A teacher from the Ministry of Public Education (MEP) who did not have the covid-19 vaccine lost an appeal in which he alleged a violation of his rights by being denied entry to his educational center.
The official considered that his labor and constitutional rights were violated by rejecting the opinion he presented as justification for not receiving the doses due to his history of allergies.
In the amparo, the appellant indicated that he received a telephone call from his headquarters indicating “that they do not accept the opinion.”
Lea: MEP officials must demonstrate that they are vaccinated to start the 2022 school year
However, the Constitutional Chamber supported the provisions of resolution No. MEP-3150-2021, which establishes the mandatory nature of the vaccine.
Regarding the specific case, it was indicated that the vaccines that are applied in the country against covid-19 are not medicines in the experimental phase, as the health authorities have explained on different occasions.
This is due to the fact that the appellant insisted that the compulsory vaccination not be applied without an informed consent indicating to the patients that it is an experimental drug.
In addition, the magistrates reiterated the provisions of article 46 of the Civil Code, which establishes that: “Any person may refuse to be subjected to a medical or surgical examination or treatment, with the exception of cases of compulsory vaccination or other measures related to to public health, occupational safety and the cases provided for in article 98 of the Family Code (…)”.
On the other hand, the magistrates brought up that the General Health Law grants the Ministry of Health the power to declare compulsory vaccination against certain diseases, as established in article 345.
Additionally, article 3 of the National Vaccination Law states that vaccinations against diseases are mandatory when deemed necessary by the National Vaccination and Epidemiology Commission.
In relation to the homologation of the medical reports, it was indicated that it is not up to the Chamber to review whether what has been done and ordered by the authorities is in accordance or not with the infraconstitutional regulations that govern for such purposes, nor to determine whether or not the homologation of the medical opinion.
Therefore, it was determined that “it is not possible to affirm” that the fundamental rights of the objecting person have been violated.
“In conclusion, it is clear that the regulatory framework is sufficient and reasonable, and its respect seeks to guarantee the health of singular persons and public health,” the ruling states.
The 2022 school year started on February 17, marked by the return to face-to-face attendance after two years of the pandemic.
Lea: Compulsory presence and elimination of distancing in classrooms will mark school year 2022
–
