Reading between orders and resolutions

Executive Order No. 7 that dropped mask mandates for indoor spaces (with exceptions for health care facilities, medical transport, and public transportation) can generally be assumed to be an economic decision, not a health one. It cited relaxation of health and safety protocols as a “welcome development that would encourage activities and boost efforts toward the full reopening of the economy.” It also cited neighboring Southeast Asian countries as models in how they have been able to relax health protocols and mandates without incident, despite the state of our health infrastructure being vastly different from them.

The resolution of the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF) that recommended such policies showed the further disconnect from health priorities. Dr. Maria Rosario Vergeire, the current officer in charge of the Department of Health (DOH) and IATF chair, signed the resolution along with a handwritten note that says, “I sign with my duty as Chair but DOH maintains its position.” Previously, DOH had stated preferring to maintain mask mandates, but agreed to a compromise due to the needs of tourism and the economy.

Balancing economic stability and public safety has been the biggest challenge for any government during this pandemic. The previous administration has tackled this balance by favoring a militarized approach, appointing military officials to head the task force, as well as putting in police and military checkpoints to keep people in lockdown.

The current administration seems to be deciding more and more in favor of businesses and tourism. The most glaring evidence toward this is the months-long refusal to appoint a DOH secretary, accompanied by a statement from the President that he will appoint one once things “go back to normal.” This has deprived DOH of a prominent voice in government in time of a global pandemic, with Dr. Vergeire having to sign resolutions regarding health protocols that are against the wisdom of DOH and the health community.

The Department of Education (DepEd) has followed suit, releasing its own Department Order No. 48 that declared masks as optional in classrooms in compliance with EO 7. The Philippine Pediatric Society and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society of the Philippines had to release a joint position paper shortly after, which asked for caution and encouraged continued use of masks in schools, citing the fact that a significant number of children remain unvaccinated and that long-term complications of COVID-19 have been found in this age group, increasing their vulnerability. DepEd spokesperson Michael Poa said at a press briefing that they are not telling people to stop wearing masks, but that “as far as messaging is concerned, we will stick with masking as optional.”

What is the messaging behind these executive orders and resolutions? By messaging that masking is optional, what is being relayed is that either way is okay. By extension, it conveys that not wearing masks indoors, particularly in a classroom with unvaccinated children, is safe enough. While EO 7 was at least explicit in its reasoning that it is based mostly on wanting to boost the economy, the DepEd order has not stated any reason why they are applying this to schools and the classroom.

As secondary guardians of children, DepEd should ideally lead in advocating for children’s health and safety in a learning environment. They could’ve asked for exemption to the executive order, as they are not adversely affected by mask mandates in the same way as businesses. DepEd has already mandated full-time, face-to-face learning and has dropped vaccination requirements. Dropping mask mandates in schools further seems to solidify the message that DepEd has de-prioritized physical health and safety from COVID-19. Continued lack of adequate facilities and classrooms that can address the remaining health and safety protocols, such as physical distancing and proper ventilation, would not make a parent feel safe in sending their children to such an environment unmasked.

In a national crisis, the messaging of government is important. Proper and consistent messaging can help assure citizens that their needs are being heard and addressed. Who the government appoints—or doesn’t appoint—in positions of power is a strong form of messaging. It shows who the government is getting their advice from, and which sectors are being prioritized. You can’t have a whole-of-society approach to a health crisis and then proceed to relegate health professionals and DOH to the sidelines, with only the power to put out footnotes and position papers against more powerful orders and resolutions. Minimizing health professionals and advocates in policy decisions will not make health problems go away.

——————

[email protected]