Please prepare a Legal Defense and Policy Advocacy strategy paper for the defense of people who are

arrested and imprisoned for violating quarantine and

curfew due to COVID19.

The objective is to get them released from detention immediately in the short term and to stop the arrest and detention of quarantine and curfew violators
in the medium term. You may also propose alternatives to incarceration and detention. Good luck

 Objectives
A. To get curfew and quarantine violators out of detention in the short term
 What is usually filed against curfew and quarantine violators (Asked authorities in charge of this)
1. Violation of Proclamation 922 – DECLARING A STATE OF PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY THROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINES
o Proclamations are acts of the President… declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the
existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be promulgated in
proclamations which shall have the force of an executive order
o In this case the proclamation allows RA 11332 (Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of
Public Health Concern Act) to take effect
o RA 11332 Provides public health authorities the statutory and regulatory authority to conduct:
 (1) Mandatory reporting of reportable diseases and health events of public health concern;
 (2) Epidemic/outbreaks and/or epidemiologic investigation, case investigations, patient interviews, review
of medical records, contact tracing, specimen collection and testing, risk assessments, laboratory
investigation, population surveys, and environmental investigation;
 (3) Quarantine and isolation; and
 (4) Rapid containment and implementation of measures for disease prevention and control
o Prohibited Acts under RA 11332
 (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 (Quarantine and curfew violators fall here)
o Penalties
 Any person or entity found to have violated Section 9 of this Act shall be penalized with a fine of not less
than Twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00)
 OR imprisonment of not less than one (1) month but not more than six (6) months
 OR both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the proper court
2. City Ordinance on curfew or quarantine
o The existence of the city ordinance is important because it is the basis of the “non-cooperation” that is punished by
RA 11332 through proclamation 922
o In other words, there can be no violation of non-cooperation via RA 11332 if there is no ordinance to cooperate
on in the first place, meaning if there is no ordinance on curfews then there can be no arrests for its violation
(Source is a statement by the DOJ also covered by an article by ABS-CBN)
o As for technicalities in the creation of the local ordinance, it really depends on the particular ordinance put into
effect, hard to tackle because we don’t have a setting for our defense otherwise, we could have looked for
technicalities in the creation of the ordinance by using the Local gov. code
3. Article 151 of the RPC - Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person
o Only used in circumstances where the curfew/quarantine violator resists arrest
o The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person … who shall
resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the
performance of official duties When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious
nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender
4. Note: RA 11469 or the Bayanihan to heal as one act does NOT include in its objectives the punishment of
quarantine/curfew violators, neither can these violators be charged under this law (not included in the prohibited acts it
punishes)
o But the law ensures that all local government units adhere to all the rules, regulations and directives issued by the
national government with respect to this law as well as implement community quarantine consistent with the
standards the national government has laid down
o It does not punish quarantine and curfew violators but instructs local governments to implement rules on
community quarantines
o It does however punish hoarders and unethical business practices like the sale of expensive alcohol etc.…
o As for the national standards that local governments should follow in the creation of these ordinances, we should
probably refer to this
 https://www.dilg.gov.ph/issuances/mc/Suppletory-LGU-Guidelines-on-the-Implementation-of-Enhanced-
Community-Quarantine-in-Luzon-and-State-of-Public-Health-Emergency-in-other-parts-of-the-Country-
due-to-the-COVID-19-Threat/3184 note: The standards of DILG memo 2020-062 were created with the
Luzon enhanced community quarantine in mind, no memo yet on whether the rest of the local
governments should adopt this standard but maybe we should presume that this is the standard
 https://www.dilg.gov.ph/issuances-archive/mc/ note: other memos released on other guidelines for
ordinances, however no specific memo on curfew and quarantine violations
 Important standards to note with regard to memo 2020-062 while also related to our topic
 5.1.5 LGU’s SHALL establish checkpoints
 5.2.2 LGU’s SHALL provide work at home arrangements for their employees, however exempt
frontline services on health, emergency, waste collection, border control, and other critical
services, as much as practicable, are exempted
 5.2.5 Exempted establishments include those providing/manufacturing food, medicine, water,
banking and remittance centers, power, energy, telecommunication, and the like
 5.2.4 LGU’s SHALL implement strict home quarantines…movement shall be regulated through the
issuance of gate passes…further, such movement shall be limited to accessing basic necessities, and
provision for food and essential health services
 5.2.6 Suspension of mass public transportation (tricycles, padyak, etc.…) but must provide
transportation for skeletal workforces that are exempted (5.2.7), those seeking to avail of basic
services (5.2.7.1) and persons stranded with the objective of getting said person to their place of
residence (5.2.7.2)
 5.2.10 LGU’s are to ensure no violation of human rights are committed by any border patrol staff….
Or officer granted authority by it to perform tasks relative to the implementation and maintenance
of the enhanced community Quarantine
  5.2.11 Curfews are to be construed as being in effect for the 24 hours of the day pursuant to the
general intent of the ECQ (meaning the limitation that you can ONLY go out for basic necessities, or
as a skeletal workforce, etc. applies 24/7 but does not mean that you are absolutely forbidden from
going out)
 Legal Defenses we have so far regarding immediate release due to quarantine and curfew violations!!!
1. That the arrest may have violated the due process clause e.g. violation of Miranda rights; torture, force, intimidation used
against him (Page 1 HR Legal defense doc)
2. That the detention or solitary confinement might violate the anti-torture act of 2009 for being so secret/solitary that
torture may be carried out with impunity (Legal Defense Draft Doc)
3. That the subsequent detainment violates Section 19 of Article 3 which prohibits psychological or degrading punishment
(Legal Defense Draft doc)
o The degrading punishments outside the law are Invalid (people forced to sit outside for violating curfews, etc.)
since that is punishment without law or hearing but the detainment itself is valid so far as the law is concerned
since it is considered a valid warrantless arrest
4. Section 5 Rule 113 on warrantless arrests (Legal Defense Draft Doc)
o Note: not sure since violators are technically caught flagrante delicto for violating proclamation 922 through the
ordinance so it is a valid warrantless arrest provided that the ordinance exists
5. That the arrest might involve children below the age of criminal responsibility thus violating RA 9344 (Legal Defense Draft
Doc)

B. To forbid arrests due to quarantine violation

 In other words, we have to attack the law that gives authorities the power to arrest quarantine and curfew violators (Laws
enumerated already in bullet “A”) or at least find a way to render it ineffective
 Legal defenses so far!!!
1. UDHR Articles are at odds with the law providing for the arrest of quarantine and curfew violators because (HR Legal
Defense Doc page 1-2)
o Art.3 Everyone has life liberty and property
o Art.5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
 We should provide a reason as to why we consider the laws provided for in bullet A1-A4 (above) cruel and
inhumane
 o Art.9 no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest and detention
o Art.25 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and his family
– because of their need for basic necessities they have to venture out
 We should note that DILG guidelines in bullet “A4” which is the backbone of the rules on curfews provides
that quarantine passes were given as a measure for people to procure basic necessities like food but as for
the income required to purchase them the measure adopted by the government was to provide social
amelioration 5k-8k which is based on the minimum wage of each region
 Meaning in order to support the above argument we have to argue that the general quarantine pass does
not allow business for income and that the 5K-8K is not enough even though it is based on the minimum
wage
 VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: the UDHR itself is not binding to the Philippines, the UDHR is merely a declaration
for each signatory to adopt to its own political system which means that we have to find a Philippine law
that incorporates these UDHR provisions in order to legally use the UDHR provisions against the law
providing for the arrest of curfew and quarantine violators (refer to bullet A1-A4) or find other human right
treaties that are binding
 "Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for
the full realization of this pledge."
2. ICCPR Article 4 (Human Rights Legal Defense Doc page 1)
o “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially
proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under
the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such
measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve
discrimination solely on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin.”
o This means that special powers of arrest and detention are lawful only to the extent that they are strictly
proportionate to the threat actually posed by the emergency. It is for the derogating State to prove that the
measures are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. This legal duty implies that the derogating State
must keep the necessity of the measures under constant review
 Obligations include Article 1 (1) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they
freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development
  Article 9 (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with
such procedure as are established by law
 Article 10 (1) All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the
inherent dignity of the human person.
 NOTE: ICCPR is binding to the Philippines who is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) which it signed and ratified on Dec. 19, 1966 and Oct. 23, 1986, respectively; Treaties and
international agreements duly ratified have a limiting effect on our otherwise exercise of an act of
sovereignty
 IMPORTANT NOTE: Articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful conduct (ARSIWA)
art. 23-25 provides that force majeure, distress, or necessity can be grounds precluding wrongfulness (like
a justifying circumstance but for a state breaching an international obligation, obligations like human right
treaties that are binding)(Extra ra ni siya we can just ignore this if it doesn’t play well for us)
3. Article 27(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Legal Defense Doc page 1)
o “In time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party, it
may take measures derogating from its obligations under the present Convention to the extent and for the period
of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with
its other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the ground of race, color, sex,
language, religion, or social origin.”
o The Philippine did not ratify this but maybe we can use this as evidence of customary international law
o ARSIWA also applies here
4. Article 15(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Legal Defense Doc page 1)
o “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take
measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of
the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international
law.”
o Note: The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the human rights of people in countries that
belong to the Council of Europe but the Philippine is not one of those 47 members
o The same applies for article 30 of the European social charter in page 1 of the human rights legal defense doc
o Can be used to support the argument that its provisions are evidence of a customary international law
 o ARSIWA also applies here
5. That the 24-hour curfew violates the Constitution as it is an “outright denial of the right to travel and freedom of
movement” (Legal Defense Draft Doc)
6. That the penalty of arrest is unproportionate to the violation (Legal Defense Draft Doc)