Chile, La Serena Appeals Court. First Chamber, 27 September 2022, Rol No. 6079-2022

Case overview

Country
Chile
Case ID
Rol No. 6079-2022
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
La Serena Appeals Court. First Chamber
Deciding body (Original)
Corte de Apelaciones de La Serena. Primera Sala
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Constitutional Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
Amparo action
Area
Vaccination
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_ES available at diarioconstitucional.cl
General Summary

The plaintiff filed a protective action (Amparo) against the Ministry of Health alleging a violation of her fundamental freedoms to bodily and psychic integrity, personal autonomy, security, and protection of the home, as well as those of all unvaccinated people. The plaintiff challenged statements made by the minister of health broadcasted on national TV: “we have identified the 1,743,812 [unvaccinated] people; we know who they are, where they live, where they work.” The plaintiff stated that the Minister made threatening and fascist statements and implied that she knew the private, constitutionally protected, information of many citizens. The Court rejected the claim, stating that no threat to fundamental rights had been violated. According to the Court, the minister was only stating her strategy of continuing the vaccination plan, which entailed identifying vulnerable people. Furthermore, it stressed that vaccination was voluntary. These actions, the court found, were not arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, or disproportionate. Rather they followed the constitutional and legal duties borne by the Ministry, especially during the national emergency of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Facts of the case

On February 8, 2022 the National Government of Chile declared a national emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This national emergency was renewed until December 2022. Chile implemented its national vaccination plan but stated that it was voluntary. On August 16, 2022 the Minister of Health made the following statement on national TV: “we have identified the 1,743,812 [unvaccinated] people; we know who they are, where they live, where they work.” On September 1, 2022 the plaintiff filed a protective action alleging a violation of her fundamental freedoms to bodily and psychic integrity, personal autonomy, security, and protection of the home, as well as that of all unvaccinated people against Covid-19. On September 27, 2022, the Court rejected the claims, finding the government’s action to be legal and constitutional.

Type of measure challenged
National government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Order the Minister of Health to retract Plaintiff's statement regarding unvaccinated people
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought in the interest of a specific group of claimants for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Special / extraordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court reasoned that, when making the aforementioned statements, the minister was only indicating her strategy to continue with the vaccination plan, which entailed identifying vulnerable people. Hence, it did not find any evidence of illegal action, as the statements were not unreasonable, arbitrary, or disproportionate. To the contrary, according to the Court, they were made in keeping with the constitutional duties of the Ministry to protect public health, especially during a national emergency such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, as vaccination was voluntary the Court found that the fundamental rights of the plaintiff and of unvaccinated people were not violated in any way.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court concluded that the statements of the Minister were constitutional and legal and found no violation of fundamental rights.

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Right to bodily integrity
  • Right to data protection
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
  • Right to bodily integrity, Art. 19.1, Chilean Constitution
  • Protection for the home and any private communication, Art. 19.5, Chilean Constitution
  • Right to personal freedom and individual security, Art. 19.7, Chilean Constitution
  • Right to health, Art. 19.9, Chilean Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. data protection
General principle applied
Reasonableness
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court analyzed whether the statements made by the Minister of Health were reasonable, i.e., whether they followed an equitable standard or they were illegal or arbitrary. The Court found these statements to be part of the vaccination plan of the Ministry, which was implemented in accordance to its constitutional and legal duties to protect public health, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. They were therefore found to be reasonable.

Other notes

On the instance: Amparo action (protection of fundamental rights – art. 20 of the Constitution)

On the type of procedure: Special procedures (Amparo action. Protection of fundamental rights – art. 20 of the Constitution)

Author of the case note
Valentina del Sol Salazar-Rivera, Instructor, Externado de Colombia University