FINAL PAPER

in
Disaster Resiliency &
Commercial Law Issues in
Covid Times
LLM Program San Beda Graduate School of Law
AY 2020-2021; First Semester

Submitted by:

JOHN MARK N. PARACAD

December 20, 2020
PART I. Department of Disaster Resilience: Imperative in Institutionalizing
Disaster Resilience in the Philippines

Every year, the Philippines is a witness to all types of escalating hazards, risks and
vulnerabilities. In fact, Philippines is the fourth most disaster-affected country in the world with
a total of 130 million affected people over the past 20 years. Moreover, the World Disaster
Report 2014 and the Global Climate Risk Index 2014 Report, respectively identified the
Philippines as the second most affected by weather-related losses and the second most disaster-
prone among 171 countries. Among these natural hazards that greatly affected the country are
typhoons-in fact supertyphoons such as Ondoy, Yolanda, Lawin, Ompong and Ullyses to which
they commonly left massive flooding and/or landslides, displacements of thousands of families,
broad path of debris, destruction of countless infrastructures and properties, billions of damage in
the agricultural sector and worst (for some) loss of thousands of lives. This is without mentioning
the impacts of other natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other unnatural
hazards such as metro fires.

While there are some influenced development processes and institutional initiatives within
the country since the passing of the Republic Act No. 10121 or the Philippine Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Act of 2010 which became the default policy on Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management (DRRM) in the country, Filipinos’ vulnerabilities and the impacts of
natural hazards in all levels remain to be serious and major concern of the country. The
establishment of the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) which is the highest
policymaking body on disaster-related concerns under RA 10121 has obviously failed to emulate
the spirit of coordination and cooperation among agencies concerned in addressing DRMM.
Although the present law may have good ideas and plans, they have not been realized especially
in the ground level during disasters. Aside from their confusing and overlapping functions, the
NDRRMC and other partner government agencies concerned are only reactive in terms of
addressing disasters and not proactive, insufficient, inefficient and most of the time, too slow.
The government in general is more focus on post-disaster activities forgetting about the other
phases of disaster management particularly mitigation and preparedness-which are very vital in
terms of strengthening the capacity as well as mitigating people’s vulnerabilities. Most of the
time, both the national and local governments are confined to response and relief operations
rather than capitalizing on preparedness and mitigation mechanisms. For these reasons, I believe
that it is really imperative to institutionalize a Department of Disaster Resilience in the country.

At present, there are pending bills in Congress that seek to institutionalize a department
that will address DRRM in the country. Among these bills, one stands out which is Senate Bill
(SB) 205 of Senator Christopher “Bong” Go. It seeks the creation of “Department of Disaster
Resilience” which functions as a policy-making body and at the same time, implementer of plans
and programs mainly focusing on the four functional areas of disaster management-preparedness,
mitigation, response, and recovery/rehabilitation. It basically address the flaws and loopholes of
the present RA 10121. It covers not only natural hazards but also climate change (integration of
disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation). It has clear unity of command and it
solidifies coordination and inter-operability of systems among government agencies. This
addresses the issue on lack of institutional leadership in RA 10121.
 Moreover, it streamlines operations on disaster management and delineates the vague and
overlapping functions among agencies. It also provides for the level of responsibilities among
concerned officials during disasters- a clear system of responsibility for disaster preparedness
and response in all levels of the government. Further, the 10% allocation from local budget
manifests that LGUs must also shell out part of its resources to disaster management. This will
resolve the issue on skewed funding especially against the poor LGUs (including those disaster-
prone LGUs with limited and insufficient funds). Notably, the Department of Disaster Resilience
under SB 205 promotes better labor polices and benefits for its employees and it also encourages
full participation of all stakeholders both in the government and private sector (due to incentive
programs) in accord to whole-of-nation and whole-of-society-approaches.

Despite its urgency and indispensability, some senators of the country have still misgivings
on the proposed creation of Department of Disaster of Resilience especially on its funding aspect
as it initially requires, according to them, 1.5 Billion pesos just for its creation. I believe that
funding should not be an issue here considering that its creation will answer our problem on
DRRM, thus it should be given importance just like any other existing department. If Senate can
spend P8.5 billion of Senate Complex consisting of four 11-story towers in Taguig City 1, why
can’t they give the same attention to the proposed department? Also, there will be no additional
bureaucratic costs issue here since redundancy or duplication of functions is avoided with the
abolition of NDRRMC and Climate Change Commission under SB 205. In fact, it will resolve
the perennial problems of existing agencies on overlapping and confusing functions in terms of
DRRM. I believe that the real issue here is not funding but PRIORITY for these condescending
senators!

Although SB 205 is generally good in its entirety, I would like to present some points that
can be improved. First, the term “natural” must be removed and must not be associated with
“disaster” to avoid the common misconceptions on disasters and disastrous events as natural
phenomena. Every term we use really matters as narratives shape what we believe. Our
perception to disasters/hazards helps us (especially policy-makers) in determining strategies that
are deemed reasonable and appropriate or worthy of expenditure. If we avoid any wrong
interpretation of things, then we get to address properly the problem. Second, there should be a
mandatory human resource provisions creating plantilla positions for DRRM workers stationed
in every municipal level and the barangay level. This would further capacitate those in the
grassroots level in implementing DRRM especially in terms of mitigation and preparedness. And
to compel LGUs to prioritize and institutionalize DRRM programs by integrating them in their
affairs, there should be imposition of liability (civil, criminal and administrative) once they failed
to comply. In the same vein, there must be a provision that national government shall
automatically render aid in every phases of disaster management to every municipal and
barangay level in the country assessed as disaster-prone and their financing schemes of their
disaster fund must be for preparedness and mitigation to strengthen their capacities and mitigate
their vulnerabilities. Lastly, include all types of future pandemic that can cause any physical or
biological destruction as risk covered in the proposed bill. This would later allow the law [SB
205] to meet the demands of time especially for future risk such as the COVID 19-which in
Philippine context is merely treated as health crisis.

1
https_www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/03/19/1902721/p85-billion-senate-complex-be-built-taguig
PART II. Covid19 Pandemic is a Global “Disaster”

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) defines “disaster” as
any event or situation including those related to biological hazards and pandemics which result in
serious disruption of the functioning of a community or society exceeding the ability of it to
respond using its own resources. It involves exposure to a hazard, conditions of vulnerability and
low capacity to cope with the potential negative consequences which when combined may result
in health impacts (diseases and deaths) and social and economic losses.

It is my analysis that COVID-19 pandemic is a disaster that ranges from local to global
level. Hence, it is a global disaster. The COVID-19 virus is the hazard, basically man-made and a
zoonotic disease (Brown, 2020). Its fast circulation and spread is due to international flows of
people and goods which lead the world population to a novel virus without yet a cure. The spread
of the virus was coupled by model of inequality, income concentration and rapid population
increasingly concentrated in the urban areas while there is weakening of institutions and
capacities of global governance to deal with pandemic that require coordinated policies and
actions in both domestic and global level2.

Although COVID-19 pandemic has only brought minimum mortality and still higher
number of recovery rate of those infected, it cannot be denied that in the Philippines, we are
obviously not ready for this type of hazard. This pandemic has brought social and economic
losses to many Filipinos. Many businesses closed affecting severely those in the labor sector that
eventually led to country’s economic and social instability. Our leaders-both in the national and
local level, and our health sectors leaders were in disarray in dealing with the pandemic. Their
policies have turned out to be more confusing and in fact contributed to proliferation of those
infected. This started with the lack of promptness in closing international flights to our country
which obviously started the spark risk of the virus in the country. This was aggravated by the
untimely implementation of balik-probinsya program after months of lockdowns without any
corresponding covid-testing made. This combination of events contributed to the spread of the
virus from the metro cities to the different provinces in the country. Thus, this calls for the idea
that we must have institutional or policy reforms in terms of improving our resilience against
pandemics.

First, we must treat COVID-19 and other similar future pandemics not merely as health
crisis but a public health disaster itself that need mechanisms which partake the nature of policies
that address any other types of disasters. Responding to a pandemic is same as natural a [natural]
disaster (Downey, 2020). Just like disasters, dealing with pandemics necessarily requires the
different stages of emergency management-preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery.
And to realize this, we might as well include this in the coverage of now pending senate bill of
Sen. Bong Go, SB 205. Or better yet, enact another law that will provide mechanisms that will
solely focus in addressing public health disasters or any future pandemics but shall adopt
framework similar to SB 205 involving whole-of-society and whole-of-nation approaches
integrated therein medical principles and policies crafted by medical health experts. This would
mean creation of another bureau under the Department of Health that would mainly focus on
public health disasters.
2
https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1414-753X2020000100906&script=sci_arttext
 COVID-19 is most likely not the last. We may call it coincidence but pandemics in our
history emerged every 100 years. However, it would appear that they now often occur due to
different human activities-basically because of our discontentment. Right now, we are facing a
challenge that requires profound changes in our actions especially with government policies in
addressing public health disasters through reduction of vulnerabilities and as well as
strengthening capacities.