Rovic Saberon Payot

II – B.S. in Legal Management

Position Paper No. 0003

Re: Disallowing those Unvaccinated in Business Establishments Series of 2021
A Paper Issued on
December 04, 2021

I dissent.

How inhumane it could be for a vaccine campaign be pursued in expense of people’s

rights and freedom? Do people really trust through being deprived of an act which he
is entitled to do? And in the face of noble purpose of vaccination and heard
immunity, is compromising the people’s right an issue worth reconsidering for?

Government cannot provide all necessities of people; this found the fact that
business establishments are indeed vital not just to the run of our national economy,
but to the sustenance of people’s needs. The emphasis should be on the “need” for
business firms today offer not just luxury or relaxation, but also those products we
cannot live without. And today, as a radical and vital response, our government
started the campaign of vaccination to combat Covid-19. Various educational
movements were carried out including advertising in mainstream media and social
media, efforts are recognized indeed. But a proposed governmental action sparked
more than a conversation, but a heating argumentation. This action was composed
of order that will urge the private business establishment to disallow those who
haven’t been vaccinated to get inside vicinities.

In the perspective of government leaders, this action will be a powerful means to

secure the safety of people in the business firms. They asserted that should all
people inside the building are vaccinated then the place will become a safe place
against Covid-19. Also, the state are faithful that business establishments are great
instrument of inducement, leaders believed that allowing only those vaccinated to get
inside the store will persuade those not vaccinated to receive the vaccine shots. With
regards to the affectivity of this action to induce people, I reserve no further
contention. True enough that if a person’s basic need was taken away from him and
all other alternatives are of the same condition, it will be his nature to conform to the
condition just to attain such needs. And as much as the safety of people inside the
store was concern, I do not object to the fact that people’s safety must be in forefront
interest.

On the other hand, these arguments of the government was contradicted by single
stunning argument; the argument on equal protection. Opposition first reminded the
state that under the supreme law, they are in blatant obligation to treat everyone free
from bias and inequality. Opposing team believed that should disallowing
unvaccinated people to get inside the store be carried out, the latter’s need won’t be
provided and he will surely be put in unequal treatment of the state. It has been
argued that vaccinated or not, the state must balance the two for both have the same
level of needs in life. They cannot support one just because those vaccinated
supported the program, and opposition stood up to the argument that government
cannot be a promoter of discrimination that they ought to impugn in the very first
place.

The aim of heard immunity towards general safety and the fight against societal
discrimination are two most important factors to be considered and docketed on this
argumentation, both are vital and timely. But it is my humble submission and position
that the proposed action of disallowing unvaccinated to get inside the business
establishments must not be done.

On the use of business establishment as to induce the people to get vaccinated, I

am not convinced. Our minds must be reminded that what we ought to establish in
this campaign does not rotate on the concept of mere inducement as we are offering
vaccine and not simple products in store, we must establish the trust of people to the
vaccine. Our history had witnessed previous incident of vaccine failure in our past
and this cannot be cured by mere using of access to business establishments. We
cannot cure or remedy a broken trust by depriving a basic need to people as it is
purely inhumane to force a giving of trust. It takes time and scrupulous pondering to
trust something that might harm you thereafter, and this is what government must
respect and give space to, it must not rush this process regardless of how heroic the
intention of reaching general immunity. Government must wait for even if it
compensates the person who, for instance, be harmed by the vaccine, the physical
damage will still be on the latter’s own sufferings. Consent must not be tainted by
fear regardless of how constructive, practical and tactical such fear is imposed. It
matters not whether we found rational basis for someone’s refusal to get vaccinated,
for our discretion and power must only be limited to encouragement and should not
encompass actions which equate to constructive impairment of rights.

What our government must give focus to should be on the empowering of trust from
people to our vaccine through continuous and humane educating. Information must
be accessible to people and reliable sources must be easily accessed by those who
have been fooled by fake news. The urgency and the need of heard immunity are
understood by this writer, but we must understand as well that regardless of how
urgent and practical our actions are for this purpose, it must still not be in the
expense of putting our rights and freedom to the altar of prejudice and merciless
convenience.

Therefore, I humbly object the act of disallowing those unvaccinated citizens to

enter business establishments in the country.

ROVIC SABERON PAYOT

Writer