The President’s health

Questions about transparency regarding the health of a sitting president or any global leader, for that matter, are crucial for effective governance. This is why there is an elected vice president who can step in during emergencies if the top leader is unable to perform his or her duties.

The interest in President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s health has generated considerable discussion among citizens and political analysts following his hospitalization for diverticulitis.

The Palace has decided not to release a formal medical bulletin regarding the President’s health. Instead, they are relying on the President’s own assurance that he is feeling well. However, it is worth noting that he has missed attending some events, which, of course, is within his rights.

Nonetheless, this approach raises questions regarding the communication standards that should guide health disclosures of public officials, especially those in top positions.

The public’s right to know about the health of their leaders is understandable. This right is enshrined in the Constitution, as the President holds significant power and influence. His ability to govern effectively is closely linked to their physical well-being.

Given the weight of his responsibilities, it is not only prudent but also necessary for citizens to receive regular updates, particularly after a medical event that led to hospitalization.

I disagree with Palace Press Officer Claire Castro argument that the President’s direct assurances are more reliable than a formal bulletin.

This perspective overlooks the crucial role of public trust. A medical bulletin, prepared by a qualified medical team, provides credibility and transparency that personal reassurances alone cannot.

Misinformation spreads quickly, and the lack of medical updates allows speculation and rumors to flourish on social media, which is why discerning journalists must carefully filter anonymous and unverified information for the public good before they report it. The more unclear the communication is, the more likely it is that wild rumors will spread.

I remember being a much younger journalist covering Malacañang in 1996 during President Fidel Ramos’ administration.

The press corps received regular updates about his hospitalization, which included details about a 75-minute operation to remove a cholesterol blockage from his carotid artery, as well as information about his discharge from the hospital and his treatment and recovery process.

There was no room for misinformation, as the medical bulletin from President Ramos’ medical team was flowing steadily and consistently. The public received the medical updates without mischief or question.

Those in Malacañang would benefit from adopting the transparency procedures utilized by the Ramos communications team. I hope that President Marcos, when effectively convinced, will agree to this willingly.

The idea that the President’s health is not a matter of public concern is misguided. A leader’s health directly affects his or her performance, decision-making, and the country’s overall governance.

If the President were to face health complications, the consequences would extend far beyond his personal well-being —they would impact policy, national security, and public confidence in leadership.

There is a delicate balance between the right to privacy and the public’s right to know.

Establishing a clear protocol for government health communications is crucial; it helps prevent the spread of misinformation and fosters trust between leadership and the public.

As citizens, we value our leaders as public servants, and in this capacity, they owe us a degree of openness about their health. It is not merely their personal body; it is the body that leads a republic.

For feedback, text to 09451450681 or email cynchdb@gmail.com.