In the interest of public health, there are rights that may be restricted for as long as the policies imposing such restrictions observe human right standards and related laws. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) previously recognised the validity of the government’s “no vaccine, no labas” policy since there was an assurance that the said restriction will not result in the denial of public services.

However, given the new order from the Department of Transportation (DOTr), CHR fears that, while there is no direct prohibition on the right to travel with the “no vaccine, no ride” policy in public transport for the unvaccinated, this policy effectively restricts the exercise and enjoyment of fundamental rights.

The reality is that ordinary Filipinos continue to rely on public transportation in attaining basic needs, such as for food, work, and accessing health services. With the DOTr‘s “no vaccine, no ride” policy, even those exempted under this policy may be restricted in accessing essential goods and services for having no or limited access to private vehicles.

The Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 27 on the freedom of movement further explains that: “It is not sufficient that the restrictions serve the permissible purposes; they must also be necessary to protect them. Restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result; and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected.”

CHR notes that the present restrictions for the unvaccinated should be constantly reviewed to ensure that they are: (1) legal measures, (2) necessary for the protection of public health, (3) consistent with other recognised rights, and (4) proportional to their aim of protecting public health. Restrictions imposed by the government must, at a minimum, be carried out in accordance with law.

Relevant to this discussion is the provision in the 1987 Constitution wherein restriction of the liberty of movement in the of interest of national security, public safety, or public health should be provided by law. Without a law detailing the precise parameter for the restriction of rights, the policy restricting rights runs into the danger of being sweeping and overly broad that assaults even personal liberties.

We continue to urge the government to address vaccine hesitancy and the low vaccination rate in the country with education that addresses common misconceptions and positive encouragement. Key to upholding the right to health is informed choice and the government has the obligation to continue to promote and communicate the benefits of vaccination, especially to vulnerable sectors, and not resort to fear or force just to achieve population protection against Covid-19. ###