THE SITUATION. Two Cebu City ordinances, now in force and effect, relate to offenses committed during the community quarantine: (1) City Ord. #2563, authored by Councilors Dave Tumulak and Alvin Dizon, penalizing any form of discrimination against medical and non-medical frontliners during a public health crisis; and (2) City Ord. #2561, by Councilor Raymond Garcia, penalizing hoarding and panic-buying during a state of calamity. They are measures that also apply to non-Covid-19 emergencies and will be useful even after the current pandemic.
The proposed ordinance punishing violations of the guidelines under a quarantine was still with the City Council committee on laws and won't be passed until next week.
National laws cited by the police -- Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (Republic Act #11469) and Mandatory Reporting on Notifiable Diseases Act (RA 11132) -- don't apply to prohibitions being enforced by local governments. Guidelines of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID) instruct LGUs to approve ordinances implementing its rules.
WHATEVER, FOLLOW ORDERS. That seems to be the line of police and other law enforcers who cite national laws whose application is doubtful. They don't cite city ordinances, which they must know still have to be passed, as in the case of Cebu City.
That has not stopped the arrests. PNP reported 29,632 arrests from March 17, the start of the Luzon lockdown, until April 17. In the Visayas, police reported 23,221 persons taken into custody. Five days in April, 2,000 curfew arrests in Cebu City were reported.
Most however were released after an "inquest" or the semblance of one. There were cases in Cebu City of reported unusual if not cruel punishment, such as making them dance the Sinulog. Most others were sent home after a load of advice about the merit of "shelter in place."
Punishable violations
The violations punished under the proposed Tumulak ordinance specify:
[1] Going outside one's residence without a quarantine or electronic pass;
[2] Going outside one's house or being in a public place without a face mask "or any form of protective equipment";
[3] Loitering in a street, alley or any other public place outside one's residence;
[4] Violating the required quarantine by anyone classified under "suspect," "probable case," or under monitoring or investigation, whether symptomatic or not;
[5] Mass gathering for entertainment, party, sports, community activity, fiesta, and the like, which is "non-essential";
[6] Violating social-distancing rules, including one-meter-apart inside authorized vehicles;
[7] Disobeying a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority during enforcement of quarantine rules;
[8] Violating speed limit on all roads within the city.
Fine, jail for repeaters
The ordinance doesn't slap any jail term... oops, not until the second, third, or oftener, offense.
First offenders are required only to do four-hour community service, helping the campaign to inform the public about the epidemic and government policies. Second offenders pay fine of P3,000 and serve 30 days in jail; third offenders and oftener: P5,000 and 30 days in jail.
Slap on the wrist? Maybe but the IATF-EID guidelines require the penalties to be "humane." Besides, in a Supreme Court ruling, cited by Antonio Contreras is a May 5 column in Manila Times, violation of a municipal ordinance to qualify as a crime must involve "at least a certain degree of evil doing immoral conduct, corruption, malice or want of principles..." Maybe but some social media critics think that flagrantly violating rules on physical distancing and non-mass gathering is evil and punishably by a sojourn in hell.
The matter of masks
No. 2 in the list of prohibitions under the proposed Tumulak ordinance may remove the confusion over the requirement on face masks.
Recall: Mayor Edgardo Labella in Executive Order #66 dated April 1 required a "mandatory wearing of masks" at all times in all public places of the city. Last paragraph of the said EO says, Violations "shall be punishable in accordance with the penalties provided under Section 10 of RA #11332 or the Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases law.
After the publication of said EO, the mayor denied that is order carries a penalty. Is non-wearing of face masks punishable in Cebu City? Yes, if you read the mayor's EO, which still stands in the city's public information web site and in private media archives. No, if you believe the mayor's denial.
The explanation is that the lawyers may have slipped. As Mayor Labella himself explained, it is an EO, not an ordinance. Besides, an LGU's ordinance can impose only a maximum of six months jail term, as pointed out by columnist Contreras.
Will fill void
The Tumulak ordinance will resolve the issue of penalty in the requirement of face masks in Cebu City.
More urgently and importantly, it will also fill the void existing in the local democratic space: the mass arrests for quarantine violations with no ordinance or law supporting the detention.
Councilor Alvin Dizon told SunStar Thursday (May 7) in a text message they expect to pass the ordinance next week. But legally, the measure does not take effect immediately.
Rules on legislating
Under the Local Government Code, ordinances with penal sanctions shall be posted at certain specified "prominent" places for a minimum period of three weeks and published in a newspaper of general circulation. "Unless otherwise provided," the ordinance takes effect on the day following newspaper publication or at the end of the period of posting, whichever occurs later.
The ordinance might not take effect yet by May 15, when the lockdown is scheduled to be lifted.
That is, if the law is followed to the letter. This s time of emergency -- when for several weeks now there has been no clear law or ordinance supporting the arrests -- don't be surprised by if some legal rules are bent or some corners cut.
But the ordinance flaw, if any, is for the arrested violator to resort to if he lands in jail and wants to fight back. Still, people, dispirited by the plague, just meekly yield.