CEBU, Philippines - The regional director of the Department of Tourism in Central Visayas has opposed a pending ordinance in the Cebu City Council that compels all establishments under its jurisdiction to allow public access of its comfort rooms.
In a position paper submitted before the City Council, DOT-7 director Rowena Lu Montecillo cited at least three reasons why she is opposed to the proposed legislative measure introduced by Councilor Alvin Arcilla.
She argued that opening the doors of any establishment to non-transacting clients who wish to use their comfort rooms poses security threats to the establishment and to its personnel.
Montecillo made her office as an example where isolated cases of loss of valuables to outsiders have been reported.
“Isolated as maybe, but this is also happening in some establishment either private or government offices within our building,” she said.
Montecillo said that even without an ordinance, establishments provide free use of comfort rooms with priority to transacting clients.
Secondly, Montecillo pointed out that it is the city government’s responsibility to provide the needed public comfort rooms as provided for under the Revised Sanitation Code of Cebu City.
She cited Article VII, paragraph 7.3, which states that; “It is the duty of the city government to construct according to plans approved by the City Health Officer, keep in repair, and maintain in sanitary condition such number of public comfort stations at such places in the city and outlying barrios.”
“The provision is explicit as to who will be responsible in providing comfort rooms. There will be no complaints if the city government constructs public toilets for the general public. And by passing the burden to the public offices and private establishments by way of enacting an ordinance is not fair,” Montecillo said.
Lastly, she cited a Supreme Court decision where it declared that “prohibiting mall owners from collecting parking fees would be tantamount to confiscation of their properties without justification or just compensation.”
She made reference to the SC decision on the case of the Office of the Solicitor General versus Ayala Land Incorporated which was promulgated in September 18, 2009.
The decision says that “the State cannot impose the same prohibition by generally invoking police power.”
Arcilla, in his proposed ordinance, wants all establishments to provide access of comfort facilities “free of charge”.
“Applying the case by analogy, the proposed ordinance prohibiting the owner of the private establishment in collecting fees from the use of comfort room facilities is already tantamount to a taking or confiscation of their properties,” Montecillo said.
“Moreover, the ordinance prohibits the private establishments from profiting from its use or even just recovering the expenses for the maintenance and operation of the facilities,” she added. — (FREEMAN)