[OPINION] Policy framing on the Philippines’ virus response: Does it matter?

With rising COVID-19 infection rates, collapsing social protection and health systems, and deepening economic and social crises, many Filipinos could not help but compare the government’s response with other governments, especially those that are successfully winning their battle against the pandemic. In many instances, the case of New Zealand has been identified as something for the country to emulate. While there are significant differences in the country contexts between New Zealand and the Philippines, valid comparisons could still be made, particularly on how both countries frame the pandemic as a policy issue.

<h1>Why is framing important?</h1>

Simply put, the way a policy issue is framed guides the way the government will craft instruments (regulations, incentives, and information), develop implementation plans, manage appropriate resources, and identify governance priorities. Effective policy framing comes with a sufficient understanding of the problem and opportunities (considering different factors and perspectives) as well as a thoughtful consideration of the various stakeholders, their interests, and influences.  

While the slowness and indecision of the government at the onset of the pandemic may be excused given the suddenness of the situation, one would wonder and critically examine if there is a change in the government’s approach 5 months into the pandemic. Unlike in other countries, COVID cases in the Philippines are consistently increasing and “flattening the curve” is nowhere in sight. Instead of a wave’s ebb and flow, ours is an unfortunate prolonged surge. 

<h1>What went wrong in the Philippines?</h1>

A timeline of New Zealand’s pandemic response reveals 4 things: (a) swift decisions and actions, including travel ban and lockdown upon the occurrence of first community transmission, (b) accessible testing, isolation, and contact tracing, (c) effective communications and information campaign, and (d) carefully studied and communicated guidelines on lockdown and subsequent policies. All of these are under the general “frame” that the pandemic is first and foremost a health emergency. NZ officials did not undermine the immensity of the pandemic’s repercussions to the nation’s economy and citizen’s well-being despite the capability of the country’s healthcare system. 

The opposite of all these happened in the Philippines, where the government looked at the pandemic as a peace and order situation and a political opportunity before seeing it from the perspective of health and welfare. 

At first, no less that the President downplayed the impact and severity of the pandemic and has even joked about “urinating” on the virus. In a gathering of local government officials where the national government was supposed to provide clear guidance on COVID response, the President used the platform to attack his critics and deflect the topic of government preparedness for the pandemic. In his weekly report to the public, the President has used a sufficient amount of time to foment against his critics as if they were the ones to blame for the slow and inept crisis response. 

A quick review of government actions would reveal how government response prioritized peace and order over health and welfare. Instead of health workers for mass testing and contact tracing, policemen and military personnel were deployed to control people’s mobility so as to contain the spread of the virus. This could be correct at first, but succeeding steps proved otherwise. Policemen are now being deployed to do “house-to-house” searches for possible COVID-infected individuals as if they (or perhaps, the virus?) were criminals to be arrested. Public transportation was readily suspended when Manila was placed under a lockdown without providing sufficient alternatives even for health and other essential workers. Policies like these are laughable but equally worrisome as it reflects how government policies are far removed from people’s realities. 

Downplaying the earlier call for mass testing, the government said they cannot bear the huge costs of testing all Filipinos and laughed at the “absurdity” of the idea. A closer look at the call for mass testing actually means accessible testing for all those exhibiting symptoms and those exposed to COVID patients, as against selective testing of politicians and other affluent individuals. (READ: Ombudsman probes Duque, DOH for alleged coronavirus anomalies)

Misunderstanding between national and local governments came at the front as a result of conflicting, ungrounded, and sometimes unnecessary directives from top-down. Even the allocation and distribution of financial assistance to poor families have been a subject of political pandering and contradictory statements, adding to the already confusing and frustrating response strategy. To add to this, the government spearheaded the Balik Probinsya program to decongest Manila without proper testing and adequate economic provisions (including income opportunities) to provincial returnees.

As of writing, the government has named pandemic “czars” who will oversee isolation, testing, treatment, and tracing. With my limited background on organizational management, I became anxious upon learning this. Any management student would know that an overly bureaucratic structure does not necessarily translate to efficiency and effectiveness of an organization. More often than not, it aggravates the situation especially in an unharmonious and uncoordinated arrangement. 

Adding insult to injury was the passing of the Anti-Terror Law which is seen to stifle public criticism and dissent against the government. Five months into this chaos, the government was only able to stop the transmission not of the virus, but the operations of the country’s largest broadcast corporation. All these at this very crucial time. One wonders how decisions are being prioritized. (READ: After ABS-CBN decision, Duterte ‘happy’ he ‘dismantled’ Philippine oligarchy)

<h1>What could be done now?</h1>

It begins with reframing. The government must understand that this pandemic is a health and welfare issue. Peace and order, while also important, must only support government healthcare response and should not be its “front and center.”

While the government has improved its testing capacity (thanks to the private sector and individuals), it must now upgrade the healthcare system of the country and provide necessary protection and benefits for frontline workers risking their lives to save thousands of Filipinos. As of writing, a number of hospitals in Manila are already at full capacity. 

Financial assistance should also be given to micro, small, and medium enterprises to help in regenerating the economy and providing jobs. The government must also provide financial assistance, support for essential needs, and social protection to everyone, with urgent attention to the poor and other vulnerable sectors of the society. 

Strategic, effective, and clear communication and information is necessary to raise the awareness of Filipinos on the impact of this pandemic to them as individuals and as part of communities. We will also benefit from a more improved inter-government coordination, particular among executive departments and between the national and local governments. Good practices at the local level should be encouraged, exemplified, and incentivized, even.

Pandemic response needs a whole-of-society approach, which means that the government must be working with all sectors to comprehensively address challenges encountered and provide mass-oriented and context-appropriate responses. This approach includes working with people’s movements and civil society organizations, think tanks, the academe, mass media, and businesses. The government should also foster international cooperation and emulate good practices by other countries in responding to the pandemic. One does not need to look very far for experiences since we have Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam to learn from. 

Lastly, the government must refrain from passing the blame to its citizens and instead act up on its own shortcomings. To borrow the words of public administration scholar Mark Bovens, good governance is always a combination of transparency, accountability, and integrity. – Rappler.com

Jodel Dacara is a Filipino development worker and public policy student in New Zealand.