Inquirer file photo
MANILA, Philippines — A parents’ organization has assailed the Department of Justice (DOJ) opinion allowing the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to receive the tobacco industry donations, saying it disregarded the government’s international commitments.
“This decision poses significant risks to the health and well-being of our children and youth. Our primary concern is the impact of this decision on impressionable young minds,” Parents Against Vape (PAV) president Rebie Relator said in a statement on Monday.
For the group, the DOJ opinion would send “a misleading message to our children, suggesting that the tobacco industry is a partner in health care and development.”
In a June 6 legal opinion, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla said the DSWD could accept a donation of three mobile clinics for its social welfare and disaster response operations from an undisclosed tobacco company.
He said this acceptance would not violate Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 2010-01 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Department of Health (DOH). The JMC, particularly Section 3.3, explicitly forbids government officials and employees from soliciting or accepting gifts, favors, or donations from entities in the tobacco industry.
The prohibition was in line with the country’s compliance with commitments under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to which the Philippines is a signatory.
Limited ban coverage
But according to the DOJ opinion, the prohibition only covered officials and employees, and “the same cannot be interpreted to broadly extend to the national government, local government, and other government agencies, subdivisions and offices.”
In 2019, the DSWD issued Administrative Order (AO) No. 11, which reiterated the joint circular of the CSC and DOH and barred the agency and its personnel from accepting gifts, donations, and sponsorships from any person or business related to the tobacco industry.
“As the lead government agency in promoting social services to the general public, it is an ethical and primary duty of the department to care and protect DSWD clientele, particularly children, and its own personnel from [the] harm of tobacco use and threat of tobacco industry interference,” the AO stated.
“Tobacco control measures help save lives, reduce health hazards and counter the economic toll on [citizens] toward greater sustainable development,” it added.
The DOJ, however, recommended that the DSWD address the conflict on AO 11 “internally,” noting its “overarching inclusion of both the department and its officials and employees” to the coverage of the prohibition.
It also advised the DSWD to address its inquiry to both the DOH and CSC as the lead implementing agencies of the joint circular.
‘Dangerous irony’
PAV called on Social Welfare Secretary Rex Gatchalian to reject the donations and for his agency to just seek alternative sources of funding that “align with the nation’s commitment to public health and the protection of our future generations.”
According to the group, the DSWD accepting such donations smacked of “dangerous irony” as it would risk normalizing the presence of the tobacco industry in sectors dedicated to public health and welfare.
It noted that tobacco use is a leading cause among Filipinos, or the seventh out of the Top 10 noncommunicable diseases in the country.
“This not only undermines efforts to reduce tobacco use and its devastating health impacts but also compromises the integrity of public health policies,” Relator said.
It could also create a conflict of interest within the DSWD and other government agencies. The DOH, for one, has been strongly campaigning against smoking and vaping.
“It opens the door for the tobacco industry to influence public health policies and programs, which should remain free from any vested interests that could jeopardize public health, especially the health of our children,” the group said. INQ