Two agencies under the Department of Justice (DOJ) have contradictory views on the on-going COVID-19 vaccination of five to 11 years old children.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in behalf of the Department of Health (DOH), said the vaccination should proceed because the public stands to suffer “great and irreparable injury” if its implementation is stopped through a court order.

The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), on the other hand said, the continuation of the vaccination of children may lead to the same mistake the DOH “committed” in the vaccination of the experimental anti-dengue vaccine Dengvaxia that has led to serious adverse effects and deaths.

PAO represented two parents – Dominic S. Almelor and Girlie E. Samonte – in their petition before the Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) to stop the vaccination of children without parental consent.

The RTC has yet to rule on the plea of the parents for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Earlier, the trial court had ordered the DOH to file its answer to the petition which the OSG did. The PAO filed its reply to the comment.

In opposing the issuance of a TRO, the OSG told the RTC:

“To prevent willing parents and children from participating in the DOH’s pediatric vaccine roll-out would risk keeping these children vulnerable to severe cases of COVID-19.

“These children, who could otherwise be protected from serious health implications, would thus stand to suffer grave and irreparable injury. Their parents, who should be able to exercise their right to choose how to care for and protect their children, would also undoubtedly suffer from not being able to make that choice.

“The apprehension of two parents should not serve to deprive every other parent of their choice to protect their children through vaccination. It would work severe injustice and would ironically undermine the parental authority petitioners herein hold in such high regard.”

The OSG pointed out that with or without the TRO, the petitioners in the RTC case and other parents with similar views have the freedom to keep their children unvaccinated since the vaccination roll-out by the DOH is voluntary and requires the consent of the parents.

But PAO, on the other hand, told the RTC:

“As the DOH is now rolling-out the COVID-19 vaccination among children ages 5-11 years of age, the DOH is committing the same negligence, misrepresentation, and bad faith.

“The DOH has a duty to disclose to a potential vaccine recipient, in the exercise of reasonable care, mild, moderate, or serious risks of injury, the possibility of death and rare adverse events that might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment, and alternative treatments, so that a potential vaccine or the parent of a minor vaccine recipient, exercising ordinary care for his own or child’s welfare, may intelligently exercise his or her judgment whether to give consent to it or not.”

PAO said that its forensics chief, the lawyer and doctor who autopsied over 100 dead children who received Dengvaxia, has testified before the Senate where he “shared having learned first-hand that all of the parents of the Dengvaxia victims were not afforded informed consent and, worse, some only learned that their children were inoculated with Dengvaxia after their fact of inoculation. “

It pointed out tht “he learned that the DOH hastily, negligently, and with bad faith, introduced the Dengvaxia to the public and its eventual roll-out on mass INDISCRIMINATE EXPERIMENTAL vaccination UNDER CLINICAL TRIAL PHASE 3.”

It reminded that the 1987 Constitution states that the state should defend, among others, “the right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development.”

“To subject children to undue experimentation when the alleged risks far outweigh the alleged benefits, is undoubtedly an act of cruelty and exploitation,” it stressed.

The OSG said: “If this Honorable Court were to issue the TRO, parents who would otherwise consent to vaccination would have no choice to do so. They are forced to keep their children unprotect against their will and better judgment.”

It pointed out that the Philippine Medical Association (PMA, Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society of the Philippines (PIDSP) have all agreed that vaccination is the best way to protect children from COVID-19 and its complications.

It also cited previous statements issued by the PMA, PPS and PIDSP, that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and that suffering from serious adverse events is unlikely.

The legal controversy before the RTC arose from DOH’s Department Memorandum No. 2022-0041 on the roll out of vaccines for children ages 5 to 11 years old.

The DOH memorandum states that: “In case the parent/guardian refuses to give consent to the vaccination despite the desire and willingness of the minor child to have himself/herself vaccinated, or there are no person that may legally exercise parental authority over the child, the State may act as parens patrias (parent of the country) and give the necessary consent. Therefore, the proper officer representing the State as parens patrias may sign the consent form. In this regard, the DSWD or its city/municipal counterparts shall serve as the proper office who shall represent the State.”

Before the start of children’s vaccination, the DOH clarified that parental consent is a must in the vaccination of five to 11 years old children.

It was not known immediately if the RTC has acted on the plea for TRO after the OSG filed its comment and the PAO countered with a reply.