By Clarence Basallo and Destinee Noor, Bachelor of Arts in International Studies, University of San Jose-Recoletos
THE Philippines was welcomed by 2020 with various catastrophic events. As early as Jan. 4, the entire world was shocked by the sudden conflict between the United States and Iran. Fear escalated throughout the Philippines, particularly those Filipinos who have families residing abroad. Next, the country was shattered by the abrupt volcanic activity of the Taal Volcano, which moved the Filipino people to action. Weeks after, another challenge came--the 2019 novel coronavirus from Wuhan, China that reported to have complicated effects on people’s immune systems, particularly among older people.
With various episodes, Filipinos sought more from government. Article 2, Section 4 and 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution stipulates the role of the government to ensure the general welfare of the people, protecting and serving the Filipinos. However, with this duty in mind, the recent novel coronavirus and the action of the administration caught the attention of health advocates and human rights activists. Although it is given that there would be divided opinions, some say that the “delay and late” banning of flights coming from the affected countries is a manifestation of how the government sets priorities.
With the growing concern of the Filipino citizens, the question now lies with the government’s ability to respond--diligently and effectively. Filipinos are known to be resilient and no less than deadly tropical cyclones and earthquakes can change those facts. The argument here is how resiliency has become a weaponizing strategy for insufficient actions. The measures done to solve and even prevent problems from happening in the first place have been overlooked. Filipinos are, indeed, resilient, but they do not deserve to suffer more if only the government can take immediate actions for long-term benefits.
As a democratic country, citizens have the right to call upon the government to act, to take preventive measures and to implement programs that matter most to Filipinos.
Nonetheless, Filipinos have to also realize that there is so much more to governance than promoting the citizen’s rights. The concepts of non-interference, self-determination, regionalization and diplomacy are all significant in the conduct of the government’s national and foreign policy.
As a rational state actor, why did the President not implement widespread protective measures for his people? In the wake of the pursuit of his so-called “independent foreign policy,” he has formed non-traditional ties towards other state powers, including the People’s Republic of China. When we speak of preventive measures, what do we prevent? What did the President have to prevent to make a decision?
Issuing a travel ban is a measure to prevent the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus for the people, while continuing to open our borders may also mean preventing from severing our relations with China.