(1)

On Justification in the Curtailment of Rights During the Enhanced Community

Quarantine or General Community Quarantine.

More than a year of quarantining for the Filipinos upon the putting the entire country

under Enhanced Community Quarantine or ECQ and General Community Quarantine or GCQ,

however you call it, some of our rights are a little bit less curtailed than it was at the early part of

the pandemic in the country. In fact, over the year, we come up to terms like Modified ECQ and

Modified GCQ. Truly, the quarantine status has changed which has unique feature in their own

way with the primary purpose of reviving the economy.

In the latter part of the pandemic, the movement of people is limited only to accessing

basic needs. Other reasons aside from that is not justifiable to go outside someone’s residence.

But the policy makers observed that the economy have suffered tremendously as many lost their

jobs and that the number of economic activities were lessened to the extent that it has negatively

impacted our gross domestic product or GDP. Hence, policy makers come up with other

quarantine status like Modified ECQ and Modified GCQ to revitalize the economy.

The difference of the four quarantine status (ECQ, MECQ, GCQ and MGCQ) lies on

curtailment or restriction of some our right like for instance our right to go outside and travel.

For ECQ and MECQ, our right to travel is restricted only to report for work or accessing basic

needs. Yes, the former ECQ limits people only access basic needs but with the purpose of fueling

up the economy for macro and micro-economic recoveries, the ECQ as we know today allows

people to go outside their residence for work, hence the term Authorized Person Outside of

Residence (APOR). A less strict version of ECQ or MECQ allows people to dine in restaurants

at thirty prevent capacity. GCQ allows people to go outside their residences for dining out at fifty
percent capacity and allows people eighteen to sixty fie years old to do physical activities with

less contact. Finally, MGCQ allows people to go outside their residences such as non-essential

travel like going to resort and tourist spots.

Aside from constitutional right of the government to curtail some right when public

safety requires it as I have mentioned in my previous essay, no doubt the restriction of people to

go outside their residences has contributed to the containment of the spread of COVID-19.

Absent such restriction, many would have suffered from the dreadful disease. But, imposition of

such restrictions should be humane and would not violate the Bill of Rights as enshrined in the

Constitution.
 (2)
On the Efficiency of the Government in the Implementation of the Guidelines under the
GCQ or ECQ.

As we approach another phase of battle against COVID-19, the Government has

mechanized its financial and funding sources to procure vaccine against the virus. It is the only

weapon of all the countries in the world to go back to the “old normal” that we used to live in—

free from facemask, social distancing and free from limitations and curtailments of our rights.

Vaccine was made available in the last quarter of the year especially in countries like United

Kingdom, China, and United States. And countries that have access to such vaccines attained

herd immunity from the virus which means that majority of the population have been vaccinated

and that mortality rate is at zero percent. Vaccines like Moderna, Sinovac, Sinopharm, Pfizer and

Astrazeneca were made avail to attain what so called, the final solution to this pandemic.

The government access and procurement of the vaccine is not very efficient as majority

of Filipinos were yet to be vaccinated. The vaccine roll-out started only in March of 2021 while

other countries like Indonesia started theirs on the last quarter of 2020. In the United States, upon

the assumption of office of their newly elected President Joe Biden, with his political will, more

than half of their population were already vaccinated. While China had successfully contained

the virus. And just recently, some countries like Israel allows its residents to go on without mask

outdoors. With comparison with other countries, Philippines has yet to exert enormous amount

of effort in its vaccination drive. The problem lies in the seriousness of the government to really

utilized and exhaust its available resources to fuel up the roll-out of vaccine jab. This could be

attained if politicking in the procurement process is avoided to curb out bottlenecks combined

with the Congress who enact the appropriation to fund the vaccination which priority is beyond
the silencing of opposition, causing the closure of a television network, and filing nonsense bills

for enactment. The government has to stop ridiculous remarks and misinformation which only

aggravates the situation casting doubt on to the efficacy of the vaccine. On the last note, Brazil

and India who suffered the worst are led by populist leaders. And I wondered: had the situation

been different had the Philippines been led by a non-populist leader?

 (3)
On the Social Amelioration Program of the Government.

The COVID-19 virus has adversely impacted different sectors of the society especially

those that belong to informal economy like vendors and tricycle drivers, small establishments

whose businesses are suspended, and construction workers as well as those who are unemployed.

Absence of their means to earn for a living, they would live in hunger. To address such dilemma,

the government launched the Social Amelioration Program (SAP).

The SAP’s primary purpose is for the Department of Social Welfare and Development

(DSWD) to provide for basic stipend to vulnerable sectors affected by the pandemic ranging

from P5,000.00 to P8,000.00 depending on the region by which the beneficiaries belong. The

fund is transferred to Local Government Units (LGUs) like Municipalities and Cities and the

latter would determine the list of respective beneficiaries in their jurisdiction.

The Government’s purpose cannot be questioned as this is the only way the vulnerable

sectors could cope up with their present situation. However, the problem lies on the system and

process by which the SAP is being implemented. One major dilemma is the raw data by which

the LGUs work on to determine the beneficiaries. The LGUs do not have the specific living

condition of its constituents because the local social workforce is not enough to gather the exact

data on the living conditions of their populace. Consequently, the LGUs shall refer to their

respective barangays for list of beneficiaries deserving of SAP benefits. But this would result to

situation wherein the barangay officials and personnel shall have the sole discretion of who shall

be included in the list. With that discretion, the barangay captain and other officials could

include families which are not worthy of SAP benefits, or, worse, their own families, relatives

and supporters who are not qualified or have sources of living despite the pandemic.
 With the absence of accurate data by the LGUs and national government on the actual

living conditions of the populace, the SAP can be politicized at the grass roots level of the

society which could defeat the very purpose of the program. No wonder, there are citizens who

voiced out their sentiments because some well-off families received SAP instead of some poor

families who are worthy and deserving. Such situation creates injustice in the society which

could least be present; especially in a pandemic where lives are threatened by a dreaded virus

and hunger is evident to happen.

It would be a failure on the part of government if we would not bring justice to victims of

such foul politicking. To bring justice is to render proper accounting of the fund thereby

determining accountability and responsibility for such politicized scheme of aid distribution and

identifying those guilty of maligning the aid distribution process. The local interior could initiate

the process by sanctioning the guilty LGUs. To ignore the issue is to expose the society on the

brink of social catastrophe far worse than a pandemic.

 (4)
On the Resiliency of the Legal and Judicial System During this Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we live day by day. The way we deal
with other people has change over the months with no-handshake rule, talking with other people
at a distance of at least one-meter apart, wearing of masks when outside; being isolated when
someone is symptomatic and even working at home just to avoid crowds and mass
transportation. Truly, our lives have changed and even some has coined the term “new normal”
to describe the changes we encountered over the months. This only means that the humankind
has the survival ability of adapting to the ever changing world we live in. In fact, in biological
theories, the human body has the power to adapt to survive and to thrive despite challenges and
changes along the way. Similarly, our legal and judicial system has adapted to changes brought
about by COVID-19 pandemic.
Our court requires physical contact to process criminal as well as civil proceedings. But
such traditional practice would expose the legal profession to the dreadful virus paralyzing the
legal system of the country. Consequently, to some who are seeking justice before our courts
would be denied of swift disposal and hearing of their respective cases which we shall, in no case
allow because justice delayed is justice denied. Imagine an offender who remained at detention
since he/she cannot post his/her bail because of the temporary closure of courts. We could not
afford that the virus would affect our system of providing justice to our people. We could not
allow the virus to beat the justice by which our people obtain inner peace and retribution. Our
people deserve justice which is indispensable to our very own existence as humans. One way to
adapt to the effects of COVID-19 is to utilize the available technology to process proceedings
before the court.
Utilizing the available technology known to man, the court implemented online filing of
proceedings before our court. They implemented online conference and online hearings of cases
just to provide justice of those who are seeking it amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. This is very
beneficial as well as convenient to both the justice seeker and the court.
Our court has adapted to the so-called “new normal” as would a normal body adapt to the
ever changing environment by utilizing the technological trends available. Covid-19 could not
tear apart our legal and judicial system as long as we have our legal professional—our front
liners of justice. In effect, our legal and judicial system has remained steadfast against
adversaries. Our court is expected to function and be resilient even in times of pandemic and
national health emergency.