The lack of statutory recognition for Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders in the Philippines creates serious legal ambiguities that endanger both patients and healthcare providers. In the absence of a clear legal framework, DNR orders are implemented inconsistently across institutions, giving rise to conflicts among patient autonomy, surrogate decision-making, and medical duties. Current laws do not expressly provide for the right to refuse resuscitation, leaving unresolved questions about legal enforceability and distinctions from passive euthanasia. The absence of jurisprudence only deepens this uncertainty, potentially exposing physicians to liability whether they honor or disregard a DNR order.
This paper proposes that DNR orders be recognized not merely as ethical directives, but as revocable unilateral acts under civil law, akin to a last will and testament. Rather than treating them solely as ethical or clinical instruments, it proposes a legal framing grounded in the principles of succession and agency. By situating DNR orders within the existing Civil Code, the paper offers a doctrinal path forward that avoids the need for sweeping legislative change while affirming the legal force of patient autonomy.