THE LACK of accurate information on beneficiaries and poor coordination across different levels of government are among the major issues that surfaced during the pandemic. This is according to state think tank Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) in its discussion paper titled “Innovating Governance: Building Resilience Against COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Risks”.
“Lack of citizen information” is one of the major challenges in the implementation of the Emergency Subsidy Program or the Social Amelioration Program (SAP) provided under the government’s Bayanihan to Heal as One Act of 2020. The unavailable, unvalidated, or poor-quality data on citizens is one of the top causes of delay in the timely distribution of government assistance to target beneficiaries. This is compounded by the varying processes of local government units (LGUs) in identifying target recipients and the lack of reliable lists and databases for SAP validation and accountability in communities.
Another issue is the lack of coordination and misalignment of plans and actions between the different levels of government. According to the study, the weak coordination between the national and local governments led to the violation of the enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) guidelines on social distancing and mass gathering.
What should government do to address these gaps? One, it must examine and learn from the best practices of its Southeast Asian peers. For instance, South Korea has a policy on complete openness and transparency in data sharing to identify affected individuals. Singapore has a package of restrictions and new rules combined with harsh sanctions to control the new wave of cases called “circuit breaker.” Meanwhile, Taiwan has integrated the travel records of its citizens into its national health insurance database to monitor patients’ travel history. Vietnam has imposed strict entry and work permit bans on both local and foreign nationals.
These countries used their experiences to build their information systems, allow for complementary laws and guidelines to work around data privacy and trust issues, and integrate databases such as immigration and health insurance records for ease of determination of travel history of patients. Moreover, their governments were proactive in dealing with the pandemic by immediately recognizing the threat early on and closing borders. They also demonstrated innovativeness in creating the necessary systems and applications to facilitate contact tracing and stop the transmission of disease.
Some LGUs in our country have introduced innovations and reforms that their counterparts can adopt. For example, the mayor of Marikina City initiated the opening of a testing center in his locality to treat infected residents at the earliest stage of the disease and isolate them. The mayor of Pasig City has also rolled out various initiatives such as contact tracing, deployment of disinfectant drones, and conversion of hotels into quarantine facilities. He also launched the “mobile palengke” program to minimize the number of people crowding at public marketplaces and assist those who have no access to transportation.
There are lessons that the country can draw from both local and international experiences to be able to enhance its governance systems and structures. But two are crucial – integrated information system and data interoperability in all levels of government, and coordination and linkages among different government levels and across local governments to align and harmonize plans and policies.
