POSSIBLE LEGAL ISSUES IN A POST-PANDEMIC

PHILIPPINES

TOPIC:

Legal Issues Related to Vaccine Hesitancy

(San Jose, Tarlac – The Rural Setting)

Ramil E. De Vera

Carl Vince Carlos

Juris Doctor 1-A

School of Law – Tarlac State University

1
ABSTRACT

According to Social Science Research Council, based in New York City, COVID-19 has

upended societies and dramatically altered everyday life across the globe. Our present

circumstances, while unprecedented, have been profoundly shaped by persistent societal realities

—such as entrenched racial and economic inequality, the proliferation of misinformation, and

anxieties about the ability of the world’s democracies to confront major crises. In-depth social

understanding will be vital to apprehending the crisis and charting a path forward. 1 People are

now clinging to the government actions and its capacity to properly address the issues

concerning vaccination – social, medical, legal, political, and cultural. “Vaccines allow us to

come together, shoulder to shoulder – in schools, communities and places of worship. They are a

key first step to end the COVID-19 pandemic so we can get back to doing the things we enjoy,

with the people we love” said UNICEF.2 BUT hesitancy affects the jabs rate of the government.

Effective and efficient administration of inoculation will bring the government’s optimum

results. This research acknowledges the necessity of vaccination but equally there is also a need

to recognize the supremacy of law as basis of all implementations of the government. The “no

vaccine, no transaction” policy will not be an appropriate strategy for ramping up the demand for

vaccination. This is a legal research which will answer the legal questions on mandatory

vaccination.

1
https://covid19research.ssrc.org/
2
https://www.unicef.org/coronavirus/donate-doses-now?gclid

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Titles Page

Cover page – 01

Abstract – 02

Introduction – 04

Background – 09

Methodology – 11

Results – Legal Research – 12

Conclusion – 25

3
INTRODUCTION

On March 17, 2020, the Municipal Local Government Unit (LGU) of San Jose, Tarlac,

through the Local Chief Executive, convened for a multi-sectoral emergency meeting joined by

the executive officials, legislative officials, the Local Health Board (LHB), Local Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Council (LDRRMC), the Municipal Peace and Order Council

(MPOC), the Local Development Council (LDC), members of the Liga ng mga Barangay

(League of Barangay Officials), and other concerned entities which agenda are focused on the

anticipated emergence of health crisis in the event Covud-19 reaches the Municipality. This is in

relation to the Presidential Proclamation No. 922, dated March 8, 2020, Declaring a State of

Public Health Emergency Throughout the Philippines. The LGU came up with the formulation

of a multi-sectoral body which would serve as a local coordinating unit for the unprecedented

emergence of COVID-19 pandemic. On that same day, majority of the municipalities in the

greater Manila area including nearby provinces and municipalities, including Tarlac, more

specifically the town of San Jose, Tarlac, declared border lockdowns to protect the locals from

the infection of the corona virus of 2019.

The COVID-19 has disproportionately affected lives of people, in all walks of life. We

were all surprised and never been prepared on the onslaught of COVID-19 pandemic. The

economy has been affected that the growth rate of the Philippine GDP dropped down by -9.57%

in 2020 according to Statistica. 3 According to a survey in 2021, around 34 percent of Filipinos in

the informal services and formal services each lost their jobs due to COVID-19. The second

3
https://www.statista.com/statistics/578705/gross-domestic-product-gdp-growth-rate-in-philippines/

4
largest service sector with job losses was the formal service sector with an incidence rate of

around 34 percent.4 According to an August 2021 survey on personal finance in the Philippines,

55 percent of household income decreased as a result of the pandemic. While 29 percent of

Filipino families described their personal finances as being "in limbo", meaning that their

household incomes decreased, and they were unsure if they were going to recover.5

The forgoing statistics show the urgency for Philippine economic recovery and there is

only one feasible means that all Filipinos could recover from the economic devastation brought

about by COVID-19. According to experts, economists, social analysts, and the likes, all of

which believe that only by achieving the herd immunity among the total population could we go

back to the old normal. For now, we must live the new normal - with COVID-19.

The Municipal LGU of San Jose’s main concern is the minimal jabs rate which can be

attributed to public’s hesitation to get vaccinated. The local jabs rate is only 4% during the 3rd

quarter assessment - too low for the target herd immunity before the year ends. The LGU has

sufficient supplies of anti-COVID-19 vaccines. The Municipal Health Office needs to target 900

jabs per day to achieve herd immunity in the Municipality by December 31, 2021.

On its November 3, 2021, President Rodrigo Duterte is optimistic that the Philippines is

on track to achieve its target to inoculate up to 50 percent of the general population by yearend or

until December 31, 2021.6 The national government is thriving to achieve herd immunity before

the year ends. The vaccination program headed by Vaccine Czar Gen. Delfin Lorenzana is
4
https://www.statista.com/statistics/578705/gross-domestic-product-gdp-growth-rate-in-philippines/
5
Ibid.
6
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1161329, released Nov. 3, 2021

5
consistent to its thrust that jabs rate for COVID-19 vaccine will have to be improved because

officials and economists believe that only by inoculation or immunization can the country be

able to recover from the disproportionate onslaught of the current pandemic.

During the last week of November 2021, data from Reuters show that Philippines tops in

the administration of COVID-19 vaccines compared with most Asian countries. As of December

8, 2021, the country averaged about 1,322,692 doses administered each day. With that rate, it

would need 17 days to administer enough doses for another 10% of the population. Reuters’

COVID-19 tracker provides the information that Philippines has administered at least 94,236,990

doses of COVID vaccines so far. Assuming every person needs 2 doses, that’s enough to have

vaccinated about 43.6% of the country’s population.7 In comparison, Google’s COVID-19

tracker shows that as of December 8, 2021, Philippines has already given 94.2M doses

equivalent to 39.6M fully vaccinated Filipinos or that is 36.1% of population fully vaccinated.8

On November 29, 2021, the President made a strong statement during the Inter-Agency

Task Force (IATF) televised conference saying that he favors mandatory vaccination against

COVID-19 should the government’s COVID-19 task force start to implement the policy.

President Duterte said “As a worker of government also in charge of the overall operations of the

government, I may agree with the task force [Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of

Emerging Infectious Diseases] if they decide to make it mandatory. It’s for public health.” He

added, “Government can issue measures that would protect public health, public safety, public

order. It’s in the police state. So, in some countries, mandatory na (already). Under the police

7
https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/philippines/
8
https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/philippines/

6
power of the state, I can compel you.” 9
He urged the people who keep on refusing to get

vaccinated and challenged them to choose between early demise or longer life. Duterte’s

preference for a mandatory vaccination policy comes amid the looming threat of Omicron, a new

COVID-19 variant first detected in Botswana, Southern Africa.10

The President’s statement pictures the reality of people refusal or hesitancy to get

vaccinated. Such refusal affects vaccination rate. Nurse Edmark Antimano, local vaccinator of

San Jose, Tarlac, on his update during the 2nd week of December 2021, the municipality has

significantly accomplished 36% out of the 50% target of full vaccination for the total populace,

this is due to the National Vaccination Day which was held on November 29 - 30 up to

December 1, 2021. On initial assessment it shows that mostly of the locals who refuse to get

vaccinated are those residents from far flung areas which includes the IP communities, thus the

most vulnerable sectors who compose people living within and below the poverty threshold of

the municipality. They are those belonging to the 23.5% poverty incidence of San Jose, Tarlac.

Something more efficient and effective vaccination approaches should be adopted to optimize

the local jabs rate.

The President’s statement via television was taken as directives and basis for the

issuances of IATF for the guidelines on vaccination administration. Recent directives mandate

LGU’s compliance which prompted many local officials to come up with the strategy which

employs stricter administration that compels people to get vaccinated. Now, number of people

(opted not to disclose their identity) have already raised their concerns about local officials who

9
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1161329, released Nov. 29, 2021
10
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1161329, released Nov. 29, 2021

7
mandates “no vaccination, no transaction” even in the absence of locally promulgated policies or

local ordinances. Some have quoted the President’s preference on mandatory vaccination vis-à-

vis local health and safety from the pandemic. This concern has somehow raised legal concerns

on possible violations of right, thus resulting to some legal predicament on local governance.

The legal issues that may be raised in this research is that whether a “no vaccine, no

transaction” policy is valid within the autonomous police power of the Local Government Unit in

reference to Section 16 of RA 7160 also known as the “Local Government Code of the

Philippines” providing for the promotion of the general welfare of the people. Whether or not

such policy is in accordance with the RA 11525 also known as the “COVID-19 Vaccination

Program Act of 2021.”

8
BACKGROUND

We are continuously battling the COVID-19 since March of 2020. The whole country is

confronted by challenges that gauged the efficiencies of our healthcare system, hampered our

economic growth, have caused social distress, hence producing negative psychological and

social consequences. Consequently, all of us are prompted to address these challenges brought

about by the pandemic – it has left us no choice but to deal with and fight against it. As such, the

whole country – national and local government agencies, private sectors, communities, civil

societies, families and individuals – were mobilized to put up a united front against the threat of

COVID-19. NOW, the government through the National Action Plan against COVID-19 (NAP-

COVID-19) intends to institutionalize the strategy and the guidelines to contain, prevent, and

eliminate the threat of the pandemic and mitigates its social, economic, environmental, and

security impacts to the country.11

The said NAP-COVIF-19 underscores the importance of united and concerted response

efforts which emphasizes the plan as characterized by a people-centered, LGU-led, and

nationally enabled approach in operationalizing its three major areas of work, namely, Response,

Vaccination, and Recovery.12

The Incident Command System for COVID-19 (ICS-COVID-19) of San Jose, Tarlac

under the responsibility of the Local Chief Executive was inspired by the objective of NAP-

COVID-19, thus ascribing to the local convergence of various sectors. In fact, as a result of such

11
National Action Plan Against COVID-19, Phase III, p.4.
12
Ibid., p.4.

9
convergence, the municipality had the least of recorded cases and incidents of people who got

infected by the virus. On the other hand, however, the low rate of vaccination saddens the local

officials. Reasons suggest that it is due to hesitancies and/or refusals by mostly of the most

vulnerable sector of the society because of the proliferation of fake news or misinformation from

social media.

As students of Tarlac State University School of Law, taking up Juris Doctor, specifically

Legal Research under the teaching of our professor Atty. Anna Cristina R. Iglesias, we are

encouraged to make legal research or a thesis on a certain topic using our acquired skills from

her during the semester in compliance with the final term requirements.

Our chosen topic entitles: POSSIBLE LEGAL ISSUES IN A POST-PANDEMIC

PHILIPPINES with specific topic on Legal Issues Related to Vaccine Hesitancy in the setting

of San Jose, Tarlac – The Rural Setting.

As researchers we would also want to contribute to the local government, particularly to

the local chief executives, the various issuances, resolutions, technical and legal views related to

their administrative functions over an autonomous local government unit in relation to vaccine

administration.

We wish to inspire our readers how legal research is contributory and instrumental for

finding probable answers to legal questions or issues arising from certain acts – especially those

that may infringe human vested rights.

10
METHODOLOGY

A. LEGAL RESEARCH

Due to restrictions in relation to the existing pandemic, the researchers or authors of this

article have gathered legal information such as but not limited to promulgated laws, issuances,

executive orders, and the likes mostly from the official gazette, trusted and official websites, and

other online sites. Available Codes and Law books are also made as primary legal source of the

authors.

B. LOCAL INTERVIEWS

Local sources such as local officials, frontline service workers, Local IATF-ICS-COVID-

19, etc., were interviewed in person for gathering data and essential views about the questions or

issues raised in this article. However, most of the interviewees prayed for confidentiality of their

personal identities so that they may not be castigated by concerned local officials who may be

explicitly or implicitly referred to in this study.

11
RESULTS - LEGAL RESEARCH

The main legal issue raised in this research is that whether a “no vaccine, no

transaction” policy is valid within the autonomous police power of the Local Government Unit

in reference to Section 16 of RA 7160 also known as the “Local Government Code of the

Philippines” providing for the promotion of the general welfare of the people. Whether or not

such policy is in accordance with the RA 11525 also known as the “COVID-19 Vaccination

Program Act of 2021.”

a.1. The General Welfare Clause of RA 7160

Section 5, paragraph (c) of RA 7160 provides for “Rules of Interpretation” of the

provisions of Local Government Code, specifically the interpretation of the “General Welfare

Clause” of the Code, to wit:

Section 5. Rules of Interpretation. – In the interpretation of the provisions of this

Code, the following rules shall apply:

x x x.

(c) The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be liberally interpreted to

give more powers to local government units in accelerating economic

development and upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community;

12
 Whereas, Section 16 of the same Code explicitly provides for the scope of jurisdiction

and responsibility of the Local Government Unit with its inherent power which promotes the

general welfare. The Code states:

Section 16. General Welfare. – Every local government unit shall exercise the

powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers

necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance,

and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within

their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and

support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote

health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,

encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific

and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic

prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents,

maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their

inhabitants.

The forgoing provisions are consistent with Sections 1 and 2 under Article X of the 1987

Constitution which states:

Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the

Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. x x x.

13
 Section 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.

The grant of local autonomy is Constitutionally mandated and allows local government

units to make independent administrative regulations. Thus, any regulations imposed on the

exercise of local autonomy may be viewed in accord with the provisions of the law. Yet, it may

not be appropriate to interpret that LGUs’ autonomy with the inherent power is absolute because

independent administrative functions are still subject to the Executive branch’s general

supervision. Therefore, all Acts, Administrative Orders, Decrees, Circulars, etc. coming from the

National government shall form part of the LGU’s rules that govern their responsibilities or

mandates ultimately for the achievement of the general welfare as stated in Section 16 of RA

7160, also known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

The general welfare clause clearly provides that LGUs are responsible for the promotion

of “health and safety” of the entire inhabitants of their respective political jurisdiction. Since

March of 2020, LGUs have played a vital role on the fight against COVID-19. Most of successes

can be attributed to LGU led local strategies. If it were not with LGU’s discretionary powers

specifically on the administration of border controls, facilitation of strategies for relief

distributions, establishment of various quarantine facilities, etc., which in general have

complemented to the effective COVID-19 response in general. It is with the LGU’s exercise of

power in support to the government’s whole-of-the-nation approach against COVID-19 made all

successful stories about our fight against COVID-19 possible.

14
 The Municipality of San Jose, Tarlac has been known to be one of the strictest LGU in

the province in terms of border controls during the implementation of higher restriction levels in

the entire archipelago since last year. As a result, the municipality had recorded the least number

of infection and mortality due to the COVID-19 virus. Now, that the saga against the pandemic

continues, the LGU of San Jose, Tarlac remains to be at its high spirit in the attainment of recent

target performances related to COVID-19 programs, specifically on the administration of

vaccines in the Municipality. During the 1st week of November 2021 meeting of the local

IATF/Incident Command System of San Jose, Tarlac, the Municipal Health Office reported that

the jabs rate is very minimal, a little over 14% has been inoculated as of the month of October

2021.

Nurse Jake Evangelio Oduca, team leader of local vaccinators, based on our personal

interview with him, he disclosed that the national government has cascaded the new target for

inoculation before the year ends. According to him, based on the President’s instructions, the

50% of the whole population should be fully vaccinated until December 31, 2021. Therefore, the

municipality should still target at least 36% of the 41,200 population approximately, or that is an

additional 14,800 to 15,000 individuals to be fully vaccinated until December 31 of this year.

The dilemma lies upon the hesitant constituents from getting vaccinated. According to him even

the local Barangay Health Workers, most of them are senior citizens, are hesitant to get

vaccinated despite instructions that they belong to the priority sector of the government. Also,

the indigenous people community which comprises of more than 10% of the Municipality’s

population living in nine (9) sitios of Abelling tribes, are indifferent or scared of getting

15
vaccinated because of the proliferation of misinformation about anti-COVID-19 vaccines over

social media.

The ever growing hesitancy among the populace of San Jose, Tarlac has prompted some

local officials to make administrative regulations that would encourage or better to say it “to

require or force” people to get vaccinated. There is no other way to realize the President’s target

of 50% of the total population who would be fully vaccinated before the year ends but to make

strategies adapted in the current setting of the municipality. Among the strategies agreed upon

during the local IATF/ICS emergency meeting held on November 05, 2021 are, but not limited

to the following, to wit:

1. Intensified IEC on the importance of vaccination regardless of brand.

2. Massive campaign about the upcoming National Vaccination Day/s on November 29-

30 – December 1, 2021.

3. Encourage clienteles of every government office specially Barangay LGUs to get

vaccinated for personal protection and for the community in general.

4. Each barangay vehicle shall be used as free transportation for individuals who would

like to get vaccinated.

5. Some suggested for the implementation of “no vaccine, no transaction” policy,

though it was deferred because legal consultation or legal research may be necessary

to be conducted in consideration to possible legal predicament if such policy should

be implemented.13

13
Local IATF/ICS of San Jose, Tarlac, November 5, 2021, Emergency Meeting

16
 Few days later, stories and aired concerns from ordinary people have reached Local

IATF/ICS that allegedly majority of the Barangay LGUs are campaigning for the “no vaccine, no

transaction” policy quoting the President’s directives and the IATF Resolutions No. 148 – B

which allegedly gives instructions to LGUs to require proof of vaccination before individuals

and/or entities may undertake or qualify for certain activities (transaction).

LGU officials who are for the requirement of vaccination proofs in government

transactions ratiocinated that such an act promotes the “health and safety” of the public

consistent with the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.

a.2. IATF Resolution No. 148 – B, Series of 2021, November 11, 2021

In compliance with the directives of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, the Inter-Agency

Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Disease, on its Resolution No. 148-B,

Series of 2021, dated November 11, 2021, adopts and approves the following measures to the

extent applicable under existing laws, rules, and regulations:

A. X X X. (Texts omitted)

B. X X X. (Texts omitted)

C. X X X (Texts omitted)

D. Local Government Units (LGUs) are strongly enjoined to issue orders or

ordinances to ramp up demand for vaccination by, among others, providing

incentives for fully vaccinated individuals, and for business establishments

which institute measures that promote vaccination among their employees and

17
 clients, and to the extent allowed by law, requiring proof of vaccination

before individuals and/or entities may undertake or qualify for certain

activities.

E. X X X. (Texts omitted)

F. X X X. (Texts omitted)

G. All Government Agencies are hereby enjoined to implement measures

prioritizing fully vaccinated individuals availing of government programs and

services.14

The forgoing resolution provides clear guidelines that may require vaccination

before anyone could qualify to transact with LGUs. This most probably was the basis of

the “no vaccine, no transaction” policy of Barangay Officials. However, no clear legal

basis has been provided by the IATF for which a local legislation may be done for the

promulgation of the mandatory vaccination. Leaving the discretion upon local officials

the employment of means in ramping up the demand for vaccination would make them

prone for abuse of their autonomous power by their misconception and misinterpretation

of their mandated responsibility in the promotion of the general welfare.

a.3. RA 11525 – The COVID-19 Vaccination Act of 2021

Section 12 of RA 11525 otherwise known as the COVID-19 Act of 2021, on its

second paragraph which portion states “…the vaccine cards shall not be considered as an
14
IATF Resolution No. 148 – B, Series of 2021, November 11, 2021

18
additional mandatory requirement for educational, employment and other similar

government transaction purposes.” Thus, the “no vaccine, no transaction” policy is

contrary to law. Provisions of IATF Resolution 148-B as above-mentioned contradicts

the spirit of RA 11525 making the vaccination program as voluntary, not mandatory. The

“no vaccine, no transaction” policy is violative to the right of people to freedom of

choice.

Section 23 of Article VI (Legislative Department) of the 1987 Philippine

Constitution states that “In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may,

by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it

may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national

policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease

upon the next adjournment thereof.” This provision of the Constitution suggests that

during national emergency, which includes the state of health emergency like that of the

COVID-19 pandemic, by legislation or by law promulgated by the Congress, a certain

restriction or regulation, i.e. requiring vaccination, etc., may be promulgated for a

definite period of time in consideration of the emerging health crisis, keeping the balance

between “safety and health” of individuals and of the community in general. That

legislative act is wanting when the IATF Resolution No. 138-B was issued.

a.4. The Purview of the Commission on Human Rights

On its “Human Rights Advisory on Covid-19 Vaccination” CHR (V) A2021-001,

the Commission on Human Rights has published the following statements:

19
 The COVID-19 pandemic is not just a health crisis as it has quickly ballooned

into a global human rights crisis after response measures, or the lack of it, by

duty-bearers have negatively affected the enjoyment of civil, political, economic,

social, and cultural rights, while disproportionately affecting the most

marginalized, disadvantaged, and vulnerable members of society.

Every person has a right to access a COVID-19 vaccine which is safe, effective

and based on the application of the best scientific developments.

The use of COVID-19 vaccines and the development and implementation of a

national COVID-19 immunization program must be approached with human

rights, along with science, as the primordial consideration. As such, the

Commission on Human Rights (CHR), as the country’s national human rights

institution and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to protect and promote human

rights, issues this Advisory to ensure the human rights-based approach is at the

center of all discussions surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and the national

COVID-19 immunization program.

The Commission wishes to stress the following key points:

1. The State should take all the necessary measures, to the maximum available

resources, to guarantee access to COVID-19 vaccines of all Filipinos and

20
 persons in the Philippines. This obligation should be given the highest priority by

the State.

2. The State should ensure that the vaccine which will be made available to the

public is safe and effective and should balance these considerations with the

urgency of the need for a vaccine and the cost of vaccinating the population.

3. COVID-19 vaccines should be made affordable to all and accessible without

discrimination.

4. Selection of priority groups for vaccine delivery should be based on transparent

and appropriate criteria, including medical needs and public health grounds.

5. Accessibility and transparency of information concerning COVID-19 vaccines

and vaccination is essential. This includes the right to seek, receive, and impart

information and ideas.

6. COVID-19 vaccination should not be compulsory and should only be

administered under the conditions of informed consent.

The CHR emphasizes that the COVID-19 vaccine should be administered only with the

informed consent of the person to be vaccinated. The State must always seek to ensure that

vaccination is voluntary.

Vaccine requirement policies in the future for specific circumstances, such as entry in a

private place, must still be consistent with international human rights law and standards. For

public health reasons, certain freedoms may be restricted for persons who refuse to be vaccinated

but such measures must be appropriate and proportionate to the threat involved. Most

21
importantly, persons who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19 must not be penalized under

the law. 15

a.5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

The ICCPR, Article 4, Section 1, states that “In time of public emergency which

threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States

Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the

present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that

such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do

not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social

origin.” 16

It is but appropriate that the State on its exercise of its inherent power in the exigency of

public welfare to be considerate and consistent with human rights standards and in accordance

with existing laws. No policies or administrative orders shall be implemented without sufficient

legal basis.

a.6. United Nations Human Rights – Emergency Measures and COVID-19: Guidance

15
Human Rights Advisory on COVID-19 Vaccination, CHR (V) 2021-001, January 26, 2021
16
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/EmergencyMeasures_COVID19.pdf

22
 The Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations Human Rights provides the

following measures by which all State partners of the Commission shall abide and be guided

accordingly, to wit:

RESTRICTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS AS A RESULT OF EMERGENCY

MEASURES

Some rights, such as freedom of movement, freedom of expression or

freedom of peaceful assembly may be subject to restrictions for public health

reasons, even in the absence of a state of emergency. These restrictions, however,

must meet the following requirements:

 Legality: The restriction must be “provided by law”. This means that

the limitation must be contained in a national law of general

application, which is in force at the time the limitation is applied. The

law must not be arbitrary or unreasonable, and it must be clear and

accessible to the public.

 Necessity. The restriction must be necessary for the protection of one

of the permissible grounds stated in the ICCPR, which include public

health, and must respond to a pressing social need.

 Proportionality. The restriction must be proportionate to the interest

at stake, i.e. it must be appropriate to achieve its protective function;

23
 and it must be the least intrusive option among those that might

achieve the desired result.

 Non-discrimination. No restriction shall discriminate contrary to the

provisions of international human rights law.

 All limitations should be interpreted strictly and in favour of the right

at issue. No limitation can be applied in an arbitrary manner.

 The authorities have the burden of justifying restrictions upon rights.

17

CONCLUSION

It is therefore safe to view that in the current health crisis situation, even on the lens of

Human Rights perspective, people of all races and kind regardless of their social status and

beliefs, anti-COVID-19 vaccine has become a basic human right. Therefore, vaccination

program shall be made available and accessible to all. However, making it mandatory and a

requirement to qualify one person for availing government facilities and services is not

appropriate for it will violate the vested right of a person to freedom of making a choice whether

to get vaccinated or not.

The researchers are on the view that the post-pandemic era will be shaped by a new

normal with inherent policies that may change the manners of service delivery and transaction

administration. May we quote portion of the CHR Advisory which states “Vaccine requirement

policies in the future for specific circumstances, such as entry in a private place, must still be
17
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/EmergencyMeasures_COVID19.pdf

24
consistent with international human rights law and standards. For public health reasons, certain

freedoms may be restricted for persons who refuse to be vaccinated but such measures must be

appropriate and proportionate to the threat involved. Most importantly, persons who refuse to

be vaccinated against COVID-19 must not be penalized under the law.”

Therefore, in view of the forgoing, we recommend that the government, through its

legislative power, shall create policies for vaccine requirements for specific circumstances, for

the ultimate objective that country may become more safe to dwell in with more opportunities to

earn and make a living despite the emergence of COVID-19 pandemic. The government shall

create inclusive rather than discriminative and prejudicial to vested rights of the people.

Ultimately, such policies shall be consistent with the international human rights law and

standards.

May we quote the statement from the office of the United Nations Human Rights High

Commissioner that says “COVID-19 is a test of societies, of governments, of communities and of

individuals. It is a time for solidarity and cooperation to tackle the virus, and to mitigate the

effects, often unintended, of measures designed to halt the spread of COVID-19. Respect for

human rights across the spectrum, including economic, social, cultural, and civil and political

rights, will be fundamental to the success of the public health response and recovery from the

pandemic.”

Let all of our actions shall be in accord with law, thence, respect of human rights shall be

genuinely provided.

25
26