Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III on Wednesday raised concerns that the proposed policy establishing a COVID-19 vaccine passport would later on promote discrimination.
Pimentel pointed this out when Sen. Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara, who is sponsoring the bill seeking to expedite the private sector and local government units’ (LGUs) procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, questioned the inclusion of the program in the proposed Senate Bill No. 2057.
The proposal for a COVID-19 “vaccination passports” were filed by Senators Grace Poe, Ramon “Bong” Revilla and Pia Cayetano separately, but were incorporated into the measure.
Under the bill, the vaccination passports shall serve as an official record certifying a person has been vaccinated against COVID-19 and contains basic personal information, the name of the manufacturer of the vaccine used, date of inoculation, and the institution that administered the vaccine.
However, Pimentel said the program could effectively discriminate people who refused to be vaccinated against the coronavirus for personal reasons as certain sections in the bill covers non-essential travel, international travel and even entry into business establishments.
He also pointed out that the government itself announced that the COVID-19 vaccination program is not mandatory, and establishing a vaccination passport program could inevitably pressure Filipinos to comply with the program.
“I’m just worried that if we now establish a vaccine passport program and the word passport actually connotes and affects mobility…are we not indirectly telling them or pressuring them that the COVID-19 vaccination is mandatory if you want to be a mobile person?” Pimentel pointed out during the interpellation of the bill.
Angara, who chairs the Senate finance panel, and sponsor of the measure, however, rejected this saying the vaccination passport program is merely a certification that is supposed to carry attendant benefits to those who would get themselves inoculated.
Angara also said a COVID-19 vaccination passport should be viewed as a way of incentivizing people who chose to be vaccinated.
Other countries like Israel, Denmark, likewise, Angara said have adopted a certain type of a COVID-19 vaccination “passport program” to facilitate easier international travel and movement of people across borders.
“And that certification carries with it all the attendant benefits, whether through law or through practice,” he said.
“Again, we are not tied to the name ‘passport.’ If you want to call it something else in order to (allay concerns), we can call it vaccine certificate or vaccine card, or something else to that effect,” the lawmaker stressed.
Angara also said it would be much better for the Philippines to be prepared in the event a similar vaccine certification law would be required by other countries.
“Because if that lack of a certification from an official government body would hamstring our officials, then saka lang po tayo gagalaw… Pero mabuti na rin po (we will act on it later on.. it’s best) in a sense that we are ahead of the curve,” Angara pointed out.
To this, Pimentel said lawmakers must be careful on how to phrase and craft the measure as imposing such policy could eventually promote discriminatory acts against non-vaccinated citizens.
“What if they (business establishments) now adopt that as a universal rule? What if pharmacists adopt this as universal rule, papano? Anong mangyayari (what will happen),"
“So the danger is there, and I may be exaggerating but the danger is there because we are highlighting the need for a vaccine passport but I think we better approach this carefully, rather than putting the foundation for possible discrimination—possible discriminatory practices in the future,” he reiterated.