Commentary

Misinterpreting Section 9 of R.A. No. 11332

This is misleading. The full text of Section 9, R.A. No. 11332 states:

Section 9. Prohibited Acts. -The following shall be prohibited under this Act:

(a) Unauthorized disclosure of private and confidential information pertaining to a patient’s medical condition or treatment;

(b) Tampering of records or intentionally providing misinformation;

(c) Non-operation of the disease surveillance and response systems;

(d) Non-cooperation of persons and entities that should report and/or respond to notifiable diseases or health events of public concern; and

(e) Non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having the notifiable disease, or affected by the health event of public concern.

Disclosure of confidential information will not be considered violation of this Act under this section if the disclosure was made to comply with a legal order issued by a court of law with competent jurisdiction.

Clearly, the non-cooperation referred to here is non-cooperation with the reporting mechanism, not with lockdown/quarantine procedures. Lockdown/quarantine is not germane to the intent of the law.

Had the Legislature intended to give the authority to the government to arrest those who violate REGULATIONS (not LAWS or ORDINANCES) to enforce lockdown/quarantine, it would have stated so explicitly, the right against invalid arrests being one of our most cherished rights.

Again, sa mga nagpinamaayo kay lagi kuno times of emergency sunod na lang ta: times of emergency do NOT derogate rights, unless there is a law to that effect.

Also, klaroha nag basa diha, I never advocated for disrespect for these regulations, ang ako lang, KLAROHA na ninyo ang inyo legal basis, kay we are a country of laws and not of men man kaha.

Mao ra na. Mamahaw sa ko kay mag-Tiktok ko after ani.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.