Professional Documents
Culture Documents
With the rising number of COVID cases, and the reconsideration of mask mandates, our
modern sensibilities have been thrust into a time machine, only to emerge amidst the chaos of
yesteryear. Remember, the Philippines holds the dubious honor of having had the longest
lockdown. We not only imposed a mask mandate, but also a face shield requirement of
questionable efficacy. Ah, the memories.
Given COVID’s influenza-like symptoms, to borrow from Yogi Berra: “It’s like déjà flu
all over again.”
From the perspective of libertarianism, mask mandates is where ethics face off.
Opponents of mandatory mask policies often cite two main reasons for their recalcitrance: first, a
lack of (or inconsistent) evidence of their benefits and, second, an infringement of individual
liberties. Today, that first argument has been sufficiently dispelled by science. To state the
obvious: Data shows that masks save lives. Yet, the debate lumbers on, stubbornly fixated on the
second question. A question of liberty.
I recently posed this question to my legal theory class at the University of the Philippines
College of Law. It was a thought experiment on the role of the government. I asked: If the
government imposes a mask mandate, should it do so to (i) prevent individuals from spreading
COVID or (ii) protect individuals from catching it?
On its face, each rationale may sound like opposite sides of the same coin. To an extent,
that may be true. But the ethical nuances and, down the line, constitutional implications vary
greatly.
Notice, however, how a mandate to protect others from harm would be libertarianally
permissible. Here, what is contemplated is not the paternalist state but the police state. A mask
mandate that seeks to protect one from another fits the traditional functions of government.
Some libertarians might, of course, counter that the risk of transmission only exists if an
individual is already a COVID carrier. While this is technically true, a mask mandate may still
represent the most minimal, and therefore acceptable, form of government intervention.
Recently, Health officer in charge Maria Rosario Vergeire was asked whether it’s time to
reinstate mandatory mask policies. She responded that while the Department of Health (DOH)
still supports masking, we must move forward and avoid constantly flipping back and forth
between policies. Instead, masks will continue to be “highly encouraged.”
While I agree with the conclusion, I can’t say I agree with the rationale. Consistencies for
consistency’s sake does not exactly inspire confidence. If necessity calls it, and the science
supports it, by all means reinstate the policy. Reassessment is one thing when deliberate and
methodological. Flippantry is another.
But in the end, the government’s conclusion—to strongly recommend rather than
mandate masks—seems apt. After all, can mask mandates be truly characterized as “necessary”
when they are already worn voluntarily? A recent Social Weather Stations survey found that a
large majority of adult Filipinos support voluntary masking, but most still choose to wear masks
themselves.
The resurgence of COVID cases, however, serves as a stark reminder that we cannot
afford to be complacent. Though we have left behind the days of community lockdowns,
confusing alert levels, and midnight presidential press releases, COVID-19 is not a thing of the
past. We remain in its age. It’s thus disheartening that three years on, we are still grappling with
these issues on a superficial level—and all this without a DOH secretary at the helm.
We truly need someone to guide us through these uncertain times and ensure that our
response to COVID is both informed and decisive. After all, it’s 2023, not 2020. It’s about time
we started acting like it.