Towards one nat’l emergency number

HAVE YOU ever wondered why there is no single nationwide emergency number in the Philippines such as 911?

Actually, it should really be 911 based on an Executive Order (EO) signed by former President Rodrigo Duterte, but up to now, many local government units (LGUs) have not complied.

From what I know, many LGUs reason out that they could not join the national 911 system because they already “have their own”.

That reasoning might be valid from their own perspective, but in reality, it defeats the purpose of one national emergency number that anyone can call from anywhere in our country and be able to get help right away.

As it is now, if anyone needs emergency assistance from anywhere in the country, they have to ask what the local emergency number is, assuming that they have the time to ask, and assuming that there would be someone nearby to ask, and assuming further that that someone would know the number.

Having one emergency number is actually the easy part. The harder part is connecting that to one centralized system that could immediately dispatch police, fire and ambulance response teams.

And of course, the ambulance teams should have trained Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). Who has the power to compel all LGUs to comply with the EO to join the centralized 911 system?

Should it be the Department of Interior and Local Government? Should the EO be revised in order to have punitive measures?

This is a matter of life and death.

***

ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

It is very clear in the Electronic Commerce Act (ECA) that electronic evidence is already admissible, in the same way that physical evidence has always been admissible.

I do not know if anyone else is using this term, but that is what I call “data parity”, meaning that electronic evidence has the same value as physical evidence.

It has been many years since the ECA was passed, but believe it or not, there are still many government agencies that refuse to accept electronic evidence, and would still insist on requiring “hard copies” or physical evidence up to now. That is about the same as requiring people to “come to the office” in person (they call it face to face), instead of honoring video calls.

How could we move forward with “digital transformation” if many of our government officials are still caught up (trapped) in the analog mindset?

And how could we reduce the volume of traffic if they would always require “personal appearance” for everyone transacting with the government?

As if there are not enough secure technologies to verify the identity of people?

In theory, an email should have the same value as a chat message or a text message, but why do many government agencies require us to send them email messages even after sending them chat or text messages?

And from my own experience, more than half of government agencies that have Facebook Messenger accounts do not follow up with customers after sending them auto-replies./