Right to Care Registry

EO 29 creates a right that only exists if someone can prove it at a hospital admissions desk at two in the morning. A couple can be together for twenty years and still have no document a hospital will accept — a problem that falls hardest on LGBTQIA+ and common-law couples, whom the order explicitly covers.

The administrative chain is genuinely complicated: the couple applies, lodges hard copies at their own city or municipal social welfare office, that office verifies and may run a case investigation, a recommendation is signed by the mayor, it is endorsed up to the LGU, reviewed, approved, and only then does a batched orientation happen where the special power of attorney is signed and notarised off-system. Every one of those steps is a place an application can stall silently.

Modelled the real chain rather than a simplified version of it, and made each hand-off visible.

• Bottom-up flow, matching how the offices actually work: the couple's own C/MSWDO handles the case first and it reaches the LGU already verified and recommended.
• A working-day SLA engine with a holiday table, so "five days to review" means five working days and a stalled application is measurable rather than anecdotal.
• Nine roles with locality scoping, so a municipal officer sees their own caseload and nothing else.
• Audit logging with automatic redaction of passwords, tokens and security answers — the repository holds government IDs, so the logging had to be safe by construction.
• Fifteen policy settings changeable without a redeploy, because the rules around a brand-new executive order will move after first contact with real cases.
• A digital card carrying a QR code that a hospital scans to check status and view the SPA bundle — the part that makes the right usable at the admissions desk.

In active development against a fixed public deadline. The foundation is complete — authentication, the nine-role permission model, locality scoping, audit logging, the SLA engine, notifications, and the administrative CRUD for localities, offices, hospitals, users and policy settings.

One constraint shaped the whole interface: the system grants administrative recognition only, not marriage, inheritance or property rights. Nothing in the UI, the card or any generated document is allowed to imply otherwise.