With the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Philippines rising nearly tenfold (5 to 49) in just 6 days, it’s clear the disease won’t go away any time soon.

Data suggest there should be a lot more cases by now. When there were only 3 confirmed cases in the Philippines, a statistical model developed by The Economist predicted there should’ve been about 200 already.

The Department of Health (DOH) admitted to “unintentional” underreporting of cases due to the inadequacy of testing kits.

On March 7, President Rodrigo Duterte reportedly agreed to declare a public health emergency, but he formally announced it two days later. On March 11, Health Secretary Francisco Duque III admitted he himself should’ve declared a public health emergency sooner.

COVID-19 is sickening not just Filipinos but huge swaths of the Philippine economy as well. What can the Duterte government do to ward off an impending economic slump?

Slump

The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) foresees that our nation’s income, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) will grow slower this year.

Growth might even fall to as low as 5.5%, well below the 6.5% target.

Tourism will take a big hit: lost revenues there could be as large as P93-187 billion. If the outbreak lasts till June, as many as 1.42 million passengers will not arrive and some 30,000-60,000 jobs will likely be destroyed.

But other sectors will fall sick as well.

A new study by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) shows the Philippine economy may lose somewhere between P34 billion and P99 billion, not just on account of weaker tourism but also weaker trade, business services, manufacturing, transportation, and even agriculture (see Figure 1 for a breakdown).

In the event of a “significant outbreak,” ADB thinks our economic losses may even balloon to a whopping P280 billion. This will hack away a full 1.67 percentage points off GDP growth – more than a quarter of our growth in 2018.

Figure 1.

All in all, NEDA and ADB's numbers both suggest growth this year is set to reach its lowest level since 2011.

Even before this, growth has already been declining steadily since 2016. (READ: Why did Philippine growth drop to an 8-year low?)

Demand and supply

Duterte’s economic team is not helpless. But they will have to go beyond textbook remedies because COVID-19 is not your run-off-the-mill economic shock.

First, the downturn is obviously induced by a widespread drop in people’s demand for goods and services throughout the economy (also called an “aggregate demand shock”).

Tourists are canceling their flights and hotel bookings. Mallgoers are shunning malls. Students have stayed at home following a weeklong cancellation of classes.

On the other hand, this downturn is caused, too, by a widespread reduction in the economy’s production and, hence, supply of goods and services (also called an “aggregate supply shock”).

Factories and firms around the world, especially in China, are shutting down. Global supply chains are breaking up left and right, impeding our ability to import and export. More and more workers are being told to work at home or, worse, being laid off.

One assistant secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment reported that since February some 66 firms in tourism have already closed down due to reduced tourist arrivals.

Hence, COVID-19 is likely causing a decline in both aggregate demand and aggregate supply. The government must address both with a comprehensive stimulus package.

Stimulus

As for aggregate supply, there’s little Duterte can do to revitalize damaged global supply chains.

But some form of temporary tax relief for cash-strapped businesses, as well as paid sick leaves, wage subsidies, or cash transfers for workers, might work to tide them over – at least until the global economy finds its footing again.

As for aggregate demand, the government can prop it up with a mix of monetary and fiscal policies.

For its part, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) can lower its key policy rate. In doing so, interest rates throughout the economy will also drop, making it more attractive for consumers to take out housing or car loans, and for entrepreneurs to take out business loans.

BSP Governor Benjamin Diokno hinted they’re open to cutting its key policy rate if “things deteriorate.”

By itself, however, monetary policy will not induce people to go out and do business as usual. Hence, it will have to be paired with fiscal policies such as tax cuts or aggressive spending.

Incidentally, the Duterte government is moving to lower corporate income tax rates with the Citira bill, recently certified as urgent by Duterte. But such tax cuts will be implemented over a period of 10 years, and what we need right now is a more immediate stimulus.

Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III said they’ll continue rolling out Build, Build, Build as a way to pump prime the economy. But infrastructure projects also take a while to complete, and until long-standing bottlenecks are ironed out it will not boost demand in the short run.

There is, however, one sector where aggressive spending might help tremendously: our public health system.

Aside from pouring money on much-needed COVID-19 testing kits, government could also employ more frontline hospital workers (doctors, nurses, etc.) and provide for their masks, gloves, overall gowns, and other protective gear. Government might also build more quarantine facilities.

This policy hits two birds with a stone: the health of our people and the economy.

To effectively respond to COVID-19, the DOH said they will need an additional P3.1 billion. But the Treasury said only P1.65 billion was on hand.

I wrote last week that the Duterte administration imprudently allowed their budget deficit (or revenue shortfall) to skyrocket to 6.8% (see Figure 2). That’s the highest deficit since 1998 and way above target. (READ: How the budget deficit exploded under Duterte’s watch)

Secretary Dominguez admitted they expect government revenues to drop this year by as much as P91 billion. This will inevitably raise the deficit further and force us to borrow more.

If only the Duterte government didn’t act squander last year its “fiscal space,” they could have more leg room this year for a COVID-19 stimulus.

Figure 2.

Health before wealth

Some experts think an economic stimulus might work best once the epidemic eases.

Therefore, even before the economic managers rummage through their policy toolkit, the first order of business is for them to support efforts of our health agencies to contain COVID-19 and mitigate its impact.

The longer it takes for government to identify cases and implement measures such as quarantines, contact tracing, and social distancing, the higher the risk our hospitals will be overwhelmed and run to the ground.

But we should ask: Is the Duterte government doing enough to contain COVID-19? Do we trust they’ll be able to do it? Are they treating this pandemic seriously?

If you just listen to Duterte’s incoherent and dismissive public statements, you might say no to all of these. Beyond a fiscal deficit, we should address as well a gaping and growing trust deficit. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD candidate and teaching fellow at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. Follow JC on Twitter (@jcpunongbayan) and Usapang Econ (usapangecon.com).

It is now accurate to say that the country is facing a crisis amid the COVID-19 outbreak. From having only 3 cases last week, it has now jumped to 33 – and counting. From the claim made by the health secretary himself that the Philippines was a model country for COVID-19 response, it is now a country that has just declared a state of public health emergency.   

As it seems, the Philippine health sector is ill-prepared for the COVID-19 outbreak. This is not surprising after budget cuts, corruption allegations, politicization of health governance, and the political leadership’s focus on security – going after opposition politicians, activists, and poor drug offenders. 

Health services deteriorating even before COVID-19

Late last year, it was reported that the health budget was cut by 10 billion in the 2020 general appropriations. This is despite emerging threats of measles, polio, and dengue outbreaks, which could be serious health emergencies. Last year too, there have been reports that health services in the Philippines have become more unaffordable and inaccessible to citizens. 

It is therefore not a surprise that the first Global Health Security Index showed that the Philippines scored zero in a total of 5 health security indicators, namely: (1) linking public health and security authorities, (2) communication with healthcare workers during public health emergencies, (3) dual-use research and culture of responsible science, (4) biosafety, and (5) joint external evaluations and performance of veterinary services.  

Yesterday, Duque admitted that the inadequacy of supplies and test kits negatively affects the country’s ability to effectively respond to COVID-19. Lack of proper and up-to-date health facilities and equipment, as well as serious understaffing, are putting a strain on the health care system.

The estimated ratio of health care workers in the Philippines is 1 doctor per 33,000 patients and 1 hospital bed for every 1,121 patients. This is way lower than the recommended 1 doctor per 1,000 people and 5 beds per 1,000 people ratio by the World Health Organization. (READ: Philippines to borrow more than planned to combat coronavirus impact)

An Al Jazeera report summarized it well: “The already low health budget was further cut resulting in less (sic) medical supplies, poorly maintained medical equipment, and understaffing. Even before COVID-19, the public health systems was (sic) already deteriorating." As it seems so far, how the government has responded to the COVID-19 outbreak is real-time evidence of why the Philippines scored 0 in the said Global Security Index. 

While we are not surprised by the news about the deteriorating quality of health services in the country, we are nonetheless puzzled. This is because the health budget was supposedly benefiting immensely from a so-claimed successful fiscal reform called the Sin Tax Law that has added a whopping P348.2 billion to the health budget since 2014.  

Sin tax’s significant addition to the health budget 

In 2012, the Sin Tax Law (or RA 10351) was enacted (1) to generate additional revenue for health and (2) curb smoking and alcohol consumption by simplifying and increasing the excise tax system on tobacco and alcohol. (READ: Duterte signs new taxes on alcohol, e-cigarettes into law)

Generally, all assessments show that the law has achieved its intended objectives. Positive gains have been reported by government and civil society so far on the impact of the sin tax. There has been an increase in the health budget due to sin tax. The DOH reports that 43% of its budget in 2018 was contributed by the sin tax. 

Increased revenues from the Sin Tax Law in 2013 have facilitated an unprecedented 57.3% increase in the 2014 national health budget, from P53.23 billion in 2013 to P83.72 billion in 2014. The bulk of the additional budget (P22.7 billion) was allocated for PhilHealth insurance coverage of the poorest families, benefitting around 24 million Filipinos. As a result, according to reports, there are more Filipinos, especially indigents, covered by PhilHealth.

The sin tax has been hailed as an effective tool to support health or a successful fiscal policy to achieve improved health outcomes. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CFTK) concludes in its 2017 study that, “The Sin Tax Law has successfully reached its purpose of significantly simplifying the tax system, quickly reducing tobacco use, and raising high incremental revenue needed to fund universal health coverage – especially among the poor – as well as additional revenue for health and economic development programs.” 

Data from the 2019 Sin Tax Law Annual Report shows that 55% of the DOH budget comes from sin tax revenues alone. This seems to mean that the decline in the health budget from the national government (on top of sin tax) has been dramatically decreasing, kept afloat only by funds from sin tax.

Funds from sin tax should have helped Philippines prepare for COVID-19

Revenues from sin tax are earmarked for specific programs: 15% to LGUs, 85% to DOH and PhilHealth. From that 85%, 80% goes to universal health care (UHC) expenditures (i.e. PhilHealth coverage; strengthening of preventive health programs towards attainment of MDGs/SDGs; health awareness programs; and implementation research to support UHC). On the other hand, 20% is meant for medical assistance; health facilities enhancement program (HFEP); and service delivery networks. 

Some of the programs where sin tax revenues are supposed to go to are (1) health emergency preparedness and response, (2) epidemiology and surveillance (3) prevention and control of other infectious disease, and (4) health facilities enhancement program (HFEP) that primarily aims to upgrade health facilities and equipment. These are the very programs needed by the Philippine health sector in preparing well for health emergencies like COVID-19.  

The deteriorating state of the public health sector, despite increases in its budget from a fiscal reform measure (such as sin tax), invites important empirical questions: What happened to the health sector? Where did the health budget from sin tax go? 

An emerging lesson is that the success of fiscal reform measures (such as sin tax) are only certain to be true once tested. Its development impact must be seen and proven at the service delivery or citizen-beneficiary level. Fiscal reform outcomes can only come into fruition, such as the impact of sin tax on health services, if budget increases are ensured to have resulted in better quality received by citizens. This needs a monitoring and assessment system from the national level (budget allocation) down to the beneficiary level. 

Without a working multi-level accountability system on public health service delivery, any additional budget (note: DOH/DOF is asking for loans to effectively respond to COVID-19) could just go down the drain without making lives better for Filipinos. Worse is if the success claims will catch us off-guard.

In the case of the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak, one indicative evidence of the success of the Sin Tax Law should have been a health system responding well to the COVID-19 emergency, providing quality health services and protection for Filipinos now that they need it most. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has unnecessarily caught us off-guard. – Rappler.com

Joy Aceron and Victoria Maglanque are from Government Watch or G-Watch, an independent national citizen action and research for accountability that is currently doing a study on the multi-level monitoring of sin tax financing of health.

Gaya ng ating panata, patuloy ang pagdaloy ng makabuluhang impormasyon mula sa Tanggapan ng Pangalawang Pangulo. Patuloy ang pagkonsulta natin sa mga eksperto. Patuloy ang ating pagsubaybay sa nagbabagong situwasyon ukol sa COVID-19, at patuloy ang ating mga rekomendasyon at panawagan.

Sinabi na ng World Health Organization: May mga katangian ng isang pandemic ang pandaigdigang situwasyon. Ibig sabihin, kumalat na ang virus sa iba’t ibang bansa. Sa pagkakataong ito, kailangan kong idiin: Panahon nang ipatupad ang areglong work-from-home. Huwag na nating ipilit pumasok pa sa opisina ang ating mga empleyado, maliban na lang ang mga nakatutok sa pagpapaabot ng kaukulang serbisyo na maaaring umampat sa pagkalat ng virus. Hindi sapat ang four-day workweek lang; hanapin natin ang mga alternatibong paraan para ipagpatuloy ang inyong operasyon. Kung talagang kailangan, magpatupad na lamang tayo ng skeletal staffing sa ating mga tanggapan. Walang dahilan na maibilad pa sa peligro ang sino man, lalo pa’t may dalang dagdag na panganib para sa lahat ang bawat bagong makakasagap ng sakit na ito. (READ: WHO labels coronavirus a 'pandemic' as Europe scrambles to contain it)

Malinaw ang posisyon ng mga eksperto: Social distancing ang isa sa mga pinakamabisang paraan para maampat ang pagkalat ng virus. Paraan din ito para hindi ma-overload ang ating mga sistemang pangkalusugan. Bawat sandaling mapabagal ang pagkalat ng virus ay sandaling naibibigay natin sa mga eksperto upang makahanap ng bakuna at lunas sa sakit na ito. Kaya nga kailangan nating idiin at ulit-ulitin ang panawagan para sa work-from-home arrangement. (READ: LIST: Philippine government officials under quarantine for coronavirus risks)

Ukol naman sa mga testing kits: Madaliin na natin ang pag-aambagan upang makapag-produce at maprocure na ang mga ito sa lalong madaling panahon. Tukuyin na agad ang kinakailangang pondo, ang pagkukunan nito, at ang pinakamabilis na paraan para ma-source ang mga kits. Ilabas na ang mga karampatang atas. Hindi ngayon ang panahon para magpahadlang sa mga alitan at burukrasya.

Nasa disaster mindset dapat tayo ngayon. Nananawagan tayo sa mga ahensya ng gobyerno, partikular ang mga frontliners: Pandayin, linawin, isiwalat, at ipatupad na ang mga karampatang protocols para sa mga apektado. Maging ispesipiko rin sa mga hakbang nilang gagawin sakaling kumalat ang sakit sa mga high-density areas, lalo na sa mga lugar na maraming maralita. Marami sa ating kababayan ang nakaasa sa pagpasok araw-araw para may maihain sa kanilang hapag. Ipaabot natin sa kanila ang financial assistance at iba pang ayuda, lalo na para sa mga mapipilitang lumiban sa trabaho at mawawalan ng kita dahil sa suliraning ito.

Isadiwa natin ang layuning “protect the vulnerable.” Gaya ng lagi, ang mga mahihirap ang pinakaapektado sa mga ganitong pagkakataon. Siguruhin natin na angkop ang pansin at pagpapahalagang maipapaabot sa kanila.

Alam po natin: Marami sa ating mga kababayan ang walang sapat na salapi para magpatingin sa mga pribadong ospital. Sa harap nito, dapat na ring tukuyin, italaga, at ipaalam sa publiko ang mga pampublikong ospital na kakayaning tumanggap ng mga may malalang sintomas. Ayon sa mga konsultasyon sa DOH, hindi pa aabot sa 400 ang pinagsamang mga isolation rooms at negative pressure facilities sa mga pampublikong ospital. Maganda na rin po sigurong kumilos ang pambansang pamahaalan para makapagset-up ng mga temporary isolation facilities. Bukod sa mga aparato at kagamitan para sa treatment, siguruhin din nating sapat ang protective equipment ng ating mga frontliner sa public health sector.

Dadami pa po ang bilang ng mga maysakit. Hindi ito haka-haka; nakabase ito sa mga pag-aaral at karanasan ng ibang bansa. Kailangang maging agaran ang pagkilos upang masigurong sapat ang mga kagamitan, sapat ang mga healthcare workers, at sapat ang mga tanggapan para matugunan ang posibilidad ng pagdami ng mga mahahawa.

Alam din nating pinag-aaralan na ng mga awtoridad ang posibilidad ng isang lock-down sa National Capital Region. Naniniwala tayo: Magiging mabisa lamang ang anumang lockdown kung mayroong sapat na probisyon sa mga komunidad, lalo na para sa mga mahihirap.

Tiyakin din sana ng gobyerno na sapat ang mga pangunahing pangangailangan, tulad ng pagkain sa food banks at mga gamit para sa sanitasyon. Ngayon pa lang, dapat nang mag-imbak ang mga komunidad, ayon sa isang pambansang direksyon, ng mga basic needs. Isa itong paraan para hindi na dumagdag ang pangamba ng ating mga kababayan: Kung alam nating magiging sapat ang supplies sa ating mga komunidad, papanatag ang ating loob, at hindi na natin kakailanganing lumabas pa.

Iisang komunidad tayo; walang paraang malagpasan ito kundi ang isaisip ang kapakanan ng lahat. Huwag makipag-unahan sa mga ospital at testing center; kung may sintomas tulad ng lagnat at ubo, mag-self-quarantine at obserbahan ang sarili ng dalawang araw bago sumugod sa ospital. Hindi rin po nakakatulong ang panic buying at hoarding. Ang bawat bote ng alkohol na iniimbak natin at di nagagamit ay isang boteng ipinagkakait natin sa ating mga kapitbahay. Sa huli, kung magkasakit sila, lahat tayo madadamay, gaano man karami ang maiimbak nating mga gamit o pagkain. (READ: Hoarding, overpricing would lead to criminal charges, warns DTI)

Mulat tayo na kakailanganin ng sakripisyo upang matugunan ang anumang suliranin. Pero ito ang paraan para masiguro ang kaligtasan ng mas nakararami. Nais kong ipaalala sa lahat: Narito pa rin ang pambansang pamunuan, sa kabila ng mga self-quarantine measures na isinasagawa ng ilan sa amin. Makinig at magkaisa tayo; sumubaybay sa mga pahayag at bulletin tulad nito, at sundin ang payo ng mga eksperto. Patuloy nating bigyang-pugay ang mga frontliners; suportahan natin sila, at tiyaking sapat ang kanilang kagamitan. Personal ko silang pinapasalamatan sa pahayag na ito. Huwag po sana kayong panghinaan ng loob. Sa bawat araw na lumilipas, lumalalim ang pag-unawa ng mga siyentista sa sakit na ito, at lumalapit ang pandaigdigang komunidad sa isang solusyon.

Inuulit ko po: Maiiwasan ang pagkakasakit. Maaampat ang pagkalat ng virus. Kaya nating pangasiwaan ang situwasyon. Maging malinaw lamang tayo sa pag-iisip, kalmado sa pagkilos, at may paninindigan sa pambansang direksyon.

Pilipino tayo; sanay tayo sa sakuna.

Palagi, sa harap ng ganitong uring krisis din natin naipapakita ang pagbabayanihang diwa ng ating pagka-Pilipino. Hindi tayo napapaluhod ng bagyo; nakakabangon tayo mula sa mga lindol. Mas malakas pa rin ang Pilipino sa COVID-19; kayang daigin ng ating pagkakaisa ang suliraning ito. Pilipino tayo, at sama-sama nating malalagpasan ito. – Rappler.com

“News is what someone wants suppressed. Everything else is advertising.” – Katharine Graham 

You see, campus journalism through the years is mostly institutional advertising in Philippine universities. That is to say, campus journalism has been about “enrolees are up by 300%!” and rarely about backing student protesters filing a petition for the reconsideration of rejected freshman applicants. Campus journalism has been about an institution’s acquisition of Integrated Management System (IMS) certifications, and rarely about public service announcement for students to report sexual harassment cases. Campus journalism has been about this provincial state university beating top universities as the country’s best-performing school in the criminology board exams, and rarely about how the passing rate of the same school for its science department has been precariously mediocre.

In other words, campus journalism through the years has been misused and wrongly utilized, with campus journalists mismatched as administration-hired public relations practitioners who glorify their schools. In line with this, the administration "compensates" the student publication with a certain budget.

Due to an unirrational fear of censorship and administrative intervention, some student publications are conditioned to publish only positive happenings inside the university, and negative issues are only written about at the bare minimum. Whenever there is some bad publicity, admin officials don’t use the issue to improve their services; instead, they call out the school paper for publishing an article they deem detrimental to the image of the school. In addition to this, progressive student publications are reportedly put under surveillance by the military or its staffers are red-tagged, precisely because of their critical, anti-administration, and militant reportage. (READ: Why campus journalists should go beyond classrooms)

For 3 years now, I have been working for my school’s official student publication. For two consecutive years, moreover, my publication was hailed as the best in Central Luzon because of our progressive kind of campus journalism, which we intend to preserve and uphold for present and future staffers. More to the point, we refused to become reporters of the administration’s accomplishments, and have channeled our energies instead to exposing issues that concern our fellow students and Filipinos at large. (READ: Journalism is a crime in a fake world)

The publication wasn't always this way. Before, it practiced what is often considered "objective" ways of presenting news stories and editorial articles. 

But too much objectivity does not lead to change. 

A change will do you good

Two years ago, little by little, our newspaper underwent a paradigm shift. When before our columnists tackled personal issues, our editorial and opinion pages soon became our podium from which we discussed local and national issues, from women empowerment to human rights, and promoted social justice. 

Even our literary folio soon eschewed from cheesy and frivolous subjects, soon becoming a platform for art that addressed various social issues. Our 2018 folio entitled “Trese” was named for the 13 years that had passed since the Hacienda Luisita massacre, which remains unaddressed. Our 2019 folio entitled “Mayo Uno,” meanwhile, was a more militant collection that dealt with labor issues and workers’ rights, expressed in no-holds-barred language. Our upcoming folio will tackle yet another sensitive issue – slavery then and now.

To be an activist does not require one to be physically present in rallies and street protests. Activism can mean supporting an advocacy that other activists fight for, but through the formidable power of the written word. (READ: WATCH: Campus journalists on why press freedom matters)

After all, the noblest role of students in nation-building involves opposing injustice, oppression, and bigotry – and campus journalism can be their means of doing so.  

It is not the time to be neutral. Like the slogan of the College Editors’ Guild of the Philippines (CEGP), the country’s largest and longest-running intercollegiate alliance of student publications, says, “to write is already to choose.” And my publication chose to stand with the oppressed, the unheard, and the marginalized. – Rappler.com

Jejomar B. Contawe is a senior communication arts student and is currently the associate editor-in-chief of The Work, the official student publication of Tarlac State University.

For most of us in Corporate Philippines, life goes like clockwork and often for good reasons. Being creatures of habit and natural allocators, we have most likely optimized our routines so as to allot a bigger slice of our finite 24 hours for things that makes us feel alive – relationships, hobbies, and interests. If this intentionally designed daily grind machine is threatened with even the slightest disruption, we are quick to deter, dismiss, downplay, or ignore.

Until we can no longer.

When initial reports of the coronavirus flooded everybody’s newsfeeds back in January, my “doomsday prepper” wife promptly took her action, starting with ordering the reusable face masks I am wearing today. She restricted her activities, pulled back on socials, and withdrew our daughter from Sunday school, resorting to live streaming Sunday worship services instead.

As a good husband who chooses his battles, I complied. But in my mind: "The virus is far away from here, the sea should stop it the way it stopped the bubonic plague on European shores. Of all places in the globe, the virus surely can’t get to a certain Pasig City."

That was, until last Monday, when I dropped off my wife for the office as usual. I marveled at the eery fact that only St. Luke’s thick walls were standing between me and the virus, which was at that moment probably just some 200 meters away. Earlier I passed by TriCity Medical Center, closer to home, where there were two other cases. The official tally of the DOH quickly rose from 4 to 24 to 33 as of March 10. Now it has everybody’s attention.

We are naturally uncomfortable with two things: change and uncertainty. The coronavirus is pressing these two down hard on us all.  We are now forced to change the routines we have diligently nursed all this time. While it is still in my power to decide to wear a face mask or not, there are some things that we can’t help but act in accordance with.

The menial ones are less important but irritating. The badminton courts religiously graced by my group have now started to refuse entry. The gardening raid scheduled one weekend had been canceled, and our weekly grocery is now taking twice as much time due to longer lines from panic buying.

Then comes the tougher bit to members of the workforce. Companies started to break off teams into smaller units and scatter them across several locations as a business continuity contingency. In case a part of the team gets infected or has to be quarantined, there would still be a functioning unit somewhere. That means I would have to report in a location outside my route. (READ: Depth of economic slowdown depends on response – IMF)

Fortunately, working from home, previously frowned upon, is now being invoked by the few capable offices such as my wife’s, so I don’t have to go way off as much just to drop her off. My sister who took time off from her UAE job will have to self-quarantine first for two weeks when she returns there, at her own expense, before she can finish the remaining one month of her contract.

The business shakedown is very real. There are few businesses, especially the small ones, that can stay solvent longer than the scare of the virus. For instance, people I know from the hospitality industries are now forced to only take 3 shifts a week instead of the usual 5, as tourism grinds to a halt. Executives are forced to take their vacation leaves to help meet the quarterly targets that cannot be helped operationally.

The decrease in economic activity seems to have rattled investors also, whose pendulum has swung from the optimistic January where it valued PSEI an all-time high of 9078.37, to the pessimistic outlook now, where it is valued at 5,946.66 – slashed by an astounding 33%. (By the way, this is the best time to buy stocks.) (READ: Global stocks suffer historic rout, shrugging off central bank steps)

Businesses are still trying hard, though. In Makati, Landmark, SM, and Rustan’s are simultaneously holding "sales" to stimulate consumption and purchases. It will be a sort of natural selection in the businesscape. Allow the scare to go on long enough and only the businesses with adequate capital and little debt will be able to see the end of the tunnel.

While change is inconvenient and nagging, it is not as wearying as uncertainty. It then becomes a test of stamina. How long can you wear the face mask (if you are on the camp that believes it helps)? How long can you stay away from the malls? How long can you keep your hands away from your eyes, nose, and mouth? How long can you keep a dispersed team safe and functioning?

My solution is to once again build a routine around it. Find a less crowded marketplace and carefully source groceries from there. Then prepare food at home for the day’s intake – not just lunch, but also breakfast, snacks, and dinner, so you won’t have to go anywhere else. Wear the mask when traveling from home to office. Alcohol down upon arrival at the office, and at home go straight to the bath before your toddler's hugs and kisses. Keep your hands in your pockets as much as you can. And pray, pray and pray!

An ounce of prevention is not worth a pound of cure. An ounce of prevention is not worth a ton of cure.

If I had the choice and my bills could wait, I would have just stayed at home and tended to my garden. But the stomach continues to grumble, and life continues on, so it’s business unusual. – Rappler.com

Waldo is an IT Consultant who also sells gardening materials at “It’s Homegrown,” and buys Philippine securities which are selling below their intrinsic values. He is husband to a virtuous wife, father to an adorable daughter, and servant to his Lord Jesus.

The following piece was written on March 11, a day before President Rodrigo Duterte announced that Metro Manila would be placed on lockdown to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. 

This country needs a surgical knife to avert a looming epidemic of unimaginable proportions. The National Capital Region (NCR) is densely populated. It might cause a centrifugal spread of the coronavirus – from NCR to peripheral areas. Worse, the DOH has already recorded its first coronavirus cases in Dumaguete and Cagayan de Oro City. 

We need to act given rising cases, and we have not seen the peak of this disease yet. 

A proactive lockdown of NCR is needed for our weak healthcare system to stop an epidemic, given the shortage of testing kits, face masks, and healthcare staff in our hospitals. 

Furthermore, there are many vulnerable Filipinos. More than 7 million are over 60 years old. 25 million have hypertension, 6 million are diabetic, and scores are in need of dialysis.   

There’s no systematic plan of when a city should close schools, when they should tell businesses that they have to telework, when they should close movie theaters and cancel large gatherings. But we must discuss the scenario with the agencies concerned. (READ: Questions Filipinos are asking about the coronavirus lockdown)

Yes, people get afraid when they see that powerful governments – South Korea, China, Italy – lock down millions of people. These governments have more resources, and yet they seem to be overly fearful. But self-preservation is a natural reaction to a genuine crisis. (READ: Every government for itself? Virus poses difficult dilemmas)

South Korea has carried out more than 190,000 tests as part of a free nationwide screening program, and managed to record its lowest number of daily confirmed cases of the virus in weeks. (Sadly, we are not in the same caliber as the Koreans in terms of technology, funding, and discipline.)

A lockdown is going to be unpopular, I know. The drastic measures include blanket travel restrictions, a ban on all public events, the closure of schools and public spaces, and the suspension of religious services. But how do we solve with urgency given the situation that we have now?  

The health crisis can lead to an economic crisis if we do not think ahead and decide with sense of urgency. Our new plan has to be more aggressive now.  

However, these are only symptoms of the real problem.

True leaders accept personal responsibility, and do not obsess themselves over past failures or wrong results in their original plans.  

True leaders go only where their better selves are willing to tread. That’s where our leaders' own values come in. They must want to do something with their power, and not just be powerful. – Rappler.com

Dr Anthony Leachon is an independent health reform advocate and was the president of the Philippine College of Physicians.

Kung talagang nag-lockdown tayo ngayon, siguradong iuugnay ito sa pagiging Friday the 13th nito.

Maliban na lamang kung di ka lang lohikal kundi rasyunal na indibiduwal.

Alam mong ang lahat ng bunga ay may sanhi.

Masyadong matao na ang planetang ito.

Mas konektado.

O konektodo?

Dahil sa dami ng mga tao, nakatitiyak ang mga mananaliksik na 20% hanggang 30% ng populasyon ng sandaigdigan ang magiging apektado kung sakaling ang pandemiko noong 1918 ay magaganap ngayon.

Pihadong mapapatid ang sistema ng sasakya’t suplay ng pagkain, enerhiya, at gamot.

At paano na kaya ang pangangalagang pang-kalusugan?

Bukod sa magulo’t masalimuot, tiyak ito ay magastos.

Kung noo’y umabot ito sa $181 bilyon, magkano na nga kaya ngayon?

Pakantandaang para kontrolin nang tuluyan ang SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), kinailangan ay $30 bilyon. 

Sa loob lamang ng 4 na buwan! 

Noong 2018, ipinagdiwang ng Centers for Disease Control (CDC) ng Estados Unidos ang ika-100 anibersaryo ng paglaganap ng Spanish Flu (SF).

Inamin ni Dr Manfred Moerchen ng CBM International na ibang-iba ito sa coronavirus disease (COVID-19), pero ibinahagi pa rin niya ang mga aral na dapat nating matutuhan sa nakaraan.

Una, ang SF ay nagsimula lamang sa 18 kasong inireport subalit pinaslang ito ng halos 50 milyon sa buong sanlibutan.

Ikalawa, sinundan pa ito ng sinasabing “simpleng” pandemiko noong 1957,1968, at 2009.

Ikatlo, lahat ng nabanggit ay nag-umpisa mula sa genes galing sa tao o di kaya’y ibon o baboy na walang ipinagkaiba sa  COVID-19 na diumano’y mula sa paniking may impeksiyon.

Ikaapat, dumadami sa loob ng 20 taon ang ulat tungkol sa bagong flu at tinatayang 3 hanggang 5 milyong malubhang kaso at 300,000 hanggang 600,000 pagkamatay tulad, halimbawa, ng nangyaring pagpanaw ng 25,000 Aleman noong taglamig nitong 2017 hanggang 2019.

Ikalima, papataas nang papataas din ang impeksiyon sa tao galing sa mga ibon.

Kung baga sa bugtong: “Hindi hayop, hindi tao, magkasalubong ang mundo.”

Oo.

Ito nga ang pinangangambahang “converging world of animals and humans.”

Ito ay dahil sa komersiyalisasyon – o komersiyal na produksiyon – ng mga manok at baboy.

Dito sa Filipinas, kapag sinabing putahe, ang ibig sabihin nito ay karne.

At kapag sinabing karne, ang ibig sabihin nito ay baboy kung hindi man baka.

Ang siste, lagi’t laging tumataas ang presyo ng karne.

Kaya ito naging simbolo de estado.

Pobre ka kung wala kang karne sa mesa.

Tuloy, ang atake de corazon, o cardiaco, ay pang-mayaman lamang.

Noon iyon.

Ngayon, kahit nga galunggong ay di na rin ganun.

Hindi na ito ang sukatan o simbolo ng kahirapan.

Mas mahal pa nga yata sa karne ang isda.

Kung ganun, ano ang pinakaabot-kaya ng masa? 

Manok.

Kung baga, ito ang maituturing nating Pambansang Ibon!

At ang pritong manok ang Pambansang Ulam?

Puwede.

Kahit saan ka kumain, o makikain, ngayon, lahat may manok.

Lalo na sa mga fastfood.

Naalala ko tuloy ang modelong taga-Colombia na si Natalia Paris.

Di ba binatikos siya sa kaniyang teorya kung bakit dumadami ang bakla kahit saan?

Aniya, sa Caracol TV, ang dahilan ng pagiging bading ay ang pagkain ng mga kabataang – sa pagitan ng edad 7 at 10 – ng fried chicken at iba pang pagkaing may manok.

Sa ganang-kaniya, ito ay dahil nakakain din natin ang mga hormone na itinuturok sa mga manok.

Ikinagalit ito ng mga netizen, at kahit ng National Federation for Colombian Poultry Farmers (FENAVI), kay Paris, na isa pa manding aktibista para sa karapatan ng mga hayop.

Ang siste, sinegundahan pa naman ito ng presidente ng Bolivia na si Evo Morales, na nagsalita sa isang kumperensiyang pang-kalikasan noong 2010 na ang pagkain ng manok ay hindi lamang nakaka-bakla kundi nakaka-kalbo rin.

Ito ang ikinapanting ng tainga ni Cesar Cigliutti, ang presidente ng Comunidad Homosexual Argentina: “By following that reasoning, if we put male hormones in a chicken and we make a homosexual eat it he will transform into a heterosexual.”

Ano kaya namang mangyayari sa pagkain natin ng karne?

Ano’t ano man, may mabigat tayo ngayong kinakaharap.

Nilinaw ng CDC na noon pa dapat ito pinaghandaan.

Inaasahan na ang matitinding pandemiko ay magbubunga ng putol-putol na serbisyong pangkalusugan, kulang na suplay ng mga gamot at iba pang pangangailangang medikal, at nakapanlulumong epekto sa ekonomiya.

Ito na ang kongklusyon ng CDC noon pa mang 2018.

Subalit, sa kasamaang-palad, isinantabi lamang ito ng karamihan.

Mabuti na lamang at nariyan palagi ang mga siyentipikong walang pahinga sa pagsasaliksik.

Tulad ni Dr. Daniel Jernigan – ang sumulat ng 100 Years Since 1918: Are We Ready for the Next Pandemic? – na  nabasa ni Dr. Moerchen.

O ng mga bayaning nasa likod ng SARS CoV-2 PCR Detection Kit, na pinagtulungang paunlarin ng University of the Philippines-National Institute of Health, Department of Science and Technology, at Philippine Genome Center.

Sa kasalukuyang itinaas na ang Code Red ng Department of Health (DOH) at deklarasyon ng Public Health Emergency, saka lamang napapatunayan ang halaga ng pangangalap ng mga datos at daigdig. 

Dahil dito, kahit paano, marami-rami na rin ang kaalaman tungkol sa COVID-19.

Bagamat hindi pa sapat, lumalabas ang realidad.

Isa nga rito ay ang kawalan ng pakikipagtulungan ng pamahalaan sa pandaigdigang pag-aaral.

Ang nakababahala rito ay dagok nito sa dahop-palad.

Mas madalas kaysa hindi, sila ang pinakahuli sa priyoridad.

Habang patuloy rin sa pagbabago ng mga sakit, walang tapos din ang pag-iibang-anyo ng pandemiko.

Kahit ang karaniwang lagnat ay hindi na rin karaniwan.

At, ito ang puno’t dulo ng takot.

Sino ang may sagot?

Wala pa ngang gamot ang COVID-19.

Pero, itinuturo na nito ang totoo.

Lahat ng dapat nating malaman, kung tutuusin, ay matagal na nating alam.

O, wala lang.

Wala lang tayong pakialam.

Sa palengke ng hayop-gubat?

Sa mega-siyudad?

Sa populasyon?

Sa pagpaplano ng pamilya?

Sa ating panganganak nang panganganak?

Anak ka ng…

Virus!

Anak mo rin ang virus.

Totoo.

Tayo rin ang dahilan kung bakit tayo nagkakaganito.

Kapag kumain tayo ng karne, pinagdurugtong natin ang mundo ng hayop at ng tao.

Asal-hayop na rin tayo.

Ugaliin kaya nating kumain, halimbawa, ng mga bagay na hindi kailangang katayin para kainin?

Ambag natin ito, wika nga, sa edukasyong pang-kalusugan.

Mas mapapabilis natin – nang hindi natin namamalayan – ang pagtulong sa mas nangangailangan.

Pag-ugnay-ugnayin natin ang bayanihan hindi lamang sa loob kundi sa labas ng ating bahay, bayan, o bansa.

Napapasubo ka ba?

Teka, maghugas ka muna ng kamay. 

– Rappler.com 

Sa ngalan ng siyensiya’t sining, tumutulong si Vim Nadera sa mga maykanser, may AIDS, nagdodroga, “comfort women,” batang kalye, inabuso, naipit sa mga kalamidad na likha’t likas, at mga nagdadalamhati. Ilan sa kaniyang mga proyekto ay Textanaga, Panitikabataan, panitikan.com.ph, Pistang Panitik, Pagpupugay sa mga Pambansang Alagad ng Sining. Conspiwriters’ Tuesdays, O.M.G. (Open Mic Gig), Kaakuhan, Word Jam, at Akdang Buhay. Itinanag nila ng kaniyang kabiyak ang Foundation AWIT (Advancing Wellness, Instruction, and Talents) Inc. 

Dear PNP, 

You probably meant well when you released yet another rape prevention ad last month, but once again you missed the point. The PNP Angono station also came out with a problematic rape prevention poster some time ago.

In both ads, the “tips” you listed are all targeted at women. If you really want to prevent rape, you need to start targeting your rape prevention ads at men. 

Why?

Most acts of sexual violence are perpetrated by men. 

A global survey shows that about 90% of perpetrators of reported acts of sexual violence are men. Factors like low education and exposure to environments where violence was normalized, such as a history of maltreatment as a child, or witnessing violence against their mothers, make men more likely to commit acts of sexual violence. Other factors include alcohol abuse and unequal gender norms that promote men’s entitlement over women.

Men are not born violent. A whole societal ecosystem promotes and encourages violent behavior. We need to start changing the way society treats and talks to men. And we need to stop thinking that it is only the woman’s responsibility to do so.

Most perpetrators of sexual violence are known to the victim.

Trust is a sexual predator’s access to the victim. Numbers show that most of the time, the perpetrator is someone the victim knows and trusts. An acquaintance, a relative, or an intimate partner. 

About one in 5 homicides is carried out by an intimate partner or family member, and women and girls make up the vast majority of those deaths.

Think about that for a moment. The perpetrator is in your home, in your school, or in your office. Places that you would think are safe spaces. In that context, telling women not to dress a certain way, drink too much, or walk in a dark alley alone at night is just pointless. 

Most acts of sexual violence go unreported.

This is attributed to a variety of reasons. The inherent shame in admitting that you have experienced sexual violence.  Fear that you may not be believed or will be blamed for what happened. The far-reaching ramifications of exposing the perpetrator who is known to you. 

Rape and sexual prevention ads that put the burden of prevention on women reinforces the fear that they will be blamed for acts of sexual violence. It prevents them from reporting incidents, feeding into the vicious cycle of these crimes not being reported and violators not being held accountable. Making violators feel like they can get away with a crime – essentially, a sense of impunity – is one way we allow these crimes to continue. 

So what can we do? What would a sexual violence prevention ad targeted at men look like?

It would tell them to:

Choose your words carefully, because words matter

The way that we speak to each other and about each other is a reflection of how we see one other. Quite simply, it is an indicator of respect. Rape jokes are never funny. Catcalling someone is not a compliment. More specifically, when we have surveys that show that 28% of men around the world think that sexual jokes at work are acceptable, we should speak out against that and categorically say that that is unacceptable. 

Know what the different types of sexual violence are

To recognize sexual violence and prevent it, we must first identify the different forms it takes.

Sexual violence: The all-encompassing term that covers crimes like sexual assault, rape, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse.

Sexual harassment: Any unwanted or uninvited sexual attention that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment in the school or workplace. Also includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature in the workplace or learning environment. Can also occur in the streets and public places when men ogle, whistle, or make obscene or degrading remarks and gestures. Also includes using technology to engage in harassing, unsolicited, or non-consensual sexual interactions. Keep those unsolicited dick pics to yourself.

Sexual assault: Any form of non-consensual sexual contact that does not result in or include penetration. Examples include attempted rape as well as unwanted kissing, fondling, or touching of genitalia and buttocks. 

Rape: Non-consensual penetration (however slight) of the vagina, anus, or mouth by a penis or other body part. Also includes penetration of the vagina or anus with an object. Rape includes marital rape and anal rape/sodomy.

Domestic violence or intimate partner violence: Violence that takes place between intimate partners which includes spouses, cohabiting partners, or boyfriends/girlfriends. Domestic violence is often used interchangably with intimate partner violence but can also include violence by family members other than a spouse.

Recognize what consent is 

There are 3 mandatory elements of consent. First, it is informed – each person knows and understands what they are getting into and agrees to it. Second, it is voluntary – it must be given without coercion, force, threats, or intimidation. We also need to understand how power dynamics like age, social class, and hierarchy can be turned into a form of intimidation. Lastly, it is revocable at any time – just because she agrees to kiss you, it doesn’t mean she wants to have sex with you. 

We should all take all acts of sexual violence seriously. One in 4 women and one in 7 men will be victims of sexual violence in their lifetime. When we make concrete steps to end sexual violence, we help protect everyone. And dear PNP, that concrete step can start with making more accurate sexual violence prevention ads that talk to men.

Happy International Women’s Month! 

For additional tips on how to prevent sexual violence, check out this toolkit made by the Center for Disease Control. – Rappler.com 

Ana P. Santos writes about sexuality and gender for Rappler. She is the 2014 Pulitzer Center Miel Fellow and a 2018 Senior Atlantic Fellow for Healthy Equity in Southeast Asia. Follow her on Facebook at SexandSensibilities.com.

Back in 1998, I helped conduct a study on "Elite Perceptions of Inequality and Poverty in the Philippines," which included in-depth interviews and semi-structured surveys with nearly 100 of the country’s rich and powerful. 

One thing that disturbed me was the inability of many Filipino elites to see that ending poverty and inequality was in everyone’s best interest. Inequality and poverty hurts the poor the most, but in the end, it affects us all — it stunts economic growth, gives rise to crime and violence, creates unsafe and unhealthy environments, leads to a collective sense of fear and hopelessness, to name a few.  

A simple example that seemed to escape a number of interviewees, was how poverty impacts the environment and affects us all, including those who think they are safely ensconced in their exclusive enclaves with spiky wrought iron gates. While poorer communities who are exposed to it are affected more, at the end of the day we breathe the same air, draw water from the same resource, and so on. 

I was reminded of this with the outbreak of the new coronavirus. Nothing has emphasized our connectedness – locally, nationally and globally – more than COVID-19, which continues to rage around the world. Nothing will also emphasize the link between poverty, income inequality, and health more than the spread of this incredibly infectious disease.  

COVID-19, which originated from China’s Wuhan province, has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). So far, it has traveled to 114 countries, killed more than 4,000 people, and sickened more than 120,000 others. Health experts suspect many more cases are going undetected or underreported for many reasons. Some people who have been infected don’t exhibit any symptoms of the disease and are unknowingly infecting others. Others who are sick continue to work because they can’t afford not to. There are not enough test kits to go around, especially in countries that can’t afford them or don’t have any pandemic preparedness plans in place, or have under-resourced and under-developed healthcare systems. 

Those of us with access to communication platforms have heard health experts discuss what we can do to reduce our risk of getting it. Around the world, the advice is universal: wash your hands often with soap and water for about 20 seconds; carry hand sanitizer when you’re outside. We are told to stay home if we are sick, and contact our doctor if our symptoms become worse. We are told to ensure we have a two-week supply of food, water, and medication in case we get quarantined. 

These are all useful advice, except they forget that we are not all equal. Not everyone has clean, running water and soap. Not everyone can call in sick – part-time workers and the precariously employed don’t get paid when they don’t show up; worse, it could cost them their jobs. Not everyone has access to free healthcare. Even countries with universal healthcare, like Canada, don’t extend this to temporary migrant workers. Not everyone can afford to stock up on food for self-isolation or quarantine; others don’t even have enough food for the day, or a home. 

In other words, coronavirus discussions and responses are forgetting its impact on the poor and the vulnerable, which will be to the detriment of us all. No community will be truly safe and protected from this virus (and other future outbreaks) unless everyone has the same access to healthcare and other basic needs. If the person behind the counter of your local supermarket is infected with the coronavirus, the likelihood of you and many others catching the disease is increased. (READ: Staying compassionate in the time of coronavirus)

On a global scale, experts warn that the virus is likely going undetected and unreported in poor and developing countries, which could quickly be overwhelmed by a local outbreak. This would not only severely affect the health of their populations, their economies could just as easily crumble from its effects. 

The realization that everyone should be protected is only dawning on governments now. Italy, the hardest hit country outside China, is planning some economic measures to alleviate the burden on many. These include providing relief funds for small and medium-sized businesses in affected areas, and possible suspension of utility bills. 

In the US, the Trump administration announced it has met with heads of insurance companies, who have promised to waive all co-pays for COVID-19 testing. But as the British Medical Journal has pointed out, this will only cover around 160 million who are insured. “They did not discuss providing care for the estimated 30 million people who lacked health insurance in the US, the 44 million who had inadequate insurance, or the 11 million undocumented immigrants,” it noted. 

In terms of assistance for developing countries, some international institutions and rich countries have pledged emergency grants and loans to help them deal with the pandemic; some NGOs have contributed funds to the WHO to help raise awareness on how to avoid coravirus and to train rapid response teams and medical personnel there. Much more will be needed. WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has underscored that a global effort is needed for this virus that, as he said, “does not respect borders.”

When the dust settles – which one hopes will happen, and soon – citizens must hold their governments accountable for their response or lack of response to the outbreak, including protection for society’s most vulnerable. 

We cannot afford to be complacent – scientists and medical researchers have repeatedly warned that viral outbreaks will now be the new normal as the climate crisis progresses. – Rappler.com

Marites N. Sison is a freelance writer and editor based in Toronto. Follow her on Twitter and Instagram at @maritesnsison

The new coronavirus may be the scourge of the time – it has been declared a pandemic, after all – but trust President Duterte to have other things in mind. 

On the evening of his nationwide broadcast on the virus (March 12), he appeared more than two hours late and still needed time for a last-minute briefing before finally opening his mouth – and proceeding to say nothing, not even a token sorry. 

Well, not really nothing. He praised his longtime accessory, now concurrently a senator, Bong Go, for his “hard work,” which for the night consisted in handing him the papers he would read from and collecting them back. 

He also thanked Premier Xi Jinping for his promise to help us fight the virus. Given China’s strange brand of generosity, such help is probably a loan bearing an interest well above the going rate. And, given China’s equally strange sense of remorse, the standby loan is likely intended as compensation for giving us COVID-19 in the first place. 

Xi is not wanting in gratitude either – gratitude in, again, the same typically strange way. In exchange for the strategic and resource-rich territorial waters he got from Duterte, he exported to us Chinese capitalists and workers in great numbers, soldiers in disguise among them. They have set themselves up in all manner of shady operations, which offer rich opportunities for official corruption. 

The virus around which Duterte’s appearance had been arranged became incidental to politics. In the next days Duterte’s assistants would be busy answering the questions he needed to answer about the virus that evening but neglected to do so because he was preoccupied with electoral courtship. He gave local governments and their barangay patronizing importance: they will control citizen movements and set up their own quarantines, with the police and the armed forces backing them for needed muscle. 

“This is not martial law,” Duterte said. If he meant it you would wonder what business the generals had coming along and seating themselves arrayed behind him. 

But that’s one-track-minded Duterte. No virus, however deadly, can detract him from his moment’s obsession, and that is to stay in power or, in any case, escape accountability – for corruption, summary killings, treason – after his presidency. The virus is there only to serve that obsession, a desperate one, as it happens. 

Well past halfway through his 6-year term, he has not been able to install himself dictator. He hasn’t stopped threatening; doubtless, he hasn’t stopped trying, either. But, evidently, the military would not go along, having become hung up, since its complicity with Ferdinand Marcos in his own dictatorial regime (1972-1986), on some solid constitutional justification. COVID-19 is certainly no such justification. Still, he will try to use it in whatever way it suits him.

But it seems likeliest that in the end he will be left with no other choice than to take his chances on the vote in May 2022 and hope that a surrogate succeeds him. 

Surrogate prospects are in fact being floated. Not surprisingly these are family or sycophantic sidekicks or cronies, of whom the more obvious names are Duterte’s daughter Sara, Bong Go, and another senator, Cynthia Villar, whose son is Duterte’s Secretary of Public Works and Highways, whose wife in turn is Undersecretary of Justice. Not to be counted out, despite an enormous natural incapacity further increased by taking blows to the head in a long, if illustrious, ring career is Manny Pacquiao; he has made it to senator, after all. 

Meantime, already up against the advantage of incumbency, opposition groups remain split. And sidetracked moreover by the virus and constrained by health measures that call for limited movement and social distancing, where once they wasted time they are now deprived of it. That’s precious little time as it is, and time better spent agreeing on one choice – only one – and coalescing around him or her, as elementary strategizing dictates.

If you ask yet who that choice should be you are not being wholly innocent. The choice is simply too clear to be missed, and only too well tested to be doubted. Despite being not only a marginalized but a persecuted Vice President, she has proved her leadership worthiness all around, most critical of all in the field of morals, where lies the root of our social deterioration, and possibly, in the context of all human society, where lies as well the cause of COVID-19 – Rappler.com

The upheaval caused by the coronavirus– COVID-19 is all around us. And I know many are anxious, worried and confused. That’s absolutely natural.

We are facing a health threat unlike any other in our lifetimes.

Meanwhile, the virus is spreading, the danger is growing, and our health systems, economies, and day-to-day lives are being severely tested.

The most vulnerable are the most affected—particularly our elderly and those with pre-existing medical conditions, those without access to reliable health care, and those in poverty or living on the edge.

The social and economic fallout from the combination of the pandemic and slowing economies will affect most of us for some months.

But the spread of the virus will peak. Our economies will recover.

Until then, we must act together to slow the spread of the virus and look after each other.

Even though the situation has been classified as a pandemic, it is one we can control. We can slow down transmissions, prevent infections and save lives. But that will take unprecedented personal, national and international action.

COVID-19 is our common enemy. We must declare war on this virus. That means countries have a responsibility to gear up, step up and scale-up.

How? By implementing effective containment strategies; by activating and enhancing emergency response systems; by dramatically increasing testing capacity and care for patients; by readying hospitals, ensuring they have the space, supplies and needed personnel; and by developing life-saving medical interventions.

All of us have a responsibility, too – to follow medical advice and take simple, practical steps recommended by health authorities.

In addition to being a public health crisis, the virus is infecting the global economy.

Revitalize economies

Financial markets have been hard hit by the uncertainty. Global supply chains have been disrupted. Investment and consumer demand have plunged – with a real and rising risk of a global recession.

United Nations economists estimate that the virus could cost the global economy at least $1 trillion this year – and perhaps far more.

No country can do it alone. More than ever, governments must cooperate to revitalize economies, expand public investment, boost trade, and ensure targeted support for the people and communities most affected by the disease or more vulnerable to the negative economic impacts – including women who often shoulder a disproportionate burden of care work.

A pandemic drives home the essential interconnectedness of our human family.

Preventing the further spread of COVID-19 is a shared responsibility for us all. 

The United Nations – including the World Health Organization – is fully mobilized.

As part of our human family, we are working 24/7 with governments, providing international guidance, helping the world take on this threat.

We are in this together – and we will get through this, together. – Rappler.com

This is the condensed version of the lecture entitled, “Weaponizing Lawfare in the Philippines,” delivered at Plenary IV:  Combatting Lawfare: Strategies and Responses of the “International Forum on Lawfare: Weaponization of Lawfare vs Democratic Dissent” at the Teresa Yuchengco Auditorium, De La Salle University on February 21, 2020.

During the Marcos reign of power, I worked closely with Walden Bello to organize a session of the Permanent Peoples Tribunal in Brussels, which carefully documented the crimes of the Marcos government as perpetrated against the citizenry of the country. The proceedings of the tribunal produced a devastating record of abuse of state power.

The international attention generated by this extralegal action helped prepare the atmosphere for what later became the People Power Movement of the 1980s – a civil society initiative that exposed the abusiveness of government, especially when conventional means of judicial redress were unavailable. 

Lawfare in wartime US

The assault on fundamental rights raises profound concerns about the future of democracy. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, national security discourse in the United States became a battleground for contesting ideas about how lawfare was used and misused. National security hawks contended that according due process protection to those suspected of terrorist activities was the type of lawfare that interfered with national security imperatives. In sharp disagreement, civil libertarians invoked law and civil rights to oppose and denounce the demonization of Muslims and the denial of their rights. 

It should be recalled that the mass internment of Japanese who were legally residing in the West Coast, for alleged national security reasons at the start of World War II after the Pearl Harbor Attacks, was a fundamental abuse of individual rights to due process by the US Government. When the US Supreme Court upheld such abuse, it lent its legal authority and prestige to this negative instance of lawfare.

These departures from the rule of law in wartime, are however, less serious than the tactics employed by autocratic leaders seeking to stifle dissent and discredit opposition during normal times. These tactics are more dangerous because, if successful, they will, as they often have, engulf all branches of government – disabling democracy all together. It excuses no one – however prominent. It intimidates more than it punishes – pacifying society as a whole at the very time when the citizenry needs to be mobilized to protect the integrity of a political system that safeguards rather than punishes citizen participation, which necessarily includes dissent and opposition.

Lawfare at present

Around the world, the rise of the infamous leaders of the new world – Trump, Modi, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, and Duterte, is the new phenomenon of democratic electoral procedures elevating and sustaining anti-democratic leaders despite using their official positions to repress, and ignoring constitutional limits on their authority. The growing support for this type of leaders – who obstruct and punish persons found in the opposition – endangers the rule of law. 

They employ similar strategies: distortion of normal legal practice with tactics involving deliberate manipulations of law and government procedures to cripple opposition politics. They pave the way for the erosion and subversion of the vital independence of legislative and judicial institutions.

The rise to power of these leaders ominously warns us that even in long established political democracies, opportunistic politics can, and will, overwhelm constitutional protections against abuses of State power.

Lawfare is today’s threat to democracy

When a leader views criticism not as part of the essential give-and-take of a political democracy, but rather as an impermissible assault on his leadership, it reduces political leadership to a menacing call for unquestioning obedience on the part of citizens. In this instance, the law does not serve its proper role of protecting citizens against State abuses, but rather functions as an instrument of naked power deployed against notable critics and opposition figures. It becomes a weapon of the powerful, used to avenge legitimate attacks – where even elected members of legislative and judicial institutions are commanded to obey, or expect harmful consequences.

Lawfare as manipulated by unscrupulous leaders is a global challenge that has become a threat not only to democracy, but also to the structure of government based on checks and balances, to the dignity of individual citizens, and to the independence of persons elected to serve in government.

Lawfare should not only be uncritically condemned when used regressively, and its deployment to deny basic rights should likewise be unconditionally exposed, opposed, and rejected. Considering that lawfare has a positive potential when properly deployed in the pursuit of justice, it is important to distinguish between the contradictory roles of lawfare – as repressive and as emancipatory.

Lawfare is regressive when it criminalizes opposition – regardless of legitimacy. A current example can be drawn from the recent European and North American experience – where hate speech or anti-Semitism criticism of Israel’s policies and practices is criminalized.

It is progressive when the law offers a remedy. One such instance is when Palestine sought recourse from the International Criminal Court to investigate allegations of Israeli criminality. 

Lawfare against De Lima

Senator Leila de Lima is the most prominent victim of the partisanship propagated by Duterte. She was removed as Chair of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights in a very apparent retaliation for accusing Duterte of introducing policies of unlawful extra-judicial execution. She has been attacked in unspeakably vulgar terms by Duterte partisans in language that was nothing short of a vicious form of character assassination. 

This partisanship having been utilized in weaponizing the law has deprived Senator de Lima of the opportunity to fully serve the people who elected her to office, denied her the right to vote on legislative issues, and participate in debates. But more dangerously, it has set a precedent – having made it so easy to attack a sitting Senator, any such attack on the people of the Philippines is no longer far-fetched. Coming to her aid then, will rescue not just a single individual, but will likewise restore confidence that the rule of law can function under the altered conditions of political democracy in the Philippines.

What is to be done?

Any act to subdue and put an end to regressive lawfare would depend largely on whether the deviation from adherence to the rule of law is partial, exceptional, and seems reversible. In this case, maximum effort should be made to make intelligent use of formal legal procedures as provided. 

The crucial role that media and academic experts can play – complementary to the efforts of professional lawyering – bears stressing. Media coverage and engagement of academic experts will expose the political nature of any misuse of law – which will arouse a responsive public opinion. Such extra-legal pressure in a political system that maintains its claims of democratic legitimacy, can be effective in persuading wavering judges and conformist legislators to do the right thing, and at least refrain from doing the wrong thing. But it will be more challenging where government institutions have been repeatedly subverted, where the independent media has been eliminated or cowed into submission, and where protest activities are met by harsh police tactics. 

The prolonged detention and framing of Senator De Lima is a shocking reminder of how abuses of power occur in a country that claims to be a constitutional democracy. It represents the distorted application of law and the manipulation of basic institutions of government. Her case is an extreme example of law gone wrong – a pattern of injustice being challenged to the extent possible by lawyers, but this may not be enough. Progressive lawfare, enlisting support of nationally and internationally respected NGOs, encouraging the preparation of a public report on abuse of rights and regressive lawfare, filing allegations via Special Rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, should be under consideration and explored if further attempts to render justice on behalf of Senator de Lima do not succeed. Autocratic leaders after all, are allergic to procedures that document their abuses and crimes, and pass judgment based on the conscience of moral authority figures, testimony of victims, and opinions of legal experts. – Rappler.com

Professor Richard Anderson Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara who authored and co-authored several books. He received his BS from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; LLB. from Yale Law School; and JSD. from Harvard University. 

In 2001, he served on a 3-person Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestine Territories that was appointed by the United Nations, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. He serves as Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Board of Directors, and as honourary vice-president of the American Society of International Law. He also acted as counsel to Ethiopia and Liberia in the Southwest Africa Case before the International Court of Justice. 

In March 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed Falk to a 6-year term as a UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

I write this just minutes after returning from the supermarket. We had headed there to buy ingredients for dinner – just one dinner, tonight’s dinner, just enough sinigang for two – but knew full well the bedlam we were about to face.  

Since last week, and more so now that the coronavirus-borne lockdown is hours away, supermarkets and pharmacies across Metro Manila have been choked with panic-buyers, hoarding canned goods and packed snacks, whole liters of disinfectant and alcohol, and, inexplicably, rolls and rolls and rolls of toilet paper.  

The end times, it seems, asks for maximum absorbency.  

But it’s important to note that we had headed to Rustan’s Supermarket at Shangri-La Plaza mall, a high-end grocery catering to gated village residents and expats (we are neither, but it was the nearest spot to us at the time, and we are admittedly middle-class enough to get by). 

A study in contrasts 

It’s already unnerving to be in any kind of supermarket at the peak of a panic pandemic, but there’s something particularly sinister in the air when you know a lot of the people in these aisles will head back in cars to comfortable homes, to pantries that were full to begin with, to lives where money trouble means a failed business investment and not an empty wallet and a chorus of grumbling stomachs. 

There was a part of me that wanted to stand in front of the checkout aisles and shout at all the folks nursing their loaded carts: “STOP IT! STOP BEING SO SELFISH! Andaming nagugutom sa mundo! I don’t care if you’re just looking out for your family! You should look out for EVERYONE! What the hell are you going to do with all that tuna? How much toilet paper does your ass need? Why can’t we all just calm the fuck down and stop pretending the outdoors is a nuclear hellscape? (READ: [OPINION] Let’s not forget the poor during the coronavirus pandemic)

But there was a part of me – a huge part of me – that also wanted to grab as much food as I could carry before the next wave of Valle Verde titas could get to them.

And it wasn’t exactly because I felt pressured by the chaos, but because I knew what these hoarders were fearing the most. 

The blind leading the blind 

It wasn’t the virus. That was the least of people’s worries. There was something far worse, and that was the crippling uncertainty stretched out before them for who knows how long – an uncertainty over an uncertainty – because we have government officials who would rather baby an old man who literally cannot express a series of coherent thoughts, and were not fit for their positions to begin with, as they were chosen by said old man for their loyalty and not their competence. (READ: IN PHOTOS: Mass exodus before Metro Manila 'lockdown')

And now the rhythm of our lives is at their mercy. And we don’t know what that will mean for us. We don’t know what will come of all this. So we default to thinking only of ourselves, and avert our thoughts and consciences from the poverty and injustice that surrounds us, because it is the only thing we can do in a country that, frankly, has never truly protected any of us from harm. 

And that makes us horrible people. And we are aware of that, and accept that, unconsciously or not.  

So while I was standing there amid empty shelves, staring at the last two cartons of eggs just waiting to be snatched in rabid triumph, I was trying not to cry. 

Because this uncertainty, this chaos, and this selfishness, I realize, is nothing new to any of us. It has always been here, has spread far and burrowed deep, has been a grave illness whose cure we have yet to discover. – Rappler.com

Are you checking your social media feed for coronavirus updates– a lot? Did you buy toilet paper or rubbing alcohol more than you need? Are you wondering if you counted 20 seconds when washing your hands but forgot and so decided to start all over again? Are you giving the evil eye to that woman who didn’t cover her mouth when she coughed? Did you flinch when she coughed? If you’re fearful of catching the coronavirus, you’re not alone.

My training as a clinical psychologist gave me the hands-on understanding of human behavior, including individual disorders. However, it was my training in public health, especially health policy, and later in psychiatric epidemiology that gave me the bird's eye view of how policy interventions at the sociocultural and systems levels can improve our mental health and wellbeing as a population.

Our individual worries about the virus is normal but can hurt others. We might feel some relief that we got a whole box of rubbing alcohol, but we forget that others need to clean their hands, too, for us to be protected. (READ: 'Customer not always right': Alcohol hoarders should be sent out of stores, says DTI)

Here are some ways I manage my own worries.

Yes, I am worried.

I admit to myself that I am nervous. I can feel a sense of impending panic. I am overthinking what may or may not happen. I am presenting at a conference in Tokyo later this month. Should I go? I was just invited to another one in Singapore in July. It might be better by then, right? My body feels tense. (READ: Questions Filipinos are asking about the coronavirus lockdown)

When I acknowledge these thoughts and feelings, I am able to manage the worries better and shift my attention towards something healthier.

I know my strengths and vulnerabilities.

There is a lot we do not yet know about the coronavirus. Older people and people with severe underlying health conditions – like heart disease, diabetes, and lung disease – are at higher risk for the more serious symptoms of the illness. 

So, I do feel some relief (though cautious) of my own risks. I am only in my late 30s, and according to a recent doctor’s visit, I seem to be in good health, although truth be told, I need to lose a bit of weight.

I am not immune to the virus, of course. It does not discriminate. But even the most basic information offers me some relief.

I get my news updates – and then don’t.

I only watch the news in the morning (before work) and at the end of the day (but not before bed). I might watch again in the middle of the day. I also watch at most the first 10-15 minutes and only at the top of the hour, when the most recent updates are likely to be broadcast. Then, I stop watching.

The news tends to recycle. It is the same every hour. The more I watch, the more I needlessly worry.

I limit my social media use.

I follow and rely on two sources – the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Philippines. That’s it, no one else. You and many others (including this news organization) will post, share, like, etc., many other information, including those posted by the DOH and WHO. They will end up in my feed. For me, these are not helpful because you will have reinterpreted the original message in one way or another. They’re “noise.”

I also deliberately unfollow 10 people (though we’re still “friends”) from my social media accounts. I do this every day. This limits how much and what kind of information I see. And these days, we get a lot of virus-related information. More details and statistics, more worries. I also turn off the comments or notifications. I rarely respond to comments, even positive ones. (READ: Staying compassionate in the time of coronavirus)

I do not share or like others’ posts regarding the virus. I do not want to add to the anxiety-focused algorithm. 

My worries are softened with honest, simple, and forthright facts from reliable sources.

I reallocate my attention.

I become more anxious when I shift my attention to those things that are, well, anxiety-provoking, instead of those things that could offer me something more enjoyable or purposeful. I want to be more relaxed, but I am paying attention to things that don’t make me feel that way. So, the more helpful solution is to reallocate my attention.

According to the WHO, most people (about 80%) recover from the disease, and they don’t require special treatment. About 1 out of every 6 will develop serious symptoms, including difficulty breathing, but this also means 5 of them will not. Since the outbreak in December, the overwhelming majority of people have recuperated. Of the nearly 81,000 confirmed cases in China, nearly 62,000 have recovered. The odds seem to be in our favor.

I can choose to pay attention to the bad news and make myself miserable. Or I can shift that attention towards more hopeful things. I choose the latter, and I feel better.

And finally, I stick to routine.

I do what I did even before the outbreak, as safely as possible. I run in the mornings but probably not as close to people. I go to my favorite café but sit far away from others. The gym is less tempting these days, but there are a lot of online videos complete with attractive people who teach no-equipment workouts. Classes are suspended this week, but virtual learning is within reach – perhaps to the disappointment of my students. A lot of my work can be done remotely.

I wash my hands. I use rubbing alcohol. I keep a distance. I eat as healthy as I can and drink plenty of water. I watch streaming videos, read books, and plan trips. I stay in touch with friends and loved ones.

I take deep breaths and say, “This will pass. We will all be alright.” – Rappler.com

Dr Ronald Del Castillo is professor of psychology, public health, and social policy at the University of the Philippines Manila. The views here are his own.

What is more urgent and effective: go big or start small?

This is one of the fundamental questions I encounter when addressing the climate crisis. Some would argue that given the need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the next decade, the focus should be on pressuring authorities to implement large-scale solutions. Governments must enact policies for phasing out fossil fuels, especially coal, while corporations need to either stop funding environmentally-destructive projects or implement a just transition towards renewable energy development.

While these measures are obviously effective in mitigating and adapting to climate change, the value of the small-scale actions can never be discredited. These actions help create a precautionary culture wherein caring for the planet becomes a habit instead of an incentive, an initiative rather than a reaction. An educated, enabled, and empowered citizenry is also vital for exerting pressure on governments and corporations to instigate shifts in political and socioeconomic models to deal with the climate crisis. 

The importance of behavioral change to stop climate change is evident, whether you look at it through a scientific or religious lens.

The religious lens 

Pope Francis’s encyclical "Laudato Si’" is known as a landmark document of the Roman Catholic Church for directly addressing the climate crisis and environmental degradation. Yet at its core, it points to one undeniable fact: that human behavior is at the root of the ‘ecological crisis,’ and therefore at the heart of solving it. 

The Laudato Si’ calls for the creation of an “ecological citizenship,” where people are adequately motivated to respond to the call on caring for our common home. This would be brought about by environmental education with a renewed focus on ecological ethics. 

Given the challenges of today, education centered on scientific information, raising awareness, and avoiding environmental risks is no longer enough. It also needs a focus on critiquing and shattering the myths we consider as norms of the current modern life, from infinite growth to consumerism. It ultimately points for us to conduct ourselves in a way that is indicative of a lifestyle in harmony within ourselves and with others on Earth.  

Activities such as avoiding the use of single-use plastics, minimizing wasteful consumption of food, water, and electricity, using public transportation, and tree-planting and growing have positive impacts in our struggle for protecting our planet. Doing these actions do not just benefit our environment; they also provide personal co-benefits in aspects such as financial savings and better health. (READ: Philippine survey shows 'shocking' plastic waste)

While these acts are done on an individual level, that does not mean they should be misconstrued as modes exclusively for self-improvement. A dilemma with the complexity of the climate crisis requires a societal approach to properly address them. Given their potential positive impacts on the individual and communal levels, such activities are likely to spread and be adopted by different communities. 

As Pope Francis states, when done for the right reasons, each of these solutions can be considered as an “act of love” that reflects our societal responsibility for others and expresses our individual dignity.

The scientific lens

Several scientific reports have also proven the effectiveness of small-scale solutions for mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change. A 2018 study by the Center for Behavior and the Environment showed that almost two-thirds of global GHG emissions are associated with both direct and indirect means of human consumption. 

It is noteworthy that almost every item we consume is made using resources such as fossil fuels. Therefore, if we start minimizing unnecessary consumption and actively look for alternatives, we are pressuring manufacturers to switch to more environment-friendly production and distribution systems, which in turn reduces consumption of pollutive fossil fuels and other resources. (READ: Single-use plastics, still the environment's number 1 enemy)

Furthermore, implementing small-scale behavioral solutions can reduce GHG emissions by as much as 37% from 2020 to 2050. These solutions involve modifications to activities involving food, agriculture and land management, transportation, and energy and materials. 

This is supported by a report by Project Drawdown, a nonprofit organization dedicated to urgently reducing global GHG emissions. It claims that while the solutions to the climate crisis already exist, some of them receive relatively little attention compared to large-scale solutions such as developing more renewable energy resources, especially wind and solar.

This report identified the following as seven of the 10 most effective individual solutions: reduced food waste, health and education, plant-rich diets, refrigerant management, tropical forest restoration (including tree-planting), alternative refrigerants, and improved clean cookstoves. (READ: Sachet away: What's lacking in our plastic laws?)

The expression “great things from small beginnings” is almost a cliché nowadays, but it still applies when it comes to climate and environment action. Everyone needs to be involved in preventing further climate change and environmental degradation. And despite what some people might tell you, accessible and affordable solutions do exist. An act of love could truly go a long way. – Rappler.com

John Leo Algo is the Program Manager of Living Laudato Si Philippines and Climate Action for Sustainability Initiative (KASALI). He has been a citizen journalist and feature writer since 2016, focusing on the climate and environment beat. He earned his MS Atmospheric Science degree from the Ateneo de Manila University in December 2018. 

It’s been 9 years since I last wore my nurse’s uniform. Though I left this profession a long time ago, I feel that my instincts as a nurse have somewhat remained. This is why after learning of the widespread measures implemented in response to the new coronavirus outbreak, I couldn’t help but worry about the immediate future. I worry for my personal health, my family, my friends, my job, the health workers battling the outbreak, the economy. I worry about the general state of our country, really.

The health of a person is ultimately tied to the realities of his country. I realized this the hard way when back in college I witnessed firsthand the sad state of our health system. I had my training in a number of public hospitals and signs of the harsh reality were ubiquitous: doctors and nurses with their heavy workload, inadequate compensation, low supplies, heightened occupational risk, emotional and psychological burnout. I still recall how in some parts patients could not afford basics like disposable syringes and gloves while hospitals had limited stocks. Health workers had to be creative and resourceful, keeping their hands and minds busy for ways to bridge gaps. Whatever policies in place were not enough, and both health worker and patient suffered. The pain of my patient who couldn’t buy her medicine and the fatigue of my mentors can be ultimately traced to the problems that beset our health institutions.

Now that Filipinos scramble to brace themselves against the outbreak, these memories come back to haunt me. If on any given day our public hospitals are at risk of being overwhelmed, what more if the number of patients rises to the thousands? The health system has improved in some ways over the last years. An increase in government nurses’ salary has been mandated, for instance. But such victories were hard-fought and fraught with new setbacks. New nurses are inducted every year, but many also leave for better prospects on foreign shores. Just last year, the country’s health fund for 2020 was slashed by P10 billion, which undoubtedly further burdened our already beleaguered health system. The budget cut was criticized then when the country faced outbreaks of polio, measles, and dengue. But this misstep seems glaring in light of the current outbreak. It can be argued that no one could have foretold a pandemic was imminent, but prudence dictates that skimping on public health is always a risky move.

We Filipinos are resilient. We’ve endured conflicts, plagues, and disasters throughout history. Still here we are, looking forward to tomorrow with high hopes, our resolute morale our defining trait. But as we face this challenge, one that may turn out to be our greatest in many years, can we really bank on just our resilience? Will our fighting spirit suffice? This country cannot thrive if its health system is fragile by default. Each health crisis like the one in our midst today could leave the country reeling and weaker. It’s a very dangerous game we play when resiliency is our only card. The day may come when we encounter a crisis where the odds are stacked against us and the numbers are less forgiving.

A strong and efficient health system is by no means the only key to a flourishing country. But it certainly is one of its foundations. The fact that we now look to our experts, health workers, and institutions for guidance and solutions emphasizes the crucial role they play in our lives. But how will the health system serve the people if it is weighed down?

As I write this, I do my best to allay my fears. I tell myself that there is hope and that we shall overcome. Good news helps, including the development of more affordable test kits by Filipino scientists from the University of the Philippines. But I’m also reminded of the sacrifices of our health workers and experts  – the long hours they bear, the risks they brave, the exhaustion they feel, their race against time, and it leads me to a single conclusion: things must change for our health system not just for the current outbreak but for all crises to come.

I do not pretend to know the answer to this predicament, but perhaps part of it is showing our support to our health workers. We must bear in mind that health workers’ struggle is everyone’s struggle, and we must find ways big and small to advocate for their welfare, from sincere expressions of gratitude to supporting concrete policies that improve their working conditions. The government and those in positions of power, in particular, must take the long view and prioritize the provision of essential resources. Uplifting our health workers uplifts our health system, and uplifting our health system uplifts our country. – Rappler.com

Tristan Lugod was trained as a nurse. He now works as writer and editor for a writing firm in Makati.

To contain the further spread of COVID-19, on March 12 President Rodrigo Duterte put all of Metro Manila under partial lockdown (technically “community quarantine”) from March 15 to April 14. 

Although certainly better than nothing, there are reasons to believe this partial lockdown – as designed by Duterte – will not be very effective in containing the disease.

Duterte’s partial lockdown also doesn’t provide any financial assistance for workers and businesses whose incomes and livelihoods will be wiped out by the resulting economic downturn.

'Flattening the curve'

To contain COVID-19, epidemiologists around the world recommend “social distancing.”

This chiefly involves closing down schools, offices, malls and public places; banning mass gatherings; and encouraging or requiring people to go into home quarantine.

Social distancing works. Figure 1 shows that when done properly it spreads a viral outbreak over a longer period of time, but lowers the peak number of cases.

By “flattening the curve,” so to speak, we can prevent overwhelming our hospitals, exhausting frontline health workers like doctors and nurses, and preventing shortages of much-needed equipment like masks, gloves, and testing kits. 

How to play your part minimising the impact of Covid-19, in one simple gif, thanks to @XTOTL& @SiouxsieWhttps://t.co/s2331Up39npic.twitter.com/IDqnxAs5z5

— The Spinoff (@TheSpinoffTV) March 8, 2020

But besides social distancing, Duterte is also imposing upon us a partial lockdown. Movements in and out of Metro Manila are now restricted, but not totally prohibited.

Such lockdown is certainly better than nothing. It’s also much less economically disruptive than a mandatory lockdown, where we’re all trapped in our houses.

But because sealing off an entire region is next to impossible, a partial lockdown is inferior to, and less effective than, social distancing in containing a viral outbreak (see these animated visualizations).

Duterte’s partial lockdown also has too many weak points.

For instance, it still allows workers to go in and out of Metro Manila, provided they show identification at checkpoints. Considering there are about 3 million such transient workers – both those knowingly and unknowingly infected – it’s hard to imagine how this can effectively contain COVID-19 in Metro Manila.

Second, international flights will still be allowed under certain conditions. Unless government beefs up its contact tracing – as done in other countries – this might only spread the disease all over the place.

Third, Metro Manila’s mayors are mulling a curfew from 8 pm to 5 am. But the virus respects no schedule, and absent similar restrictions of movements during the day, the virus can still freely spread outside curfew hours.

Fourth, Duterte first announced the lockdown on Thursday, March 12, giving everyone two days to flee Manila and stay in the provinces before the curfew on Sunday, March 15. Hours before the shutdown, throngs of people were still jostling to catch flights at the airport.

Without knowing who among them were infected or not – because too few have been tested so far – this could have accelerated the spread of the virus outside of Metro Manila.

Recall that a similar thing happened in Wuhan City, the original epicenter of COVID-19. In time for their Lunar New Year holiday, some 5 million people, or half their population, fled before a city-wide lockdown was imposed. Experts believe this exodus raised the risk of spreading COVID-19 elsewhere, leading to the present pandemic.

All in all, Duterte’s community quarantine is not airtight and somehow defeats the purpose of containing the disease. One prominent doctor even called it “a mockery” of the concept of community quarantine.

Such policy would be much less useful if there are, in fact, already thousands of Filipinos already infected with COVID-19, but we’re just woefully clueless since too few of us have been tested.

Safety nets

Duterte’s partial lockdown also comes with it severe economic disruption that he doesn’t seem to have foreseen and prepared for.

For starters, malls have been advised to stop all their operations for a month. Considering that nearly two-thirds of our economy rests on consumption, and a third of our national output comes from Metro Manila alone, this spells a severe economic downturn.

Besides malls, lots of other businesses will suffer huge losses as customers stay at home over the next month, presenting severe cash flow problems that could bury lots of entrepreneurs – especially small and medium enterprises – in debt.

Millions of workers risk losing their incomes, especially those who live outside of Metro Manila. Lining up at the checkpoints will add to their commuting woes, eat up their working hours, and erode their incomes.

Trade Secretary Ramon Lopez blithely suggested that business owners should just encourage their employees to find a place to rent here in Metro Manila – as if that’s so easy for ordinary workers to do. Rents in the city are so much higher and will eat up a sizable part of their meager pay.

Even more insensitively, Secretary Lopez bade all workers in the informal sector – with no valid IDs to show proof of employment or business in the city – to just ply their wares and do business outside Metro Manila.

This again is glaringly anti-poor and sure to impoverish those just hanging on the edge of the poverty line.

The partial lockdown behooves the Duterte government to extend various forms of financial assistance to everyone whose incomes and livelihoods are in danger.

As I wrote in my previous piece, these safety nets may come in the form of temporary tax relief for businesses, as well as paid leaves, wage and rent subsidies, and cash transfers for workers, especially those in no-work-no-pay arrangements. (READ: Can Duterte ward off a coronavirus economic slump?)

All these may be folded into a comprehensive stimulus package bill by Congress. Thankfully, one such proposal amounting to P108 billion has already been put forward by Marikina Representative Stella Quimbo – formerly a health economist and professor of mine at the UP School of Economics.

Unfortunately – but unsurprisingly – Duterte himself said nothing about any such economic assistance during his nationwide address on March 12.

At this point are we even surprised he has a shortage of both economic competence and sympathy for the plight of the poor?

Priorities

With the death toll rising in the Philippines – according to the Department of Health there are now at least 11 deaths out of about 140 confirmed cases as of Sunday afternoon – an outbreak this drastic requires similarly drastic solutions. No less than UN Secretary-General António Guterrres said, “We must declare war on the virus.”

But Duterte’s partial lockdown has too many loopholes that do not ensure at all that the disease will be effectively contained. It’s also glaringly inequitable.

Finally, Duterte is dangerously treating this new public health problem as a law enforcement problem – as he did with the war on drugs.

Rather than pouring resources into the police and military, his government should instead be prioritizing support for hospitals and health workers (like doctors and nurses) who are at the real frontlines of this battle.

Rather than firearms and checkpoints, we need more masks and testing kits. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD candidate and teaching fellow at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. Thanks to an anonymous MD friend for valuable comments and suggestions. Follow JC on Twitter (@jcpunongbayan) and Usapang Econ (usapangecon.com).

Yesterday afternoon, I drove to Antipolo to visit my parents. With the NCR quarantine taking effect today, I won't be able to see them face-to-face for at least a month.

Over an early dinner, my mom and I were discussing the inconveniences and difficulties quarantine might bring, and of course, the looming threat of death by COVID-19, the disease brought about by the novel coronavirus. She pointed out that the generation of my grandparents, and I'm in my 40s, had it much worse. They had to survive the Japanese Occupation and all the horrors that it brought, for 4 years.

In retrospect, COVID-19, although possibly fatal, is still not as frightening as 4 years of starvation and warfare. Fighting an armed opponent is no joke, especially with shortages of food, medicine, and information making day-to-day life very difficult.

My mom's own generation endured Martial Law. That meant 14 years of authoritarian rule, the threat of detention, torture, and death, and an economy mismanaged and looted. Martial Law was already a year old when I was born. Although I have strong memories of the period, these are still through the eyes of a child growing up, and not consciousness of an adult living a nightmare in his own country. (READ: [OPINION] Marcos and Duterte: Strongmen's changing playbook)

On the other hand, there are ways to combat the virus, if we are careful rather than carefree. Boredom at home is the least of one's worries. Be glad that you are precisely safe at home, because the risks faced by medical workers in hazardous environments is only too real. The same is true for policemen and soldiers manning roadblocks, employees of the transportation industries, and other occupations whom by definition cannot exercise enough social distancing. (READ: LIVE: Coronavirus advisories)

My frustration is that government at the highest levels has shown little concern and instead coughed out much inanity. To say, for example, that we should have sympathy for a tired, old president rather than hitting him with scorn, is missing the point. In times of crisis, especially in times of crisis, if one cannot cut it, then get out of the way, step down, and give it to someone who can, according to the rules of succession in a democratic society.

We don't need senators-turned-page turners. We need leaders who actually lead, rather than plaster their faces on alcohol bottles to be distributed to constituents. We don't need leaders who ramble and rumble during press conferences without knowing where to begin, or even where to end. Rather, we need leaders who appreciate what people are doing to make things better, even if they must endanger themselves for the greater good.

I am still hoping that implementing rules and regulations can be finalized sooner rather than later, but with proper coordination with other agencies rather than haphazard, contradictory announcements. I am aware that in a crisis there is a rush to issue orders, but orders without basis or direction make situations worse rather than better. And we definitely can't afford worse.

During an emergency meeting, and there have been many over the last week, someone said that COVID-19, for all the fear it generates, is also an opportunity. In many institutions, the transition to online work is fast-tracked, because face-to-face is no longer an option. Fear breeds necessity, and necessity abbreviates movement towards much-needed change.

Empty corridors in the malls, vacant seats in stadiums and movie houses, silence in the streets can be taken as a chance for introspection in what seems to be unreal, unwelcome gaps in our daily routines. This too is an opportunity to reflect. To spend time with family. To spend time with ourselves. Perhaps the contingencies generated by COVID-19 could even be an antidote to the virus that is too much clutter in daily life, and not enough space to really live.

To young people now, this could be THE moment you will later remember most, and later tell your children about, as Martial Law was to mom and dad, or the Occupation was to grandfather and grandmother.

But to get past this moment, we need to make it all OUR moment. Please do what you can to help, not hoard. This is not just a question of YOUR surviving. It is OUR surviving. In a pandemic, local, national, and international borders are mere lines on paper. COVID-19 doesn't give a damn about your gender, age, social economic class, and nationality.

So for all our sakes, please do give a damn. This is not the time for I, my, myself, even just my family. Amid COVID-19, there is only US.

Just, US. – Rappler.com

Jo-Ed K. Tirol, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of the Department of HIstory, Ateneo de Manila University.

This morning, we woke up to humongous traffic in the entry points to Metro Manila. But the scariest part is that our rate of contagion has exponentially increased from 10 to 140 affected in just 7 days.

People mostly grin and bear it. Like the proverbial bamboo in the wind, we Filipinos, famous for our ability to adjust, are already bending. 

But survival is not just about bending; it's about mitigation. Sadly, it seems mitigation is not in our government’s skill set.

The Philippines had a headstart in the same way the West did. The pandemic threat of the coronavirus was evident way back in January, and we had enough time to prepare for what now looks like a scramble for a structure, a policy, and an operations plan.

All the best and worst practices are there for us to either follow or discard. Asia is said to have the best models – from China to Singapore to Hong Kong and Taiwan – while the West – from Italy to Spain to Iran to the United States were mostly caught unprepared. For this pandemic, China instituted draconian measures, while Singapore acted fast. Taiwan was thorough in contact-tracing. Are we learning anything from them?

This is our second pandemic in our lifetime, the first one being the H1N1 virus in 2009. Under then-health secretary Manuel Dayrit, the Philippines was recognized as a government model in dealing with SARS. That's where we were before – proof that we have the best minds to deal with this. 

Government crisis structures have been in place since SARS and the major disasters that have hit us. It is a matter of mobilizing the bureaucracy with clear goals and tapping the wisdom, experience, and agility of both our crisis veterans and new-generation local executives. 

Post-2019 elections gave us some of the best mayors in Metro Manila and other urbanized areas, for example. Were their inputs gathered early enough to avoid a rushed lockdown or quarantine or whatever-we-call-it policy?  (Read: The flawed economics of Duterte’s partial Metro Manila lockdown)

Every crisis draws the collective spirit from a community – and demands leadership. Unfortunately, the last 3 years have also deepened our divisions as a society under a leader who has chosen to lead by fear.

In a polarized society governed by a polarizing leader – collective effort, single-mindedness, and the sense of community do not immediately surface. 

This is the big lesson this crisis has to offer: A leader must embrace his role as a unifying force, because a wounded society is a weak society in the face of a pandemic. 

We have the strongest president in this part of the world who, on his mere say so, had mobilized the law enforcers, the lawmakers, the judiciary, and the bureaucracy to follow his wishes. But what did we hear in his nationwide address last week? The President could barely articulate national policy, leaving the public more confused and anxious – and his own underlings issuing conflicting orders.

And that’s the crux of the matter: pandemic politics. Used to black-and-white and parochial orders, the Duterte administration is grappling with how to navigate the complex details and concerns that this crisis is surfacing. Between public interest and politics. Between business concerns and citizens' health. Between local autonomy and state power. Between draconian measures and sophisticated ones. Between unpopular decisions and posturing for 2022. 

So what are we going to do about it?

We can curse our luck or we can start coming together and putting that mythical bayanihan spirit to work. 

We can blame our leaders or put pressure on them to perform better. We can honk our symbolic online horns and stop giving this government a free pass.  

We can flex our muscles as private entities to raise funds for much-needed hygiene kits and fast-track long-awaited test kits to be available like drive-through french fries. 

We can stop hoarding and creating a false shortage and depriving our poorer kababayan of the same goods. We can heed common-sense and health advisories that say we should stay at home and practice social distancing. 

By doing this, we spread hope. And hope is our most precious currency now.

Rappler CEO Maria Ressa writes in her newsletter: "Hope comes from courage, from so many."

• the courage of our health workers, who are doing their jobs, many without the right protective gear; 
• the courage of our government officials and employees, who are trying to find the best path forward despite top-down shortcuts and knee-jerk commands;
• the courage of our journalists who go out every day to find information so you don't have to; 
• the courage of ordinary Filipinos who keep on doing what they must despite the uncertainty of the times. 

Leave the politics behind. Let us not be handicapped by our wounds. #CourageOn. – Rappler.com

I believe this started during the Philippines' hosting of the 2019 SEA Games, when there were many organizing mishaps – the foreign athletes' poor accommodations, the P50-million opening ceremony cauldron, the displacement of Aetas as New Clark City was being constructed, and all the unfinished venues days before the opening.

All these prompted those "critical" of the government to call out the organizers (headed by none other than House Speaker Alan Cayetano) for having such a big budget but delivering poor results. The "supporters" of the Duterte administration were then quick to defend the organizing officials, saying that we had to cut them some slack because they were working hard and doing their "best."

Then came the amazing opening ceremony. All of us were in awe – I for one got really hyped over the performances. The production was world-class, and the moment the Filipino athletes came out in the parade, I was just so elated, my heart soaring upon seeing them smiling and waving little Philippine flags. Add to that the moment when Filipino sports legends came out to raise the SEA Games banner, and that was when I'd probably hit peak Filipino pride. 

Then the social media wars started. As we all tweeted the Philippine flag emoji, people were calling others out for being hypocrites.

It was preposterous at best. I know this firsthand because I had clashed with friends who believed being critical of the government and/or calling out the administration could not be done while you were proud of being Filipino. 

I was enraged. How could people say that being critical and being proud were mutually exclusive? 

A friend also pointed out: when you're critical, you use your mind. When you're proud, that's your heart and feelings at work. Those are different things.

Loving your country is very different from loving your government. Besides, who are we to stay blind when faced with blatant incompetence? As a taxpayer, I know that I – we – deserve better.

Now the same scenario is happening as Metro Manila goes under "community quarantine" to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. People are calling others out for pointing out the things that should be improved by the administration.

The military and police are being deployed instead of implementing large-scale health measures. The President placed us under this "community quarantine" (a lockdown, in essence), but only very vague guidelines were provided. As of writing, they haven't even released the Executive Order for this "quarantine." 

However, people say we should just "obey." People say we should just trust the President.

But how can we give our trust when we don't really know if there is a long-term plan to address the pandemic? How do we give our trust if this administration believes that the root of all the country's problems are illegal drugs? How do we trust an administration who keeps cutting the budget on health and education, just to add money to intelligence funds that just result in "Red October" plots and ouster plot matrices?

My heart goes out to every single frontliner in this health emergency – the health workers, hospital staff, LGU officials, establishment guards and maintenance staff, and all other men and women keeping this situation from getting out of hand. They really are gems and they should be protected.

But I still stand that our government could have done better and been prepared better for this. I am still holding them accountable. (READ: Metro Manila to be placed under curfew during lockdown)

I love the Philippines. I love the people in it, with their smiles and their hospitality and resiliency and so many other things. So I will not turn a blind eye when government incompetence makes these people suffer even more. After all, being critical of our government could very well be part of loving our country. – Rappler.com