AMIDST THE PANDEMIC

Spread of a new deadly disease named Novel Coronavirus or Covid-19,

announced itself to the world on December 31, 2019 citing the first incident in Wuhan,
China. A month after the outbreak, the government decided to finally imposed a travel
ban from all flights that originated in China. Everything went from hot and cold, as mild
measures for restrictions were implemented, despite the few positive cases of
foreigners in the country. Then on March 6, the inevitable happened, the government
reported its first local case and the sound of the impending hell echoes throughout the
country due to impending threat of local transmission. The succeeding days became a
whirlwind of law and policy negotiations and implementations, with a side of disgruntled
comments and oppositions from the people. A new normal occurred in the entire country
and the government and its inhabitants tried to navigate this new way of living. As the
number of positive cases and deaths continue to rise, so does the accumulated issues
and legal implications of Proclamation 922 which formalises the state of public health
emergency and allows the government to intensify its response and measures; and
enforce quarantine and disease control prevention.

Numerous news citing violations of the said law blasted on the media and the
Filipinos, due to ample of time, lambasted the violators, or the government officials for
any act that cross the line of morality. Most of the arrests are for violating curfew but
some are for violating “social distancing” and quarantine regulations and mostly ordinary
citizens. On another instance, a senator was also found guilty of violating the same law,
but is still under investigation and the case still pending to the appropriate court. The
application of the equal protection clause remains a question in these scenarios.
Arresting people for curfew violations to enforce social distancing related to COVID-19
is counter-productive if police place detainees in crowded detention facilities where the
virus could spread easily. It shall not likewise, encroached with the Bill of Rights
enshrined in the Constitution. Thus, the authorities must find a balance with the
preventive purpose of the law and the basic human rights of the people violating the
same.

Upon the implementation of lockdown, the economy plummeted to its new low
and the business sector tried to navigate its effect vis-a-vis the Labor Code and other
laws governing commercial transactions. Pursuant to Labor Advisory 09 and 11 issued
by the Philippine Department of Labor & Employment (“DOLE”), employers are urged
and encouraged to adopt flexible work arrangements as remedial measures due to
COVID-19. It enunciates that employers should consider these remedial
measures instead of removing employees or closing businesses. Some implemented a
work from home set-up to comply with above-mentioned regulation, thus some workers
continued to receive salary while being safe in their homes. However, other employees
do not enjoy this benefit and tried to fight for their right to live day by day due to
unemployment. As much as the companies are to blame, the pandemic in the country is
considered a continuing economic threat which justifies the exercise of retrenchment by
the management to prevent losses. There now lies a resolution for compromise
between the company and its workforce on this situations, taking into account that
sometimes the remedial measures provided by law are not enough.

Before the enhanced community quarantine was implemented, people from

Metro Manila scattered to go home to their provinces and I am one of them. Our family
owns a few residential apartments and my parents decided to condoned the two months
rental pay due to the pandemic. The principle of force majeure provides that no person
shall be responsible for a fortuitous event, as provided by the New Civil Code. It may
either be natural occurrences such as floods, fire or typhoons, or an act of man. There
now arises a question, as to whether the Covid-19 pandemic constitute as a fortuitous
event. In force majeure situations, the events are of such nature that one of the parties
is no longer able to comply with its obligation in a normal manner. Most lease contracts
have no agreed provision requiring the pandemic to constitute a force majeure event
and stipulating which party will suffer from the damages that may emerge upon the
impossibility of performance by the lessor or lessee. Consequently, the rule on
autonomy of contracts states that the contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient. Autonomy of
contracts together with equity may be the solution to bridge the gap between the
pandemic and construction of contracts.

During this time of uncertainty, a simple act of kindness, compassion and

empathy can alleviate the situation that we are in right now. From the courageous and
selfless continuous service of our health care workers and frontliners, to the active
voices of the people in ascertaining their basic human rights, to the grant of flexible
work arrangement of numerous companies to its employees, and even the
inconsequential acts of lessors in waiving rental fees. The collective acts of the people
and the government shows how we, as a country, responds and stand to the war
against Covid-19.