Since the start of the pandemic, authorities have been detaining people in violation of local government issuances citing the authority of RA 11332. Two of the more high-profile cases were the charges brought against the “Anak-Pawis 7” and the “Cebu 8” for “non-cooperation” as a prohibited act under Secs. 9 (d) & (e) of RA 11332.
The Case of the “Anak-Pawis 7” in Norzagaray, Bulacan
Seven volunteers of the Anak-Pawis Party List Group, including former Rep. Ariel Casilao, were on their way to distribute relief goods when they were apprehended on April 19, 2020 on a quarantine checkpoint for not having the necessary quarantine pass or permit to travel. The inquest prosecutor assessed the act of staying outside their residences a violation of Section 9 (d) of RA 11332.
Hon. Judge Julie Rita Suarez-Badillo of MTC-Norzagaray, Bulacan held that:
“xxx RA 11332 refers to mandatory reporting of health information about the notifiable diseases as well as cooperation to the response systems of health related events.
In the instant case, the term non-cooperation as basis for the charge is the act of the accused in going outside their residence without travel permit or quarantine pass. This specific act, to the mind of the Court does not constitute or at the very least contemplate the prohibited act under Section 9 (d) of RA 11332. xxx"
The Case of the “Cebu 8” in Lahug, Cebu City
Jaime Paglinawan, Jr. and his seven companions were charged with Violation of Section 9 (e) of RA 11332 for holding and staging a protest rally called “Black Friday Protest” in front of the University of the Philippines – Visayas Campus last June 05, 2020. The complaint against them alleged that they “failed to respond and cooperated with the prevention activity meant to control the further spread and proliferation of the COVID-19 pandemic” by holding a rally “thereby not following the prohibition against mass gathering.”
In the Honorable Court’s decision, Judge Amy Rose Soller-Rellin of MTC-Lahug, Cebu City held that:
“xxx there is no clear definition of the non-cooperation sought to be penalized under Sec. 9 (e) of RA 11332 xxx
Succinctly put, RA 11332 makes mandatory the reporting of notifiable diseases and health events of public concern; the cooperation by the concerned persons or entities to the response systems institutionalized by the Department of Health and its local counterparts to address the public health emergency or health-related events; and the cooperation of the persons or entities having the notifiable disease or affected by the health event of public concern. These being the real thrust of the law, accused’s purported staging of a protest rally and non-compliance with the prohibition against mass gathering fail to constitute a violation of RA11332. xxx"
As a Matter of First Impression
As to interpretations of the applicability of the provisions of RA 11332, there is as yet, no binding precedent from the highest court of the land by which courts a quo may be guided with and utilize to support their decisions on these matters. However, holdings of other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with the same or at the very least similar issues, are persuasive authority that is useful and relevant to guide the bench in making decisions on current cases of these nature.
Original IRR vs the Revised IRR
To my knowledge, these decisions might not be the only decisions that have been issued by lower courts whose dockets have been flooded with complaints for violations of RA 11332. Violations of local ordinances on quarantine, curfews, social distancing and the like are clearly not within the ambit of the term “non-cooperation” under RA 11332 and its IRR. But take note that these so-called violations were brought under the effectivity of the old DOH Implementing Rules and Regulations dated March 23, 2020. The Department has since issued a Revised IRR dated August 28, 2020 which they have expanded. I mean the Revised IRR has now ballooned to 99 pages of guidelines versus the 14 pages of the original IRR.
The two most notable but I think very problematic additions to the Revised IRR is the inclusion of local chief executives as public health authorities under Sec.4.f, Rule 1 General Provisions; and the express provision under Sec.1.h.ii, Rule XI Prohibited Acts, which included violation of community quarantine or stay-at-home order or directive issued by public health authorities.
Under the Revised IRR’s definition of terms public health authorities enumerated include DOH officers and its authorized agents, bureaus with predominantly medical functions, hospitals, research centers, and local health offices. This is an enumeration of persons or institutions who are equipped with specialized technical skills. There is a disconnect and a disparity if you proceed to include a person with an altogether different set of qualifications to that mix. No disrespect to our local chief executives because they are all doing their own to contain the situation but this executive legislation is not the proper venue to provide them with this additional powers. Our mayors and governors already have that authority and they can do that without RA 11332 enabling them.
I can only see the inclusion of violation of quarantine issuances of local chief executives as an after-thought to fill the gap needed by law enforcers to apprehend quarantine violators. This is clearly going beyond the intent of our legislators. Perusing from the records of the Senate and the House, along with reading the bills (Senate Bill No. 1647, Senate Bill No. 1864, and House Bill No. 7134) from where RA 11332 originated, the acts originally prohibited were breach of privacy and confidentiality of the information gathered from the institutionalized health reporting systems, non-performance of the operations of the identified concerned offices; non-cooperation of persons or entities that should report these events to the appropriate authorities; and non-cooperation of the persons identified as having the notifiable disease or affected by the health event of public concern. The addition of these guidelines which are supposed to clarify the ambiguity of the term “non-cooperation” under RA 11332 and the old IRR is to my mind ultra vires for amending the intent of the framers and stretching the coverage of the law to where it should not be.
If I am a law enforcer and I apprehended a curfew violator, then I charge him with the violation of that ordinance if there is a penalty provided. To charge him with violation of a national law instead of a municipal one is absurd. In dubio pro reo. Where there is ambiguity, it must be resolved in favour of the more lenient punishment. You have a local law penalizing violations with public service as opposed to a federal law inflicting the penalty of fine and imprisonment, why in heavens name would you charge your respondent for violation of the law which exacts a heavier punishment?
On the charge of violation for non-cooperation under the Revised IRR
If you find yourself a client charged under the Revised IRR, argue that the additional provisions are ultra vires, therefore unconstitutional. Argue that your client be charged under the law with the lesser penalty. If you are the one charged, do not plead guilty, and more importantly, do not go under the table. Find yourself a lawyer and fight the charge out. If you can't afford one, go to your nearest IBP or PAO office. You have done nothing wrong under RA11332!
This is not inciting disobedience to the law but to direct authorities to legislate better laws to address the situation we have without being too burdensome. This is to remind our law enforcers and public prosecutors to not be too overzealous in pursuing their mandates that they lose sight of fundamental rights. Lastly, to the general public, please, if you don’t need to go out, stay at home and be safe.
Comments