Vaccination against Covid-19, when combined with the effective implementation of public health strategies, remains to be the most effective solution in ending the pandemic. Taken as a whole, timely detection of infections, isolation, treatment, and vaccination all pursue the protection of the people’s right to health.

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has consistently expressed support to the government’s vaccination drive, but reminds that its exercise of police powers ‘to increase the demand for Covid-19 vaccination’ still needs to abide and respect existing laws and human rights standards.

Recent resolutions by the Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases, particularly IATF Resolutions 148-B and 149, effectively imposes a ‘no vaccine, no work’ and ‘no vaccine, no pay’ policies for workers in the public and private sector tasked to do onsite work. While there is a caveat that unvaccinated employees working onsite ‘may not be terminated,’ it imposes the burden of regular RT-PCR testing every two weeks to onsite workers  to continue paid employment.

To date, CHR notes that there is still no law that can make mandatory vaccination enforceable. There is, however, Republic Act No. 11525 or the Covid-19 Vaccination Program Act that categorically affirms that ‘[Covid-19] vaccination cards shall not be considered as an additional mandatory requirement for educational, employment, and other similar government transaction purposes.’

In the context of employment, Labor Advisory No. 03, s.2021 of the Department of Labor and Employment further stresses that ‘covered establishments and employers shall endeavor to encourage their employees to get vaccinate’ but strictly qualifies that ‘any employee who refuses or fails to be vaccinated shall not be discriminated against in terms of tenure, promotion, training, pay, and other benefits, among others, or terminated from employment.’ Similarly, the said Labor Advisory is firm: ‘No vaccine, no work policy shall not be allowed.’

The IATF resolutions in question then becomes unclear and confusing when matched with other laws and policies of the government. Not to mention that IATF Resolution 148-B qualifies the application of the policy to be only ‘in areas where there are sufficient supplies of Covid-19,’ but appears to already be nationwide in scope despite earlier reported challenges in supply and logistics in other parts of the country.

CHR is concerned that vague policies may lead to erroneous interpretations and applications on that ground, which often result in discrimination and other forms of human rights violations, such as deprivation of the right to engage in productive employment. We urge the government to delay the implementation of the said IATF resolutions until there is a better review and clarity on how to execute them in relation to existing laws and policies.

Transparency in the decision-making about mandatory vaccination by our policymakers and public health authorities should be a fundamental element. Reasonable effort should be exerted to engage the affected population and relevant stakeholders, particularly the vulnerable and marginalised sectors, to understand their perspectives. Steps should be taken to respect human rights obligations and not to discriminate against disadvantaged and vulnerable populations.

Enhancing public trust in Covid-19 vaccination—communicating benefits, instead of instilling fear—is a must. Availability of vaccines should also be coupled with efforts to ensure acceptability of vaccines. Ensuring informed consent remains to be a critical component for whatever medical procedure an individual will undergo or take.

While governments may put restrictions on rights, this must be exercised as a last resort and restrictions can be considered legitimate if they comply with the Siracusa Principles. We call on the government to use the said principles in shaping a vaccination drive that fully respects human rights—particularly, that in the exercise of it government powers during national emergencies, policies must be provided by law; strictly necessary; proportionate to the issue that it seeks to address; limited in application; and not to be abused.

Hence, the State should consider mandatory COVID-19 vaccination only as a last resort and only if necessary and proportionate to the achievement of herd immunity and protecting the most vulnerable. Prior to the implementation of mandatory vaccination, there must be sufficient supply of the COVID-19 vaccines and accessible without discrimination.

At the same time, even if mandatory vaccination becomes supported by law, the policy must be able to consider valid exceptions, including remaining unvaccinated for medical and religious grounds.

We stress that violation of human rights and dignity equally harms and contradicts the ultimate goal of protecting the people, especially the most vulnerable populations, including workers trying to recover from loss of jobs and livelihood due to the pandemic. ###