Facts: 

Angel Lorenzo was a leper. He was confined in San Lazaro Hospital in Manila in conformity with the provisions of Section 1058 of the Administrative Code, authorizing the segregation of lepers. Lorenzo filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that his confinement in said hospital was in violation of his constitutional rights. He alleged that human beings are not incurable with leprosy and that the disease may not be communicated by contact. The trial court sustained the law and denied the petition for habeas corpus. Lorenzo appealed. 

Issue: 

1. Whether the Administrative Code provision on the confinement of lepers is violative of one's constitutional right.

2. May the court resolve the question whether or not leprosy is a contagious disease?

Held: 

1. No. Section 1058 of the Administrative Code was enacted by the legislative body in the legitimate exercise of the police power which extends to the preservation of the public health. It was place on the statute books in recognition of leprosy as a grave health problem. The methods provided for the control of leprosy plainly constitute due process of law. Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded from society, and that compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the disease of supported by high scientific authority. Upon this view, laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over. Similarly, the local legislature has regarded leprosy as a contagious disease and has authorized measures to control the dread scourge. To that forum must the petitioner go to reopen the question.

2. The assumption must be that if evidence was required to establish the necessity for the law, that it was before the legislature when the act was passed. In the case of a statute purporting the have been enacted in the interest of the public health, all questions relating to the determination of matters of fact are for the legislature. If there is probable basis for sustaining the conclusion reached, its findings are not subject to judicial review. Debatable questions are for the Legislature to decide. The courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting theories. (Lorenzo vs Director of Health, No. 27484 September 1, 1927)