right to due process. It shields the people from any attempt to whimsically exercise the all-encompassing police power of the State.
Undeniably, the State may order mandatory vaccination by virtue of a valid exercise of its police power and in observance of a constitutional state policy.
The next question is: Does this exercise give employers the license to bar their employees from entering the workplace when they refuse to be vaccinated?
Management prerogative permits employers to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the proper conduct of its business, provided that the policy is proven to be reasonably necessary and rationally connected to the performance of the job. Thus, a company policy that punishes employees for failure to comply with a mandatory vaccination law would be valid if and only if such policy passes the test of reasonableness. Failure of employees to follow a valid company policy may warrant imposition of disciplinary measures or even dismissal from service. However, imposition of punishment against an employee who refuses to be inoculated for valid reasons would be unjust. Thus, at both ends of the question, the issue is reasonableness.
In all, mandatory vaccination is constitutional. It is an exercise of the State’s police power and the discharge of the constitutional State policy of protecting and promoting the people’s right to health. As French Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rosseau had put it in The Social Contract, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Certainly, one’s right to freely choose cannot be exercised in complete and utter disregard of the rights of others. The unavoidability of hampering rights to respond to such indispensable need to protect public health is clear. Nevertheless, citizens are expected to uphold and participate in the promotion of common good. Invocation of constitutional rights perceived to be violated by a mandatory inoculation, such as the right to privacy, should not prevail if it would be detrimental to the common good. The exercise of a right is not absolute.
However, let it be emphasized that this does not bestow upon the State unbridled power that may result in arbitrariness. Such power must be exercised within the walls of reason and necessity. Only when it is demonstrated, after a careful and exhaustive study, that mandatory vaccination is indispensable to advance public health would it be valid for the State to enact measures for that purpose.