4 Drr Related Laws and Policies
Finally, both laws established a clear legal basis for the auxiliary role of the Philippine Red Cross in the “distribution of goods and services related to the fight against COVID-19”.35 The auxiliary role of supporting, complementing or, in some cases, replacing government services in the humanitarian field is a sui generis status granted to national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and applies to their humanitarian work in both PHE and DRM. These gaps can be filled by the Bangkok Principles and broader international disaster law standards on disaster relief and other forms of social assistance, livelihood support and other early recovery measures – essential elements to address the widespread non-health effects of COVID-19. The implementation of TIA and health coordination, whether in disaster laws or public health laws, paves the way for investments in health emergency preparedness. This addresses “a systematic lack of investment in public health emergency preparedness”46 by institutionalizing the Bangkok Principles in national LAWS on EPS and disasters. Despite these limitations, the Bangkok Principles and the WHO Framework for the Management of Human Rights and Health Management complement each other, as both instruments address health risks as a factor in disaster, which is why both are important for understanding and assessing COVID-19 legislation in the Philippines.44 Un General Assembly Resolution 74/2018 on DRR45 “also recognizes that biological hazards require increased coordination between disasters and health risk management systems in the areas of risk assessment, monitoring and early warning.” Explicit reference to international standards guiding the integration of DRM and EPS is lacking in national COVID-19 laws and regulations, but the political justification that supports national COVID-19 legislation – in particular, the President`s Statement on a State of Disaster and National Emergency due to the unprecedented disruption of health functions, economic and social, triggering the use of DRM mechanisms – places the key measures of the Bangkok Principles for the Management of Biological Hazards. The Philippines` response to the primary and non-health side effects of the pandemic is fully operational. The legal framework that forms the basis of the government`s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a fusion of laws and regulations rooted in the paradigms of public health management and disaster risk management (TIA). Response measures include restrictions on freedom of movement, curfews, restrictions on international and domestic travel, mandatory use of face masks and face shields, prolonged closure of schools, offices and commercial facilities, prohibition of mass gatherings, and the use of disaster risk management tools and mechanisms to support social protection measures. incompatible with social protection measures not related to the health effects of COVID-19. Covid-19 executive issuances and emergency laws also stipulate that the impact of the pandemic is sufficient to declare a state of disaster nationwide. The same political logic justifying the declaration of a state of disaster at the national level is also reflected in the subsidiary legislation detailing COVID-19 coordination mechanisms and public funding, some of which have used digital rights management structures and financial resources. In addition, recent updates to disaster legislation in the Philippines highlight the momentum that COVID-19 is exerting by institutionalizing the Bangkok Principles for the Implementation of the Health Aspects of the Sendai Disaster Risk Reduction Framework 2015-2030 into national legislation, particularly through the integration of DRM and health interventions for the COVID-19 response. An important consequence of declaring a state of a national disaster31 and passing COVID-19 emergency laws is the inclusion of DRRM`s national and local budgets in the largest pool of government funds that can be spent to respond to the pandemic.32 Given this expanded focus, COVID-19 emergency laws have provided a portion of the statutory COVID-19 funds to augment national DRRM funds (NDRRM funds).
These laws also liberalized the use of national and local QRF during the pandemic by lifting the 30% cap set by the NDRRM law.33 As of May 2020, approximately 41% of the total NDRRM fund had been used for the COVID-19 response since Bayanihan I came into effect in March.34 See Giulio Bartolini, “The failure of `core capabilities` under the WHO IHR,” in 70 International Comparative Law Quarterly (2021), which proposed that “paradigms related to international disaster law could integrate IHR-related preparedness measures into their broader framework”, and noted that “biological risks are generally not yet fully integrated into national disaster risk reduction strategies”. The first version sets out principles and measures to support resilient health systems, in particular the continuity of health services and the prevention of increased health risks, as part of disaster risk management. In this context, health is understood as one of many cross-cutting sectors that can be negatively affected by disaster risks. The second component includes principles and measures that directly regulate biological hazards as a causal factor in disaster risk. The two main COVID-19 emergency laws, Republic Act No. 11469 or Bayanihan5 to Heal as One Act6 (“Bayanihan I”) and Republic Act No. 11494 or Bayanihan to Recover as One Act7 (“Bayanihan II”), clearly treat COVID-19 as a public health emergency (PHE). Laws are based primarily on the people`s right to health8, the president`s constitutional power to declare a national emergency,9 and the powers necessary to protect the common good.10 Bayanihan I and II both refer to WHO guidelines and best practices as the basis for the president`s emergency powers, and both relate to coordination. Reporting, surveillance, detection, case management, surveillance and reporting activities that are part of the core capabilities of the IHR. In addition, the current legal framework also treats COVID-19 as a disaster caused by a biological hazard.
For example, although these laws do not directly refer to COVID-19 as a disaster, their description of the pandemic falls directly into a situation in which the laws call it a “serious threat to the health, safety, security and lives of our compatriots, the long-term negative effects on their livelihoods and the serious disruption of economic activities. explain. 11 the exact conditions that define a disaster under the NDRRM Act.12 This premise is more clearly supported by the operational provisions of the COVID-19 emergency laws relating to DRM, such as the use of DRM funds, civil protection measures such as the fight against hoarding and price controls, the regulation of relief supplies, and the provision of cash assistance and vital goods to households suffering from non-health effects of the pandemic, in particular: Loss of income due to community quarantine.