Members of the House Committees on Human Rights and Public Order and Safety met recently in a joint hearing to discuss the implications of the pandemic treaty and the international health regulations (IHR) on the country’s implementation of national health policies and programs.
Committee on Public Order and Safety chairman Representative Dan Fernandez, in House Resolution (HR) 1481, expressed concern over the treaty and the IHR which member-countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) shall be bound to implement one year after its approval.
Deliberations on the treaty and the IHR are ongoing at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland, which is set to conclude on June 1, 2024.
Based on HR 1481, Fernandez’s concern is rooted in the WHO, by way of the treaty and the IHR, “arrogating unto itself absolute and non-questionable leadership in all health matters… aiming for its advice to become ‘legally binding’ on the part of (WHO) member-states… (with) the power to impose on people all kinds of access restrictions, lockdowns, surveillance and experimental treatments (and) the right to define various health situations and to control all information related to health… with no provision for a mechanism that will allow member-states to challenge WHO’s assessments.”
“Hindi na po siya dadaan sa Senado, ito pong pandemic treaty na ito.”
“Magkakaroon na tayo ng mandatory lockdowns, mandatory po ‘yung surveillance, treatments po natin kung ano yung sasabihan nila ‘yun ang susundan natin. In other words, lahat po ‘yan na sasabihin ng WHO through the amendments of the International Health Regulation (the country will be legally bound to follow). Hindi na po siya dadaan sa Senado, ito pong pandemic treaty na ito,” the veteran legislator said during the hearing.
The seasoned lawmaker pointed out that New Zealand rejected the pandemic treaty, and Estonia and Slovakia also rejected it.
Forty-two US Republican senators and 24 Republican governors also opposed the pandemic treaty “because their sovereignty is at stake,” Fernandez said.
First District Lanao del Sur Representative Zia Alonto Adiong agreed with Fernandez’s view of the said treaty.
“That is scary, that’s really scary.”
“It is some sort of an imposition, I want to zero in on that premise, because that is scary, that’s really scary,” Adiong said.
“No treaty can be effective without a parallel domestic law. The enforceability of a treaty can never be enforced without the Senate’s ratification, and therefore so many other treaties can only be enforceable if it has a parallel domestic law to implement that,” he added.
Committee on Human Rights chairman Representative Benny Abante likened the pandemic to Pandora’s box.
“Some four years after the pandemic struck the host of pandemic related issues continue to confront us as articulated in HR 1481, the recent news reports on the rise of Covid cases with the Flirt variant exacerbates the underlying issues of this joint congressional probe, while some questions had been vaguely answered in the previous hearings, still many more issues have been exposed,” Abante stressed.
Atty. Tanya Karina Lat of Lunas Pilipinas said there is no final text for the pandemic treaty.
Department of Health Epidemiology Bureau Nurse V Richelle Abellera said there is a study group that continues to refine the Philippines’ proposed amendments to the IHR, and that the DOH panel will be in a continuing discussion with concerned member-states.
Dr. Anna Marie Celine Garin, also of the DOH, said the pandemic treaty and the amendments to the IHR will undergo Senate ratification.
