COUNTERING TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL A Survey of Best Practices and Lessons Learned from Local Government Interventions in the

COUNTERING TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL A Survey of Best Practices and Lessons Learned from Local Government Interventions in the Philippines HealthJustice is a non-stock, non-profit organization created to fulfill the vision of bridging the gap between public health and law through policy development and research. It is committed to be the leading resource in research and capacity building for priority public health policies.

First published in Manila in June 2015 by

HealthJustice, Inc. 6F Victoria I Building 1670 Ave cor. EDSA Quezon City, Philippines

Copyright text © HealthJustice, Inc. Copyright cover photograph © Smoke Free Network. Copyright photographs © as indicated separately.

Except as otherwise specifically noted, the information in this publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the authors, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the authors are identified as the source of the information; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with or with the endorsement of HealthJustice, Inc. RESEARCHERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

RESEARCHERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

LEAD RESEARCHER & WRITER Atty. Patricia Miranda

RESEARCH COORDINATORS Alyanna Victoria Rivera Pauline Marie Villar

ASSISTANT RESEARCHERS Bianca Bacani Patrick Nicolo Lozano

EDITORS Atty. Irene Patricia Reyes Atty. Karla Mae Rocas Margaret Yarcia

LAYOUT & DESIGN Mark Lester Ngo LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTORS AND KEY INFORMANTS

LUZON Dr. Jobin Maestro (Municipality of Alcantara, ) Dr. Martin Banzon (Balanga City, ) Rural Health Unit (Municipality of Bauang, ) Dr. Mercy Chua (Municipality of Daraga, Albay) Dr. Renato Menrige, Jr. (Municipality of Calatrava, Romblon) Mark Roland Tolentino (Biñan City Jail)

VISAYAS Iñigo Garingalao ( City) June Regalado (Province of ) Lourdes Diocson (PhilHealth Region VI)

MINDANAO Dr. Domilyn Villareiz and Hyacinth Belle Bata (Davao City) Nenita Albito (Tacurong City, ) Chayla Marie Beniga (Province of ) iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Countering Tobacco Industry Interference at the Local Level is a result of collaborative efforts that involved a wide network of tobacco control advocates, researchers, and policy enforcers from participating local government units (LGUs) and regional offices of national government agencies (NGAs) in the Philippines.

We are grateful for the support from the Department of Health, particularly the Bureau of International Health Cooperation – Bloomberg Initiative Project OC 400 and the National Tobacco Control Coordinating Office, for providing linkages and contacts to the tobacco control coordinators in the different regions of Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The assistance of Marysol Balane and Isabella Pinon in coordinating with these offices deserve special mention.

We further extend our gratitude to the Civil Service Commission, particularly the Project Management Unit and the Office of Legal Affairs, for sharing resources and collaborating with HealthJustice for the series of legal trainings we organized to promote initiatives aimed to effectively respond to, and counter attempts of the tobacco industry to interfere with public health efforts.

We also thank Rose Anne Olarte and Imee Rose Olarte of Smoke Free Albay Network and ADD+VANTAGE Community Team Services, Inc. for the cover photo featuring the Bicol Scouts making no-smoking signs during the International Boy Scouts Jamboree at the Kawa-Kawa Natural Park, Ligao City.

We would also like to thank all the regional tobacco control coordinators, heads of NGAs, as well as the provincial, city, and municipal officers, who shared their time and effort to respond to our survey. We hope that the examples of best practices and lessons learned in countering tobacco industry interference will be useful not only to LGUs, but also to the various stakeholders who work tirelessly in advocating for the localization of tobacco control initiatives in the Philippines. Specifically, we acknowledge the submissions made by the following:

LUZON CAR: Atty. Marilyn Taldo and Cornelia Rivera (Civil Service Commission Regional Office CAR); Dr. Donnabel Tubera (City of Baguio); Alice S. Nges-o (Municipality of Besao, Mt. Province); Alex Bobila (Municipality of Boliney, ); Arleen Gasmeña (Municipality of Bontoc, Mt. Province); Jeannie Abagao (Municipality of Calanasan, ); Sheryll Pudeleyanes (Municipality of Dolores, Abra); Rodencio Paleopeo (Municipality of Langiden, Abra); Ruben Felicitas (Municipality of Pidigan, Abra); Human Resource and Development Services (Municipality of Sagada, Mt. Province);

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Jephte Feken (City of Tabuk, ); and Marissa Joy Billao (Luis Hora Memorial Regional Hospital). Region I: Helen Posilero (Department of Health, Center for Health Development, Region I); Regional Health Unit (Municipality of Bauang, La Union); Eumelia Luida Sanglay (Municipality of San Juan, La Union); and Dr. Cherrie May Pocsidio (Ilocos Training and Regional Medical Center). Region II: Floro Orata (Department of Health Regional Office II).Region III: Dr. Martin Banzon (Balanga City, Bataan). Region IV-A: Dr. Gilbert Par and Ma. Theresa Malubag (Department of Health Regional Office IV-A); Judith Dongallo-Chicano, Alexis Palomar-Tabino, Fernando O. Mendoza, and Margie Licuan (Civil Service Commission Regional Office IV- A); Mylene Quilala (Municipality of Alfonso, ); Mark Ronald Tolentino (Biñan City Jail); Arch. Allison Santiago (City Government of Cavite); Arlene Bugtong (Municipality of General Trias, Cavite); Aina Mari Sisante (Municipality of Magallanes, Cavite); Manuel Riel (Municipality of Maragondon, Cavite); Eufemia Gonzales (Municipality of Mendez, Cavite); Lito Senia (Municipality of Naic, Cavite); Raymond Salazar (Municipality of Noveleta, Cavite); Erminilda Buenviaje (Municipality of Rosario, Cavite); Alberto Custodio (Municipality of Tanza, Cavite); No reporter name indicated (Municipality of Ternate, Cavite); Rebecca Noceda (City of Trece Martires, Cavite); Dr. George Repique Jr. (Provincial Government of Cavite); and Dr. Trinidad Geraldine Purugganan (Tagaytay Treatment and Rehabilitation Center Report). Region IV-B: Ethyll Blanco (Department of Health Regional Office IV-B); Dr. Jobin Maestro (Municipality of Alcantara, Romblon); and Dr. Renato Menrige Jr. (Municipality of Calatrava, Romblon). Region V: Noemi Bron (Department of Health Regional Office V); Lynbee Niebla (Civil Service Commission Regional Office V); and Dr. Mercy Chua (Municipality of Daraga, Albay). VISAYAS Region VI: Iñigo Garingalao (Iloilo City); Julio Goboy Jr. (Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital); Mayor Amado Eriberto Castro (Province of Capiz); Lourdes F. Diocson (PhilHealth Region VI). Region VII: Ligaya Moneva (Department of Health Regional Office VII). MINDANAO : Sunshine Alipayo (Department of Health, Center for Health Development, CARAGA). Region X: Adams Torres and Atty. Cosette Maglasang-Mundo (Municipality of Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental); and Chayla Marie Beniga (Province of Misamis Occidental). Region XI: Dr. Domilyn Villareiz and Hyacinth Belle Bata (Davao City); and Teresita Dela Cruz (Department of Health Regional Office IX). Region XII: Atty. Emelie Camaganacan (Civil Service Commission Regional Office XII); and Nenita Albito (Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat).

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii 10 55 RESEARCHERS AND CONTRIBUTORS CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 iv BEST PRACTICES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL CONCLUSION METHODOLOGY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 12 56 vi REFERENCES BAUANG, LA UNION TABLE OF CONTENTS 16 57 vii BALANGA CITY, BATAAN ANNEXES PREFACE 20 ANNEX A: : HEALTHJUSTICE MODEL EXECUTIVE ORDER ADOPTING THE CSC-DOH JMC viii ALCANTARA, ROMBLON ACRONYMS ANNEX B: : HEALTHJUSTICE TEMPLATE 24 SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE I CALATRAVA, ROMBLON ANNEX C: : CSC-DOH JOINT MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR 2010-01 GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF ARTICLE 5.3 28 3 DARAGA, ALBAY CHAPTER 1 32 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION PROVINCE OF CAPIZ I. THE GLOBAL TOBACCO CONTROL TREATY 34 II. THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY ILOILO CITY 4 40 III. PROTECTING THE PHILIPPINE BUREAUCRACY PROVINCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL AGAINST THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY 43 6 DAVAO CITY IV. ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS IN 46 COUNTERING TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT 52 NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

vi PREFACE

PREFACE

Tobacco addiction is a global epidemic that creates tobacco industry interference. As aptly pointed an enormous toll of death, disease, and disability. out by one local government unit (LGU) reporter, Over many decades, it has remained prevalent, however, these initiatives should not be seen as a mainly because of the poor implementation one-size fits-all model but as “works in progress” of tobacco control policies and inconsistent that must be strengthened and sustained to enforcement. Driven by its commercial interest, ensure that local tobacco control efforts are not the tobacco industry has actively promoted both, subverted by the tobacco industry. and has since been correctly identified as the primary vector of this epidemic.1 HealthJustice, as part of its continuing advocacy to provide technical support and assistance in the Tobacco industry interference refers to a implementation of FCTC-compliant measures, broad array of tactics and strategies used by publishes this compilation of FCTC Article the tobacco industry to interfere with tobacco 5.3 best practices in resisting tobacco industry control measures.2 This interference serves as the interference at the local level to challenge other greatest obstacle in the effective implementation LGUs and regional offices of national government and enforcement of the Framework Convention agencies (NGAs) to initiate their own campaigns on Tobacco Control (FCTC), a global tobacco against the dirty tactics of the industry. The control treaty that aims to defeat the tobacco LGUs and NGAs featured in this publication are epidemic. proving that proactive leadership and political will are major factors in successfully promoting Battling this epidemic should be an urgent and protecting the health of their constituents, concern especially in the developing countries, despite the heavy pressure and underhanded where over 80% of the world’s smokers come tactics employed by the tobacco industry against from.3 In the Philippines, an estimated 87,600 them. This survey of best practices aims to educate, die every year due to tobacco-related inform, and perhaps, even inspire decision- illnesses, or 240 Filipinos daily. 4 Relatedly, studies makers and the public that resisting tobacco show that the Philippines is among the countries industry interference is actually achievable, as in Southeast Asia where tobacco companies shown by exemplary local governments across enjoy the most undue and unregulated influence the Philippines. over policies affecting their industry.5 For further reference, scanned copies of Fortunately, despite the tobacco industry’s long templates, legislation, relevant policies, and history of undermining tobacco control policies supporting documents of featured LGUs and in the country, there have been quite a number NGAs may be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/ of success stories of how local leaders have HealthJusticeTobaccoControl. implemented grassroots initiatives to counter

vii ACRONYMS

ACRONYMS

AO Administrative Order BAT British American Tobacco BJMP Bureau of Jail Management and Penology CSC Civil Service Commission CSR Corporate Social Responsibility CSO Civil Society Organization DILG Department of Interior and Local Government DOH Department of Health EO Executive Order GHW Graphic Health Warning FCTC Framework Convention on Tobacco Control GOCC Government-owned and Controlled Corporations HEPO Health Education and Promotion Officers IACT Inter-Agency Committee-Tobacco IEC Information, Education and Communication IO Information Officer IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations ITGA International Tobacco Growers’ Association JMC Joint Memorandum Circular JTI Japan Tobacco International LCE Local Chief Executive LGU Local Government Unit LHIO Local Health Insurance Office MENRO Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office NGA National Government Agencies NGO Non-Government Organization NTCCO National Tobacco Control Coordinating Office OLA Office for Legal Affairs PhilHealth Philippine Health Insurance Corporation PMI Philip Morris International PMFTC Philip Morris Fortune Tobacco Corporation PNP Philippine National Police POS Point of Sale PTGA Philippine Tobacco Growers’ Association PTI Philippine Tobacco Institute RA Republic Act RHU Rural Health Unit ROA Red Orchid Award SHS Secondhand smoke TAPS Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship TI Tobacco Industry TII Tobacco Industry Interference WHA World Health Assembly WHO World Health Organization

viii GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF ARTICLE 5.3, FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL

PRINCIPLE 1

There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy interests.

PRINCIPLE 2

Parties, when dealing with the tobacco industry or those working to further its interests, should be accountable and transparent.

PRINCIPLE 3

Parties should require the tobacco industry and those working to further its interests to operate and act in a manner that is accountable and transparent.

PRINCIPLE 4

Because their products are lethal, the tobacco industry should not be granted incentives to establish or run their businesses.

1 WHO FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL

12 CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

I. THE GLOBAL TOBACCO CONTROL TREATY

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is the first public health treaty negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO). Developed in response to the global spread of tobacco addiction, the FCTC is an evidence-based treaty that reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standard of health.

This treaty demonstrates global political will to strengthen tobacco control measures in order to save lives. The FCTC is legally binding, and as such, provides a solid foundation for countries to implement and manage tobacco control measures to address the tobacco epidemic.

The Philippines signed and ratified the FCTC in 2003, and the Senate concurred in 2005. In accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the FCTC forms part of the laws of the land6 and has the force and effect of national law in the Philippines.7 As a Party to the FCTC, the Philippines is bound to comply with its provisions in good faith.8 II. THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the tobacco industry, and those of public health policy.9 The goal of the tobacco industry is to maintain its profitability as a business entity, by retaining or increasing its customers, particularly the smokers. Not surprisingly, efforts to reconcile the interests of the public health sector and the industry have proven to be fruitless over the past decades.

Despite the undeniable weight of scientific evidence proving the lethal nature of its products, the tobacco industry has continued its promotion efforts to entice more customers. On the other hand, the primary goal of tobacco control is to prevent tobacco-caused deaths and diseases.

As such, the public health objectives concerning tobacco control are threefold: (1) preventing the uptake of tobacco use; (2) assisting tobacco users in ceasing to use of all forms of tobacco; and (3) reducing exposure to secondhand smoke.10

3 CHAPTER 1

Tobacco is the only legally available product that kills up to one half of its regular users when consumed as recommended by its manufacturer.11 Citing the findings of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents, the World Health Assembly (WHA) resolution WHA54.18 on transparency in tobacco control process, states that “the tobacco industry has operated for years with the express intention of subverting the role of governments and of WHO in implementing public health policies to combat the tobacco epidemic.”12

Recognizing the need to be alert to tactics of the tobacco industry to undermine tobacco control efforts, the FCTC included protection against tobacco industry interference as one of the general obligations of State Parties under the Convention.13 Under Article 5.3 of the FCTC, the Philippines obligated itself to protect public health policies with respect to tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.

“In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.” - Article 5.3, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control III. PROTECTING THE PHILIPPINE BUREAUCRACY AGAINST THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY A. Prohibited Interactions with the Tobacco Industry

Pursuant to Article 5.3 of the FCTC, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Department of Health (DOH) issued Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2010-01 on Protection of the Bureaucracy against Tobacco Industry Interference (CSC-DOH JMC) in 2010. The CSC-DOH JMC prohibits interactions with the tobacco industry, except when strictly necessary for the effective regulation, supervision and control of the tobacco industry. Any such necessary interaction must be conducted publicly and transparently, and efforts must be taken to prevent or correct any perception of partnership with the tobacco industry. The Philippine Tobacco Growers’ Association (PTGA) and the International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA), two established tobacco industry front groups, have even appealed to the President of the Philippines to oppose the FCTC.

4 CHAPTER 1

The CSC-DOH JMC also prohibits public officials from giving preferential treatment to the tobacco industry; soliciting or accepting any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment or anything of monetary value from the tobacco industry; failing to disclose, retaining, and/or acquiring any financial or material interest in, or other potential source of conflict of interest with the tobacco industry; or accepting analogous favors from the tobacco industry.

More significantly, the CSC-DOH JMC aims to promote transparency and accountability, which are basic governance indicators aligned with the core value of the CSC to promote integrity in public service. Through the CSC- DOH JMC, the public is equipped to hold the government responsible for protecting public health policies from tobacco industry interference.

B. Tobacco Industry Interference

The tobacco industry refers to manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and importers of tobacco products.14 For purposes of the CSC-DOH JMC, the term includes “organizations, entities, associations, and individuals that work for or on behalf of the tobacco industry, such as, but not limited to, tobacco retailers, front groups and any other individuals or organizations, including, but not limited to lawyers, scientists and lobbyists that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry.”15

Tobacco industry interference refers to a broad array of tactics and strategies used by the tobacco industry to interfere with the setting and implementation of tobacco control measures, such as, but not limited to, the provision of draft policies on tobacco control, the giving of gifts or donations to government agencies or officials, among others.

Over the years, the tobacco industry has used its economic power, lobbying, and marketing machinery to influence governments in order to propagate the sale and distribution of its deadly product. In the LGU setting, tobacco companies have sent letters to local chief executives (LCEs) requesting participation in hearings on tobacco control ordinances pushing for ordinances aligned with the Republic Act (RA) No. 9211, or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, or dubious memoranda allegedly issued by NGAs. The Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI), an association representing local cigarette manufacturers and importers, leads the lobbying efforts of the tobacco industry.

5 CHAPTER 1

Moreover, tobacco companies continue to thwart national bans on advertising by posting advertisements in daily broadsheets16 and on the Internet.17 Furthermore, the tobacco industry continues to inject large “philanthropic” contributions into social programs all over the Philippines, particularly in impoverished or calamity-stricken areas, to create a positive public image under the guise of so-called “corporate social responsibility” (CSR).

C. Policy Coverage The CSC-DOH JMC covers all government officials and employees, regardless of status, in the national or local government, including government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), with original charters, and state colleges and universities.18 For government officials and employees subject to the jurisdiction of the CSC, violations of the CSC-DOH JMC shall be considered a ground for administrative disciplinary action pursuant to Rule XlV (Discipline) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, without prejudice to the filing of criminal as well as civil actions under existing laws, rules and regulations. As for government officials not subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the CSC, the CSC shall transmit all cases for prosecution arising from violations of the CSC-DOH JMC to the proper authorities for appropriate action.

Contractual government officials and employees covered by an appointment are considered regular employees, and are covered by the CSC-DOH JMC. However, project consultants engaged under contracts of services are not covered by the CSC-DOH JMC, unless their respective contracts expressly indicate compliance with it as a further requirement or condition of the engagement.19 IV. Role of Local Government Units in Countering Tobacco Industry Interference

The tobacco industry uses a broad array of tactics to either seduce or intimidate local governments into submission and to prevent the implementation of effective public health measures. The industry misleads local decision-makers, implementers, and enforcers into believing that LGUs cannot implement FCTC-compliant provisions, or any provision not specifically stated in RA 9211, and downplays the basic principle of local autonomy broadly interpreted in favor of LGUs.

However, LGUs and NGAs across the Philippines have implemented community-driven initiatives to counter tobacco industry interference and

6 CHAPTER 1

“In order to better protect human health, Parties are encouraged to implement measures beyond those required by this Convention and its protocols, and nothing in these instruments shall prevent a Party from imposing stricter requirements that are consistent with their provisions and are in accordance with international law.” - Article 2.1, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control continue to maximize their broad powers to adopt local laws, especially with respect to ordinances and executive orders intended to promote the general welfare, and the health, safety, and quality of life of their constituents. A state that has contracted valid international obligations, such as the FCTC, is obliged to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken, including amending or filling the gaps of existing legislation.20 Furthermore, Article 2.1 of the FCTC encourages Parties to implement measures beyond those required by the FCTC, its guidelines and protocols. In other words, the FCTC sets a minimum or a floor, not a ceiling, for tobacco control efforts. The foregoing then justifies the inherent flexibility of both national and local governments in adopting tobacco control measures stronger than those called for in the FCTC. Hence, best practices for tobacco control will necessarily include stricter, more comprehensive, and more effective policies as new evidence-based tobacco control measures are developed to combat the tobacco epidemic.

Likewise, there is an obligation, as Article 5. 2 of the FCTC clearly indicates, to adopt and implement a wide spectrum of effective measures for preventing and reducing tobacco consumption, nicotine addiction, and exposure to tobacco smoke. These effective measures may include legislative, executive, administrative or other measures that an LGU may undertake in developing a local tobacco framework.

“Each Party shall develop, implement, periodically update and review comprehensive multisectoral national tobacco control strategies, plans and programmes in accordance with this Convention and the protocols to which it is a Party.” - Article 5.1, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

7 CHAPTER 2

“Towards this end, each Party shall, in accordance with its capabilities: (a) establish or reinforce and finance a national coordinating mechanism or focal points for tobacco control; and (b) adopt and implement effective legislative, executive, administrative and/or other measures and cooperate, as appropriate, with other Parties in developing appropriate policies for preventing and reducing tobacco consumption, nicotine addiction and exposure to tobacco smoke.” – Article 5.2, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines states that the basic principle of local autonomy is broadly interpreted in favor of LGUs.21 The power of LGUs to enact tobacco control ordinances, resolutions, and other policies is a powerful tool against tobacco industry interference because the law ensures that the local autonomy granted to LGUs shall be genuine and meaningful, and responsive to the actual needs of constituents. Ordinances, in particular, are useful in supplementing policy gaps and provide the details lacking in national laws, provided that there is no conflict between the supplemented provisions and the law it is enforcing.22 Consistent with the principle of devolution, local governments are given the power to adopt laws applicable specifically within their territorial jurisdiction. This power is further bolstered by the general welfare clause and police power granted to LGUs by the Constitution and RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. Thus, LGUs can exercise powers that are: (1) expressly granted; (2) necessarily implied from the power that is expressly granted; (3) necessary, appropriate or incidental for its efficient and effective governance; and (4) essential to the promotion of the general welfare of their inhabitants.23

“The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to local government units in accelerating economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community[.]” – Section 5(c), Local Government Code of 1991

8 CHAPTER 2

For the purpose of strengthening tobacco control efforts, the broad scope of the general welfare to be promoted includes the promotion of health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, improvement of public morals, and preservation of the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.24 By developing tobacco control measures pursuant to the general welfare clause, an LGU, as an instrumentality of the state, is fulfilling the state’s duty to promote and protect the constitutional right to health and instill health consciousness.25 The Supreme Court has affirmed that a restrictive view of the general welfare clause is not favored.26 Any provision concerning the power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor,27 and ordinances passed pursuant to such powers enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. This presumption can only be overcome in case of a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, which must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.28 Where doubt exists, even if well-founded, there can be no finding of unconstitutionality or invalidity.29

“The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.” – Article II, Section 15, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines

Article X, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution affirms these principles, as it states that the President of the Philippines shall exercise only “general supervision,” and not “control,” over local governments. This principle is implemented in the Administrative Code30 and the Local Government Code. In several cases,31 the Supreme Court affirmed the broad powers of LGUs, explaining that LGUs are subject only to the power of general supervision of the President, which does not include the power to substitute his own judgment over that of the subordinate officer, that is, the local government official.

More importantly, an ordinance is an act of legislation that only the judiciary can invalidate. Until invalidated by a court of competent authority, an ordinance enjoys the presumption that it is valid and has been enacted under the regular powers of the local government. Should there be a seeming conflict between the provisions of a national law and a local ordinance, such “conflict” must be “convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated.”32 The two laws must be shown to be “clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist.”33 Further, it is a basic rule in statutory construction that conflict must not be read into laws. In the face of an apparent conflict, the Supreme Court has settled that laws must be reconciled and harmonized. At the very least, efforts to do so must first be exerted.34

9 CHAPTER 2

BEST PRACTICES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

METHODOLOGY

HealthJustice collected data on local legislation and efforts implementing WHO FCTC Article 5.3 and the CSC-DOH JMC from LGUs, NGAs, and other government agencies in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The research team coordinated with the DOH Health Education and Promotion Officers (HEPO) and Information Officers (IO) assigned as tobacco control coordinators from August to December 2014. Questionnaires were sent to the DOH Red Orchid Award (ROA) winners of 2013 and 2014, with questions relating to successful strategies and counter-measures used by LGUs to counter tobacco industry interference.

The DOH ROA recognizes local government units, public or private hospitals and other government agencies committed to pursuing efforts towards a smoke-free environment. The rationale for purposely limiting the survey research to ROA awardees is to ensure that the LGUs contacted for inclusion in the study have exhibited the power of comprehensive efforts to implement a 100% smoke-free environment using the WHO MPOWER initiatives as validated by the DOH.

Two waves of letter requests and surveys were sent to the DOH tobacco control coordinators, CSC Regional Directors, and, in some instances, directly with LCEs. The following information was requested from LGUs and NGAs:

1 A fully accomplished questionnaire on efforts conducted in countering tobacco industry interference, as well as an enumeration of Art. 5.3 best practices and experiences;

10 CHAPTER 2

2 Scanned copies of all FCTC-compliant legislation, rules, and regulations in connection with initiatives by LGUs to protect the bureaucracy against tactics and strategies of the tobacco industry

3 Photographs, press releases, incident reports, and all other documents related to the rejection of any and all forms of tobacco industry interference.

One hundred and twenty-six (126) LGUs/NGAs/hospitals, DOH-CHD Regional Offices, and CSC Regional Offices were contacted. Only forty- four (44) LGUs and NGAs reverted complete surveys and supporting documentation. The resulting communication constraints were a result of the following: (1) failure of some contact persons to respond; (2) invalid contact numbers on record either with the CSC or DOH; and (3) the departure of the contact persons from their respective LGUs and NGAs.

HealthJustice selected ten LGUs and two NGAs based on completed surveys and supporting documentation highlight efforts in implementing the recommendations under the Article 5.3 Guidelines and the CSC-DOH JMC. Specifically, these are: (1) raising awareness about tobacco industry interference; (2) developing policies related to avoiding conflicts of interest with the tobacco industry and prohibiting unnecessary interactions; and (3) denormalizing so-called CSR of tobacco companies. Follow-up emails and calls were made to clarify information in the surveys.

11 BAUANG, LA UNION AS REPORTED BY The Regional Health Unit of the Municipality of Bauang35

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION Ilocos (Region 1) PROVINCE La Union DISTRICT 2nd District of La Union CLASSIFICATION Urbanized Municipality GOVERNMENT Governor Manuel C. Ortega Vice-Governor Aureo Nisce Congressman Eufranio C. Eriguel Mayor Eologio Clarence Martin P. de Guzman III Vice-Mayor Bonifacio G. MAlinao POPULATION 73,957

12 CHAPTER 2

ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Ordinance No. 12, series of 2013, allies and commissioned third otherwise known as the “Smoke- parties who benefit from the sale of Free Ordinance of the Municipality tobacco products or from tobacco of Bauang, La Union” was sponsorship that have interest that enacted on August 27, 2013.36 The compete with those of tobacco Ordinance cites the FCTC and the control.” On the other hand, the CSC-DOH JMC as the legal bases term “civil society organization” is of the provisions. The Ordinance defined to exclude “organizations or further states that “the Municipality associations related to or connected of Bauang, La Union recognizes with the tobacco industry in any the fundamental and irreconcilable w ay.” conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health Meanwhile, Executive Order No. 64, policy, and realizes the need to be series of 2013, which promulgates alert and informed of any efforts by the Implementing rules and the tobacco industry to undermine regulations (IRR) of Municipal or subvert tobacco control efforts.” Ordinance No. 12, series of 2013, In addition, the Ordinance defines was issued on November 25, 2013.37 “tobacco industry interference” It reiterates the definitions of “civil and adopts a broader definition society organization,” “tobacco of “tobacco industry” than what industry,” and “tobacco industry is set forth in the FCTC, for the interference” provided for by the purpose of making all responsible Ordinance. The IRR is significant entities accountable. Thus, the because the ordinance recognizes technical definition of “tobacco that CSOs may be deputized by the industry” now includes “industry Mayor to enforce the Ordinance.

13 CHAPTER 2

Finally, Executive Order No. 65, series of 2013: “Denying Sponsorships of and Partnerships With Tobacco Companies,”38 issued by Municipal Mayor Eulogio Clarence Martin de Guzman on December 2, 2013, reiterates that the CSC-DOH JMC covers the Municipality of Bauang, its public officials, and employees.39 Aside from reiterating the principles contained in the CSC- DOH JMC, this order further states that all sponsorships of and partnerships with tobacco companies shall be denied “by virtue of the powers vested in [the Municipal Mayor] by law.”

REJECTING POLICY DRAFTS, LEGAL ADVICE, OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

In 2013, the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI) sent letters to the local government requesting that they be allowed to participate in all public hearings in relation to tobacco control and offered a template ordinance for the consideration of the municipality. Made after the enactment of Bauang’s Smoke-Free Ordinance, the offer of so-called “technical assistance” was rejected.

NETWORKING AND COLLABORATING WITH CSOS AND PUBLIC HEALTH GROUPS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TO COUNTER INTERFERENCE

Bauang’s Smoke-Free Ordinance and its IRR provides for civil society participation in the enforcement of tobacco control policies. “Civil Society Organization,” as defined in the Ordinance, “does not include organizations or associations related to or connected with the tobacco industry in any way.” The Ordinance stipulates that CSOs have a role in enforcement, as members of the smoke-free task force. They are then tasked to assist in the conduct of trainings and seminars on tobacco control.

14 CHAPTER 2

RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC

On the website of Bauang, page visitors will immediately see a banner stating: “BAUANG: No to Tobacco Industry Interference,” displayed prominently above the hotlines of different offices and agencies in the municipality. In addition, the Municipal Health Office (MHO) has a dedicated budget based on an existing tobacco control action plan. The action plan covers the creation and dissemination of information, education and communication (IEC) materials, the conduct of capacity building seminars, formulation of anti-smoking activities, and the administrative costs of conducting “baklas operations,” which features the dismantling of advertisement materials for tobacco products. The Bauang Tourism Council also expressed support for the Ordinance on its Facebook page and other social media platforms, along with information on the harms brought by tobacco.

“Kudos to the laudable efforts of the Anti-Smoking Task Force, MENRO, the Health Office, and the other departments. Together, we can make Bauang, a tobacco smoke-free and a healthier environment for all of us, especially our children.” - Eulogio Clarence Martin de Guzman III, Municipal Mayor

15 BALANGA CITY, BATAAN AS REPORTED BY Dr. Martin Banzon, City Health Officer

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION (Region III) PROVINCE Bataan DISTRICT 2nd District of Bataan CLASSIFICATION Component City GOVERNMENT Governor Albert S. Garcia Vice-Governor Efren Dominic E. Pascual Jr. Congressman Enrique T. Garcia Jr. Mayor Jose Enrique S. Garcia III Vice-Mayor Noel Joseph L. Valdecañas POPULATION 82,546

16 CHAPTER 2

ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The City of Balanga incorporated the CSC-DOH JMC in the administrative policies set forth in the Employees Policy Handbook of the City Government of Balanga.40

RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC

The city government holds orientations on its existing tobacco control policies. Orientations on the Comprehensive Smoke-Free Policy, including the CSC-DOH JMC, are conducted for Balangueño drivers every Thursday of the week, 7pm, as part of the Barangay Week Program. The activity includes film viewings about the ill effects of smoking. A similar orientation is conducted for senior citizens every Monday of the week at 9am for the Barangay Week Program. Moreover, enforcers of the smoke-free policy are regularly oriented regarding the ordinance and the CSC-DOH JMC.

Community education is one of Balanga’s key strategies in capacitating CSOs, sectoral groups, and the public to help the LGU combat tobacco industry interference. Photo: Balanga City Health Office

17 CHAPTER 2

NETWORKING AND COLLABORATING WITH CSOS AND PUBLIC HEALTH GROUPS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TO COUNTER INTERFERENCE; MONITORING, COLLECTING, AND EXCHANGING INFORMATION RELATED TO TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE

The city government works with the private sector and civil society organizations in all activities involving its tobacco control ordinance and the dissemination of the CSC-DOH JMC. It has also integrated provisions related to tobacco control in the following programs: (1) Barangay Online; (2) Learning Barangay Week; (3) Human Resources Development Program; (4) Performance Governance System (PGS); (5) Barangay Performance Governance System (BPGS) - Best Managed Barangay Awards; and (5) Information Technology Services.

REJECTING POLICY DRAFTS, LEGAL ADVICE, OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The city officials once received a green folder with certain documents, including a letter stating that their anti-smoking ordinance should conform to the DILG Memorandum advocating that it is the RA 9211, not the FCTC, which should be strictly implemented. However, the city officials deemed that the DILG memo should only serve as guide in the crafting of policies, and not undermine the power of the City Council to enact legislative measures aimed at protecting the health of their constituents. They were also approached by a representative of a tobacco company whose suggested amendments to the ordinance weaken its impact. The city officials rejected the request and stated that the Ordinance and its strong provisions regulating the industry do not go against RA 9211.

18 CHAPTER 2

REJECTING OFFERS OF PARTNERSHIP FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THOSE REPRESENTING THEIR INTERESTS; REJECTING FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OR DONATIONS FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Dr. Jessie D. Ferrer received a letter from Knowledge Channel Foundation, Inc. (KCFI) Area Coordinator Ms. Giceline G. Artuyo, inviting him to the Ceremonial Turnover of the “Proficient Measures for Quality Education” at Cupang Elementary School on August 22, 2011. The letter stated that the event shall be sponsored by Philip Morris and Fortune Tobacco Company. In response, Dr. Ferrer and Mr. Ernesto T. Robles Jr., the Education Program Supervisor/Information and Communication Technology Coordinator, wrote a letter to KCFI rejecting the sponsorship. Christmas gifts offered to the LCE by a Marlboro Area Sales Representative were also refused.

PROMOTING A CULTURE OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESISTANCE

In 2013, Mayor Joet Garcia wrote to the LCEs of adjacent municipalities of Pilar and Abucay to inform them of the “blitzkrieg promotional activities” conducted at the city borders by tobacco companies to circumvent the “aggressive implementation” of Balanga’s smoke-free policies. Mayor Joet requested that such promotional activities at the borders to ensure positive gains in tobacco control in Balanga will not be reversed. Previously, Balanga has received several awards in tobacco control, and the HealthJustice Award of Excellence specifically for countering tobacco industry interference in 2012.

“Local governments should not give up the fight to protect public health, and they should not give in to tyrants like the tobacco industry.” - Dr. Martin Banzon, City Health Officer

19 ALCANTARA, ROMBLON AS REPORTED BY Dr. Jobin Maestro, Municipal Health Officer

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION (Region IV-B) PROVINCE Romblon DISTRICT Lone District of Romblon CLASSIFICATION 5th Class Municipality GOVERNMENT Governor Eduardo C. Firmalo Vice-Governor Jose Riano Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona Mayor Eddie C. Lota Vice-Mayor Robert G. Galindez POPULATION 15,934

20 CHAPTER 2

ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The Municipality of Alcantara adopted the CSC-DOH JMC as its policy through Memorandum Order No. 2: “Protection of the Municipality Against Tobacco Industry Interference” issued by the Office of the Municipal Mayor.41 The Order strengthens the existing ordinance of Alcantara by indicating that the CSC-DOH JMC shall “complement the implementation” of Municipal Ordinance No. 3, series of 2011, otherwise known as “The Smoke-Free Ordinance of the Municipality of Alcantara.” The Memorandum was circulated to all department heads, government agencies, school heads, and barangay officials.

21 CHAPTER 2

REJECTING OFFERS OF PARTNERSHIP FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THOSE REPRESENTING THEIR INTERESTS; REJECTING FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OR DONATIONS FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The municipal government of Alcantara confirmed that there were several attempts by tobacco companies to thwart the implementation of its ordinance through the sending of gifts and the offering of sponsorships for promotional activities. The Office of the Mayor, however, rejected any dealings with any tobacco company utilizing the said methods. The Office of the Mayor denied the offer by sending a letter to the tobacco company distributor and cited Municipal Ordinance No. 3 s. 2011 and Executive Order No. 28 s. 2013 as basis for the denial.

’Mahigpit po naming ipinagbabawal ang anumang kampanya ng industriya ng tobacco dito sa aming bayan. Isa na dito ang aksyon namin sa pagtatanggal ng anumang advertisement posters ng lahat ng tobacco company sa bawat tindahan.” - Eddie Lota, Municipal Mayor

22 CHAPTER 2

LGU officials remove tobacco advertisements and inform retailers and sari-sari stores to reject offers from tobacco companies in exchange for placing these prohibited signage on storefronts. Photos: Alcantara Municipal Health Office

23 CALATRAVA, ROMBLON AS REPORTED BY Dr. Renato R. Menrige, Jr., Municipal Health Officer

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION MIMAROPA (Region IV-B) PROVINCE Romblon DISTRICT Lone District of Romblon CLASSIFICATION 5th Class Municipality GOVERNMENT Governor Eduardo C. Firmalo Vice- Governor Jose Riano Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona Mayor Robert M. Fabella Vice-Mayor Berlito F. Fajel, Jr. POPULATION 10,367

24 CHAPTER 2

ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The Municipality of Calatrava adopted the CSC-DOH JMC as its policy through Memorandum Order No. 11-04: “Protection of the Municipality Against Tobacco Interference” issued by the Office of the Municipal Mayor on February 21, 2011.42 The Order strengthens the existing ordinance by providing that the CSC-DOH JMC shall “complement the implementation” of Municipal Ordinance No. 3, series of 2011, otherwise known as “The Smoke-Free Ordinance of the Municipality of Calatrava.” The Memorandum was circulated to all department heads, government agencies, school heads, and barangay officials.

25 CHAPTER 2

REJECTING OFFERS OF PARTNERSHIP FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THOSE REPRESENTING THEIR INTERESTS; REJECTING FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OR DONATIONS FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY; REJECTING POLICY DRAFTS, LEGAL ADVICE, OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

In 2011, in a private meeting with the Municipal Mayor of Calatrava, tobacco industry giant Philip Morris offered funding for the construction of a youth recreation facility. The industry representatives expressed that the Municipal Ordinance 23-A, series of 2010 should not be implemented, and suggested changes to the ordinance by providing a sample with a less comprehensive policy on tobacco regulation. Mayor Robert Fabella rejected the offer and informed them that the LGU has funds to support the construction of the Calatrava Cultural and Sports Complex. He also told them not to mind the implementation of tobacco laws in Calatrava, saying they are a small municipality, to which the industry representatives replied that Calatrava’s program will impact on the implementation in neighboring towns and the entire province. The Mayor firmly stood by his decision to implement and enforce the municipality’s smoke-free ordinance.

26 The theme of World No Tobacco Day 2012 was tobacco industry interference, and the campaign focused on the need to expose and counter the tobacco industry’s brazen and increasingly aggressive attempts to undermine tobacco control efforts.Photo: Calatrava Municipal Health Office RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC

The fight of Calatrava against tobacco industry interference is a collective effort that involves the local government officials, school administrators and students, local hospital workers, local media, and local law enforcement officers. In 2012, Calatrava celebrated World No Tobacco Day, which focuses on tobacco industry interference. For the day’s activities, the local government collaborated with different civil society organizations, corporate entities, government agencies, church groups, and the youth.

“In our town, violators of the laws and policies specially on tobacco regulation will be apprehended and dealt with accordingly. We will not tolerate any wrong doings by anybody in the area under my jurisdiction. Our Municipality will not and will never accept tobacco industry advertisements in all forms, nor promotion and sponsorships for them.“ - Robert Fabella, Municipal Mayor

27 DARAGA, ALBAY AS REPORTED BY Dr. Mercy Chua, MPH, Municipal Health Officer Vice-Chair of the Daraga Smoke-Free Taskforce

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION (Region V) PROVINCE Albay DISTRICT 2nd District of Albay CLASSIFICATION 1st Class Municipality GOVERNMENT Governor Joey S. Salceda Vice-Governor Harold Imperial Congressman Al Francis Bichara Mayor Gerry R. Jaucian Vice-Mayor Carlito V. Baylon POPULATION 115,804

28 CHAPTER 2

ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The Municipality of Daraga adopted the CSC-DOH JMC as its policy through Memorandum No. 030, series of 2013 issued by Municipal Mayor Gerry R. Jaucian on March 19, 2013.43

The next day, or on March 20, 2013, Memorandum No. 031, series of 2013: Non-Acceptance of Tobacco Company Sponsorship, Promotional Events and Activities of the Local Government Unit of Daraga was issued by the Office of the Municipal Mayor.44 This second memorandum states that all municipal officials and employees are required to protect existing tobacco control policies from commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry, particularly through the non-acceptance of sponsorships, promotions, and other activities from the industry. Furthermore, the memorandum directs municipal officials and employees to “serve the public interest” by disallowing “incentives, privileges, benefits or exemption to the tobacco industry.”

29 CHAPTER 2

REJECTING OFFERS OF PARTNERSHIP FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THOSE REPRESENTING THEIR INTERESTS; REMOVING PERCEPTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY; MONITORING, COLLECTING, AND EXCHANGING INFORMATION RELATED TO TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE

In April 2014, Max1 Activation, DISAPPROVED!!!”46 Within 10 Inc., on behalf of British American days from the receipt of the letter, Tobacco (BAT), sent a so-called an incident report was drafted and “negotiation letter” to the Office of filed by Municipal Health Officer. the Municipal Mayor requesting The incident report contained the permission to conduct “store following entries: (1) names of to store selling” of Lucky Strike persons involved; (2) their address; cigarettes. The letter stated that (3) date and location of the incident; the objective of the activity was to (4) description of the incident; “showcase Lucky Strike cigarettes” and (5) action taken.47 The report and to announce that the cigarettes further stated that the request to are available for “discounted selling.” conduct the “store to store selling” The request was forwarded to the was disapproved since the foregoing Office of Municipal Health and was will violate Municipal Ordinance rejected.45 No. 08-2011, “An Ordinance Prohibiting the Sale, Distribution A copy of BAT’s letter request and Advertisement of Cigarettes and with the signed disapproval of Other Tobacco Products in Certain the Municipal Health Officer was Places, Imposing Penalties For uploaded to the official Facebook Violations Thereof and Providing page of Smoke-Free Daraga with Funds Therefore, and For Other the caption: “NO DEAL WITH Purposes.” THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY!

30 CHAPTER 2

NETWORKING AND COLLABORATING WITH CSOS AND PUBLIC HEALTH GROUPS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TO COUNTER INTERFERENCE; RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC

In Albay, efforts for tobacco control are consolidated through the work of the multi-sectoral Smoke-Free Albay Network (SFAN), formed by Gov. Joey Salceda. SFAN is a group of civil society organizations, corporate entities, government agencies, church groups and the academe in Albay advocating for a no-smoking environment in the province.

“Local chief executives should not entertain any request from tobacco companies to ensure smoke-free policies are protected. In line with this, government officials should be informed of Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC and the CSC-DOH JMC.” - Dr. Mercy Chua, Municipal Health Officer

The Daraga Smoke-Free Task Force holds weekly meetings to ensure close coordination of tobacco control activities and plan monitoring operations within the municipality. Photo: Daraga Smoke-Free Task Force

31 PROVINCE OF CAPIZ AS REPORTED BY Ms. June Regalado, Provincial Health Non-Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Program

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION (Region VI) PROVINCE Misamis Occidental DISTRICT Districts I and II GOVERNMENT Governor Victor A. Tanco Vice Governor Nonoy Contreras District I Congressman Antonio A. Del Rosario District II Fredenil H. Castro POPULATION 582,154

32 CHAPTER 2

ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The Province of Capiz received the HealthJustice Award in 2012 in recognition of the local government’s smoke-free ordinances and strong resolve in countering tobacco industry interference. The province spearheaded the adoption of a manifesto condemning tobacco industry interference with smoke-free policies. The manifesto was signed by 12 LGUs , including Dao, Dumalag, Jamindan, Maayon, Mambusao, Panay, Panitan, Pontevedra, President Roxas, Sapina, Tapaz, and Roxas City.

REJECTING POLICY DRAFTS, LEGAL ADVICE, OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The LGUs asserted their authority to promote the general welfare of their constituents, pursuant to Section 16 of the Local Government Code of 1991, by promoting health and safety. The manifesto condemns the practice of the tobacco industry of coercing LGUs into accepting position papers or model ordinances that favor the commercial and vested interests of the industry. The manifesto likewise affirms their authority to implement and enforce the WHO FCTC, including the enactment of strong tobacco control policies free from tobacco industry interference.

NETWORKING AND COLLABORATING WITH CSOS AND PUBLIC HEALTH GROUPS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TO COUNTER INTERFERENCE

Recognizing the City’s exemplary efforts against tobacco industry interference, Roxas City Mayor Alan Celino was invited last February 2013 as a resource person for a training sponsored by HealthJustice that aimed at, among others, strengthening the capacity of LGUs and NGAs in Luzon to effectively protect their public health initiatives and tobacco control measures from the tobacco industry.

33 ILOILO CITY AS REPORTED BY Iñigo D. Garingalao, Executive Director of the Iloilo City Antismoking Task Force (ICAST)

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION Western Visayas (Region VI) PROVINCE Iloilo DISTRICT Lone District of Iloilo City CLASSIFICATION Highly Urbanized City GOVERNMENT Congressman Jerry P. Treñas Mayor Jed Patrick E. Mabilog Vice-Mayor Jose S. Espinosa III POPULATION 454,000

34 CHAPTER 2

ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Iloilo City adopted the CSC-DOH JMC as its policy through Memorandum Order CMO-14 35-B: “Implementation of the Joint CSC-DOH Memorandum Circular No. 2010-01 (Protection of the Bureaucracy Against Tobacco Industry Interference).”48 This Order was issued by Mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog on February 12, 2014. This measure was initiated by the Human Resource Office upon the advice of the ICAST Executive Director who attended a forum organized by the CSC on the CSC-DOH JMC and Article 5.3 best practices.

35 CHAPTER 2

REJECTING OFFERS OF PARTNERSHIP FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THOSE REPRESENTING THEIR INTERESTS; REJECTING FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OR DONATIONS FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The ICAST Director denied death threats directed at him and the request of support made Councilor Alim were circulated by a Philip Morris Fortune through establishment owners Tobacco Corporation (PMFTC) in night-life areas. The threats representative to reject measures specifically stated that the two were to raise tobacco taxes in 2012 in targeted for their anti-smoking exchange for CSR funding for work. Despite these threats, ICAST ICAST tobacco control projects. continued to coordinate with Liga The foregoing was documented in ng mga Barangays and Punong an incident report kept on file by Barangays with the approval of the the ICAST. The ICAST Chairman Mayor. and City Councilor Joshua Alim and ICAST Director Garingalao In January 2013, a letter request also rejected offers of money and from Ads In Motion, Inc., a public accommodations in Manila in relations firm, on behalf of PMFTC exchange for allowing smoking to promote, sell and give away free lounges to be set up during the Fortune cigarettes within the city Dinagyang, a cultural and religious was similarly denied. Another festival. The tobacco industry request by Ads in Motion, Inc. representatives issued “veiled to install 100 cigarette signages threats” if the LGU did not comply in seafood establishments from with their requests. As reported barangays San Juan to Sto. Niño by Director Garingalao, rumors of Norte was denied.

36 CHAPTER 2

REJECTING POLICY DRAFTS, LEGAL ADVICE, OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

In September 2013, a PMFTC lawyer visited Councilor Alim a day after the City Council approved Regulation Ordinance 2013-348, which amended the existing tobacco control ordinance of Iloilo City and strengthened its provisions. The industry representative requested a copy of the ordinance, stated that he will be submitting a position paper contesting provisions of the ordinance.

Councilor Alim denied the request. The representative further stated that he will also be visiting Mayor Mabilog. In October 2013, the PMFTC lawyer appeared before the Office of the City Mayor to appeal that the amended ordinance be “softened.” Mayor Mabilog and Councilor Alim rejected the request. Mayor Mabilog declared that if the PMFTC lawyer appears once more before his office he shall be officially declared “persona non grata” of Iloilo City. The meeting was documented and reported to CSOs, including the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Alliance, Philippines (FCAP) and HealthJustice.

REFUSING TO GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT, BENEFITS, OR EXEMPTIONS TO THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The City Legal Officer ignored a letter sent by PMFTC to be invited to public hearings and in all discussions about tobacco control and endorsed the matter to the ICAST Chairperson and Director. Despite being uninvited, in August 2013, a representative of British American Tobacco (BAT) approached the ICAST Executive Director right after the public hearing on the amendments to the tobacco control ordinance of Iloilo City. The industry representative requested to place Lucky Strike tarpaulins in Smallville, a popular dining and night-life destination within the city. The ICAST Executive Director denied the request and admonished the BAT representative.

37 CHAPTER 2

NETWORKING AND COLLABORATING WITH CSOS AND PUBLIC HEALTH GROUPS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TO COUNTER INTERFERENCE

The ICAST collaborated with FCAP Executive Director, Dr. Maricar Limpin, in rejecting BAT overtures during the public hearings on Regulation Ordinance 2013-348. Incident reports were also submitted to HealthJustice, particularly detailing the visits from the PMFTC lawyer, which was reported to the SWAT Article 5.3 Sub-Committee chaired by the CSC. MONITORING, COLLECTING, AND EXCHANGING INFORMATION RELATED TO TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE

The ICAST continued to monitor what Mr. Garingalao described as continuous “guerilla” tactics by tobacco companies, which include the setting up of printed advertisements in far-flung barangays of Iloilo City. One prevalent tactic involved tobacco companies informing business owners that they have secured a permit from the LGU but have “forgotten” to bring it with them. Barangay officials would inform the ICAST of these incidents through text messages. The ICAST also conducts a “TAPS Patrol” at least four times a month to monitor compliance and to brief storeowners about the tactics of tobacco companies. Incidents of tobacco industry interference are kept on file by the ICAST.49 RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC

The ICAST conducts awareness campaigns about tobacco industry interference, including briefing sessions with Liga ng mga Barangay and barangay officials. Business owners were informed that the marketing arms of the tobacco companies are not allowed by LGUs to post advertisements. BAT representatives have also appeared before the ICAST office after seeing store owners removing dangling metal Lucky Strike signs in stores near Jaro National High School as a result of briefings and patrols by the ICAST. The ICAST informed BAT that they should remove these advertisements. To ensure compliance, ICAST monitored areas in Iloilo City and conducted “baklas operations” to remove signs in cooperation with business owners.

38 CHAPTER 2

The ICAST recognizes that the youth play an integral role in ensuring that Iloilo City wins the ROA Hall of Fame awards for exemplary tobacco control initiatives. Photo: Iloilo City Antismoking Task Force

“To be at the receiving end of tobacco industry tactics and moves is a testament on how effectively hit they are with our initiatives. We have more at stake than their profit. We are here for a smoke-free future.” - Inigo Garingalao, Director of Iloilo City Antismoking Task Force (ICAST)

“The City Of Iloilo under my Leadership will undertake all necessary measures to ensure a smoke-free environment for the Ilonggos.” - Jed Patrick Mabilog, City Mayor

39 PROVINCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL AS REPORTED BY Chayla Marie L. Beniga, Health Education and Promotion Officer II of the Provincial Health Office

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION (Region X) PROVINCE Misamis Occidental DISTRICT Districts I and II GOVERNMENT Governor Herminia M. Ramiro Vice Governor Virginia M. Almonte District I Congressman Jorge T. Almonte District II Congressman Henry S. Oaminal POPULATION 582,154

40 CHAPTER 2

ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Governor Herminia M. Ramiro issued the Memorandum on the Prohibition on Partnerships and Promotions with Tobacco Industry and Any of Its By- Products.50 Pursuant to the said memorandum, the provincial government adopted key provisions of Article 5.3, FCTC.

The provincial government also spearheaded the “Smoke-free Barangays” campaign involving a manifesto of support for public health policies in relation to tobacco control, specifically, Provincial Smoke-free Ordinance 05-12.51 The manifesto included a commitment “to renounce and reject the tobacco industry and/or anyone acting to further its interests, and/or all its acts, in any shape or form.” REJECTING OFFERS OF PARTNERSHIP FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THOSE REPRESENTING THEIR INTERESTS; REFUSING TO GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT, BENEFITS, OR EXEMPTIONS TO THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

On October 19, 2013, PMFTC’s Security Officer visited the Provincial Police Office of Misamis Occidental and requested to meet with the Provincial Director. The Provincial Director, however, did not accede to the PMFTC officer’s request. There were also instances when the tobacco industry insisted on postponing a public hearing for discussions on tobacco control regulations and, during said discussions, questioned the provisions of the smoke-free ordinance.

41 CHAPTER 2

The Provincial Government of Capiz works closely with the religious sector to promote the “Smoke- Free Misamis Occidental” campaign, and has collaborated with the Aglipayan Church, Seventh Day Adventists, and the Roman Catholic Church to protect tobacco control initiatives. Photo: Capiz Provincial Health Office

RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC

The Provincial Government and leaders have remained consistent about their efforts in maintaining their tobacco control regulations and have continued to prioritize the health of the public above others. The provincial offices, hospital and PNP stations put up signages with the message “No Deal with the Tobacco Industry. Stop Tobacco Industry Interference!”

42 DAVAO CITY AS REPORTED BY Dr. Domilyn Villareiz, Co-Chairperson, Davao City Anti-Smoking Task Force; Hyacinth Belle Bata, RN, Non-Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Program of the DOH-Center for Health Development Region XI

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION (Region XI) PROVINCE Davao DISTRICT 1st to 3rd Districts of Davao City CLASSIFICATION Highly Urbanized City GOVERNMENT District I Congressman Karlo Alexei B. Nograles District II Congresswoman Mylene J. Garcia-Albano District III Congressman Isidro T. Ungab Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte Vice-Mayor Paolo Z. Duterte POPULATION 1,449,296

43 ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Davao City passed the first comprehensive Anti-Smoking ordinance in the Philippines in 2002 which created the Davao City Anti-Smoking Task Force that oversees the enforcement of the ordinance and monitors the compliance of establishments, as well as monitoring tobacco industry activities. The Ordinance prohibits smoking in all the enclosed places in the City. In 2012, the City Council approved another milestone legislation expanding the coverage to include public outdoor spaces and mandated the enforcers to issue violation citation tickets to violators of the ordinance. The residents and visitors of Davao City have enjoyed a smoke-free environment for already 13 years and the leadership and political will of the government of Davao City is worthy of emulation.

REJECTING POLICY DRAFTS, LEGAL ADVICE, OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

In as much as smoke-free was not yet popular in the past, the tobacco industry’s attempt to undermine the ordinance came late. On December 18, 2002, the Corporate Affairs Manager of Philip Morris wrote a letter to the Mayor, urging the local government to permit the business and hospitality sectors to provide smokers with a comfortable place in which to smoke.52 Philip Morris released a statement that tobacco regulations should be based on four “fundamental principles.”53 Phillip Morris argued that: “smoking- related decisions should be made on the basis of a consistent public health message; effective measures should be taken to prevent minors from smoking; the right of adults to choose to smoke should be preserved; and all tobacco manufacturers should compete on a level playing field.”54 However, neither the Mayor nor the city government gave Philip Morris the opportunity to discuss any of their proposed regulations or programs.55

44 CHAPTER 2

NETWORKING AND COLLABORATING WITH CSOS AND PUBLIC HEALTH GROUPS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TO COUNTER INTERFERENCE

The business community supported the smoke-free agenda from the outset. For instance, the chairperson of the Mindanao Business Council said that the emergence of a “health conscious market” would help the industry grow despite the smoking ban.56 Equally, the President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Davao Chapter, supported the campaign and considered it a welcome move towards a healthy environment.57 The lawyer, countering “right to smoke” arguments, informed the public that arguing that the ordinance curtails individual freedom was “mere conjecture and speculation” because the ordinance shows how the city’s police power is aimed at promoting public health and welfare.58 The Davao Anti-Smoking Task Force initially consisted only of representatives from local government offices. In time, it came to include a wider partnership of health professionals, religious leaders and other advocates tasked to conduct awareness programs and lectures in schools, workplaces and communities. This valuable resource, formalized by the creation of the Association of Smoke-Free Davao Advocates, enabled the reach and effectiveness of awareness raising and inspection to be enhanced significantly.

45 CHAPTER 2

PROMOTING A CULTURE OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESISTANCE Based on the Department of Health’s monitoring, there were no tobacco industry interference in different government hospitals, offices and schools in Davao City. “There were efforts from the industry to influence the LGU and lawmakers, same as with other LGUs planning to pass or amend a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance, however, we know how to respond to it and the tobacco industry has to follow the law and how we enforce it in our own City,” Dr. Villarreiz explained.

In addition, Ms. Bata reported that “Davao City is already on its 13th year in the implementation of a smoke-free environment in conformity with RA 9211, the City Ordinance 0367-12, and the different agencies policies regarding making their workplaces smoke-free” The aforementioned anniversary of the Davao City Anti-Smoking Campaign is celebrated every 31st of May, which is also the date for World No Tobacco Day.

46 CHAPTER 2

Dr. Domilym Villarreiz, Davao City Anti-Smoking Task Force Co-Chairperson, together with HealthJustice, pose with LGU and NGA officials from Mindano using the “Time’s Up, Tobacco!” handsign, which signifies the call to action to end the dirty tactics of the tobacco industry.

“When the FCTC Article 5.3 was adopted in 2008, the Davao City Anti-Smoking Task Force took the initiative to inform all the heads of the departments under the local government of Davao that they should not allow any form of tobacco industry interference in their offices. The Task Force must be informed of any proposed activity or request from the tobacco industry.” – Dr. Domilyn Villarreiz, Davao City Anti-Smoking Task Force Co-Chairperson

47 TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT AS REPORTED BY Nenita G. Albito, MPA, City Human Resource Management Officer of Tacurong City

LGU BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHICS

REGION (Region XII) PROVINCE Sultan Kudarat DISTRICT 1st District of Sultan Kudarat CLASSIFICATION 3rd Class City GOVERNMENT Governor Suharto T. Mangudadatu Vice-Governor Ernesto F. Matias Congressman Raden C. Sakaluran Mayor Lina O. Montilla Vice-Mayor Joseph George L. Lechonsito POPULATION 82,546

48 CHAPTER 2

ADOPTING POLICIES RELATED TO AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The Municipality of Tacurong December 11, 2013.60 The Ordinance that further the commercial and adopted the CSC-DOH JMC as contains a clause stating that the vested interests of the industry at its policy through Administrative LGU “recognizes the fundamental the expense of public health. The Order No. 04, series of 2014, and irreconcilable conflict between Ordinance also defines the term otherwise known as the “Code the tobacco industry’s interests and “civil society organization” and of Conduct for Officials and public health policy, and realizes explicitly excludes “organizations Employees of the City Government the need to be alert and informed of or associations related to or of Tacurong.”59 The Code of any efforts by the tobacco industry connected with the tobacco Conduct, issued by City Mayor to undermine of subvert tobacco industry in any way.” To protect Lina Montilla on August 11, 2014, control efforts.” The Ordinance existing tobacco control policies, was formulated “in adherence to also adopts a broader definition the Ordinance provides that the the basic principle enshrined in the of “tobacco industry” and Tobacco/Smoking Control Board Constitution that ‘public service is includes “organizations, entities, of Tacurong “shall not deal with a public trust,’ and the aspiration associations, and individuals that the tobacco industry or individuals of achieving the highest quality work for or in behalf of the tobacco or entities that work to further the public service.” The Code was industry, such as, but not limited to, interests of the tobacco industry.” adopted through Resolution No. tobacco manufacturers, wholesale The Ordinance prohibits members 129-6th Sangguniang Panglungsod distributors, importers of tobacco of the Board from representing the enacting Ordinance No. 05, series products, tobacco retailers, front tobacco industry or receiving “any of 2013, otherwise known as the groups and any other individuals contribution or compensation, “Comprehensive Tobacco/Smoking or organizations, including, but not directly or indirectly, whether Control Ordinance of the City of limited to lawyers, scientists and financial or otherwise, from the Tacurong.” lobbyists that work to further the tobacco industry.” The Board is interests of the tobacco industry.” also prohibited from accessing Ordinance No. 12, series of funds from organizations that are 2013, otherwise known as the This definition is based on the “connected in any way” with the “Comprehensive Tobacco/Smoking Article 5.3 Guidelines and ensures tobacco industry. Control Ordinance of the City that the term “tobacco industry” of Tacurong” was enacted on will cover persons and entities

49 CHAPTER 2

Students sign the pledge of commitment as a symbolic act of support to the Tacurong’s “100% Smoke- Free” campaign and launch of Ordinance No. 12, series of 2013, which contains strong WHO FCTC Article 5.3 provisions. Photo: Tacurong City Official Website REJECTING OFFERS OF PARTNERSHIP FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THOSE REPRESENTING THEIR INTERESTS; REJECTING FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OR DONATIONS FROM THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

The LGU does not accept contributions nor engage in partnerships with the tobacco industry. The Ordinance bans tobacco promotions and sponsorships especially with regard to LGU programs and activities. The LGU abides by the CSC-DOH JMC which prohibits unnecessary interactions, preferential treatment, and acceptance of gifts, donations, and sponsorships from the tobacco industry.

50 CHAPTER 2

RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE AMONG GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC

Salient points of the ordinance were discussed during the activity, which was participated in by the Tacurong Anti-Smoking Task Force (TAS-TF), Department of Education (DepEd), Philippine National Police (PNP), civilian volunteer officers, barangay councils, and traffic enforcers, among others.

“The journey to providing to providing the populace with a smoke-free environment entails careful implementation and evaluation of the city’s anti-smoking policies. It is also crucial for LGUs to engage the public in these efforts. The communities must own the policies so that they will be effective enforcers and advocates of a smoke-free and healthy environment.” - Nenita Albito, City Human Resource Management Officer

51 CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Photo: Smoke-Free Biñan City Jail Facebook page BIÑAN CITY JAIL, BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT The Biñan City Jail in Biñan City, through Warden Erwin Breis issued a Memorandom dated December 9, 2013 entitled “Policy to Discourage/ Deny Sponsorship with Tobacco Industry and Other Related Transaction/s Appurtenant Thereto.”61 This memorandum prohibits BJMP personnel from soliciting or accepting gifts, gratuities, favors, entertainment, loans, or anything of monetary value from any person or business related to the tobacco industry.” The Biñan City Jail also maintains an active social media account where photos of their smoke-free programs and campaigns, as well as information about tobacco industry interference, are found.62 – As reported by Mark Ronald Tolentino, Jail Officer

52 CHAPTER 2

Photo: PhilHealth Capiz Anti-Smoking Advocacy Facebook page CAPIZ LOCAL HEALTH INSURANCE OFFICE PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION REGION VI The PhilHealth-LHIO of Capiz conducts orientations on tobacco control every other Monday before their flag ceremony. Special meetings and workshops on the “No Deal with the Tobacco Industry” are held to inform PhilHealth employees about tobacco industry interference and policies related thereto. The PhilHealth-LHIO has an “anti-smoking corner” which displays IEC materials on the dangers of smokings, including a large sign on the reception desk which states “No to tobacco industry interference.” They also maintain an active social media account with daily anti-smoking memes, trending news on tobacco control, and links to local online petitions related to tobacco control.63 – As reported by Director Lourdes F. Diocson, OIC-Regional Vice President, PhilHealth Region VI

53 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE PHILIPPINES PLAY AN INSTRUMENTAL ROLE IN REDUCING TOBACCO CONSUMPTION, PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE, AND PREVENTING YOUTH FROM USING TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

Tobacco control best practices include community education to promote tobacco control public policy initiatives, enforcement and implementation of laws and regulations, and the organization of youth activities. Photo: Iloilo City Antismoking Task Force

Information dissemination is key to the proper implementation and enforcement of tobacco control initiatives. Photo: Daraga Smoke-Free Taskforce CHAPTER 3

CONCLUSION POLITICAL WILL TO PROMOTE TOBACCO CONTROL IS THE GREATEST DETERRENT TO TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE

A large body of evidence from around the world demonstrates that tobacco companies use a wide range of tactics to interfere with tobacco control, and these are mirrored in the experience of LGUs in the Philippines. More often than not, the same so-called “legal” arguments, metalegal strategies, and, based on the reports of some LGUs, downright illegal tactics are reused in different jurisdictions even though strong and effective tobacco control measures have been successfully upheld in other jurisdictions. The foregoing research proves that where the political will of LGU and NGA leaders is strong, and as long as policymakers and enforcement officials remain unswayed by tobacco industry promises or threats, tobacco control efforts will successfully continue despite attempts by the tobacco industry to interfere. THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A PARTNER IN EFFECTIVE TOBACCO CONTROL.

The tobacco industry wrongfully insists that they are “legitimate stakeholders” in tobacco control and attempts to position itself as a “partner” in the formulation of health policies. As experienced by the LGUs and NGAs all over the country, the tobacco industry has and will continue to interfere in the implementation of effective tobacco control measures outlined in the FCTC. A strict policy framework to prohibit unnecessary interactions and avoid conflicts of interest can minimize such interference. The proper implementation and enforcement of strong tobacco control policies are linked to good governance indicators such as transparency and accountability. For the first time in treaty history, Article 5.3 of the FCTC singles out the tobacco industry as a threat to public health measures. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN PROTECTING AND PROMOTING THE RIGHT TO HEALTH OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS. In the Philippines, LGUs are vested with broad powers to protect its constituents, as embodied in the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code. By virtue of such provision, local government units have enacted ordinances against smoking. In the development of tobacco control measures pursuant to the general welfare clause, an LGU, as an instrumentality of the state, is fulfilling the state’s duty to promote and protect the Constitutional right to health. The tobacco control policies issued by the LGU is critical in fulfilling the state’s obligation to the FCTC. Hence, LGUs must be mindful of the international standards and policies when drafting and implementing tobacco control policies. Accordingly, LGUs can enact a local ordinance that is more restrictive than a national law because such restrictions will address the particular needs of their respective locality that the state policy may not specifically articulate.

55 REFERENCES

REFERENCES

1. See Sungkyu Lee, Pamela M. Ling, Stanton A. Glantz, The vector of the RA 9211, online at http://www.healthjustice.ph/pmftcs-offensive-strategy- tobacco epidemic: tobacco industry practices in low and middle-income violates-ra9211/ (visited May 31, 2015). countries. 23 Cancer Causes Control 117, 117–129 (2012). 17. Iris C. Gonzales, More vigilance on cigarette ads urged, The Philippine 2. World Health Organization (WHO), Guidelines for implementation of Article Star (September 1, 2014), online at http://www.philstar.com/ 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Conference of business/2014/09/01/1363928/more-vigilance-cigarette-ads-urged (visited the Parties, Decision WHO FCTC/COP2(14), online at http://www.who. May 31, 2015). int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). 18.CSC-DOH JMC, Item 1. (this is consistent with the coverage of the Civil 3. WHO, Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, Geneva: WHO Press (2008), Service as defined under Book V, Title I, Sub-Title A, Chapter 2 of Executive online at http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/mpower_report_full_2008. Order No. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987, as well as the public pdf (visited May 31, 2015). officials covered by RA 6713). 4. WHO, Global Report Mortality Attributable to Tobacco, 19. See CSC-DOH JMC, Item 1. Geneva: WHO Press (2012), online at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ 20. See Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, 272 SCRA 18 (1997). publications/2012/9789241564434_eng.pdf (visited May 31, 2015); See also 21. CONST, Article II, §25: “The State shall ensure the autonomy of local Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers governments.” for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease 22. See People v. Chong Hong, G.R. No. L-45363, 65 Phil. 625 (1938). Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, Global 23-24. See LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, §16. Tobacco Surveillance System 2009: Philippines’ GATS: Global Adult Tobacco 25. See CONST, Article II, §15 Survey - Country Report, Atlanta GA (2012), online at http://www.who.int/ 26. PLDT v. City of Davao, G.R. No. L-23080, 15 SCRA 75, 82 (1965). tobacco/surveillance/2009_gats_report_philippines.pdf (visited May 31, 27. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, §5(a) and (c). 2015). 28-29. Tano v. Socrates, G.R. No. 110249, 278 SCRA 154 (1997). Ibid. 5. See K. Alechnowicz and Simon Chapman, The Philippine Tobacco Industry: 30. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, Book III, Title I, Chapter 6, §18. the Strongest Tobacco Lobby in Asia, 13 Tobacco Control ii71, ii76 (2004), 31. The Province of v. COA, G.R. No. 182574, 631 SCRA 431 online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1766154/pdf/ (2010); The National Liga ng mga Barangay v. Paredes, G.R. Nos. 130775, v013p0ii71.pdf (visited May 31, 2015) (this paper is the first to draw upon 131939, 439 SCRA 130 (2004); Dadole v. COA, G.R. No. 125350, 251 SCRA industry documents to overview and highlight the conduct of the tobacco 242 (2002); Bito-Onon v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 139813, 403 Phil. 693 (2001). industry in the Philippines since the 1960s); See also Southeast Asia 32. Ty vs. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, 250 SCRA 500 (1995). Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA), Tobacco Industry Interference Index: 33. Ibid. ASEAN Regional Report, Preliminary Report (2013), online at http://www. 34. Lopez v. CSC, G.R. No. 87119, 194 SCRA 269 (1991). healthjustice.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SEATCA-TI-Interference- 35-51. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/HealthJusticeTobaccoControl Index_Regional-Report-2013.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). 52. Dr. Domilym Villareiz, Your Guide to a Smoke-Free City: Lessons Learned 6. CONST, Art. VII, §21: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid From Davao City, Philippines, SEATCA (2012), online at http://seatca.org/ and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of dmdocuments/SF-DAVAO-booklet-CTP.pdf (visited May 31, 2015); WHO, the Senate.” WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines, Japan: WHO Press 7. Luna v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100374-75, 216 SCRA 107 (1992). (2011), online at http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/interventions/smoke_ 8. Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties, U.N. Doc. A/C.39/27 (1969), free/davao_city_web_final.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). Art. 26. (the time-honored international principle of pacta sunt servanda 53. WHO, WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines, Japan: WHO demands the performance in good faith of treaty obligations on the part of Press (2011), online at http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/interventions/ the states that enter into the agreement). smoke_free/davao_city_web_final.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). 9. WHO, Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework 54. WHO, WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines, Japan: WHO Convention on Tobacco Control, Conference of the Parties, Decision WHO Press (2011), online at http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/interventions/ FCTC/COP2(14), online at http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3. smoke_free/davao_city_web_final.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). pdf (visited May 31, 2015). 55. Dr. Domilym Villareiz, Your Guide to a Smoke-Free City: Lessons Learned 10. WHO, Tobacco Industry Interference with Tobacco Control, Geneva: WHO From Davao City, Philippines, SEATCA (2012), online at http://seatca.org/ Press (2008), online at http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/industry/ dmdocuments/SF-DAVAO-booklet-CTP.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). interference/en/ (visited May 31, 2015). 56. WHO, WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines, Japan: WHO 11. WHO, Tobacco product regulation, online at http://www.who.int/tobacco/ Press (2011), online at http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/interventions/ industry/product_regulation/background/en/ (visited May 31, 2015). smoke_free/davao_city_web_final.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). 12-13.WHO, Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO 57. Dr. Domilym Villareiz, Your Guide to a Smoke-Free City: Lessons Learned Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Conference of the Parties, From Davao City, Philippines, SEATCA (2012), online at http://seatca.org/ Decision WHO FCTC/COP2(14), online at http://www.who.int/fctc/ dmdocuments/SF-DAVAO-booklet-CTP.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). guidelines/article_5_3.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). Ibid. 58. Dr. Domilym Villareiz, Your Guide to a Smoke-Free City: Lessons Learned 14.WHO, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Art. 1(e) (2003), online From Davao City, Philippines, SEATCA (2012), online at http://seatca.org/ at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241591013.pdf (visited May dmdocuments/SF-DAVAO-booklet-CTP.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). 31, 2015). 59-61. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/HealthJusticeTobaccoControl 15. CSC-DOH JMC, Item 2.1. See also WHO, Guidelines for implementation 62. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Smoke-Free-Bi%C3%B1an- of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, City-Jail-Red-Orchid-Awardee/751941168207160?fref=ts (visited May 31, Conference of the Parties, Decision WHO FCTC/COP2(14), online at http:// 2015). www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). 63. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/JDC20012398/timeline (visited May 16. HealthJustice, Inc., Press Statement, PMFTC’S “Offensive Strategy” Violates 31, 2015).

56 ANNEXES

ANNEXES

These templates are not meant to be a one-size-fits-all response to the needs of the community. Local governments are encouraged to enact stronger measures than those contained in these drafts. On the other hand, local governments whose tobacco control policies are not FCTC-compliant, or fail to consider other related public health laws and measures in the Philippines that aim to curb the tobacco epidemic, are highly encouraged to update existing policies to ensure the promotion and protection of public health of their constituents.

ANNEX A: HealthJustice Model Executive Order Adopting the CSC-DOH JMC

ANNEX B: HealthJustice Template Smoke-Free Ordinance

ANNEX C: CSC-DOH Joint Memorandum Circular 2010-01

57 ANNEX A

ANNEX A: HEALTHJUSTICE MODEL EXECUTIVE ORDER ADOPTING THE CSC-DOH JMC

Republic of the Philippines Province/City of ______MUNICIPALITY/CITY OF ______OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL/CITY MAYOR EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. __, Series of 20__ DECLARATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY/ CITY OF ______AGAINST TOBACCO INDUSTRY INTERFERENCE

WHEREAS, The Philippines has a solemn obligation to protect and promote the right to health, which is intimately linked with the self- preservation and self-perpetuation of the Filipino people. Article II, Section 15 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution mandates that the State “shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.” WHEREAS, In the Philippines, at least eighty seven thousand six hundred (87,600) Filipinos die every year from tobacco-related diseas- es, or approximately two hundred forty (240) deaths every day.1 In 2009, the Philippines was revealed to have one of the highest smoking prevalence in the world, ranking 9th for males and 16th for females.2 WHEREAS, there is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy inter- ests.3 WHEREAS, the [Municipality/City of ______] affirms that the Philippines, a State Party to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), a treaty that reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standards of health, is obliged to protect public health policy from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry. WHEREAS, Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC states that “[i]n setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.“ WHEREAS, to protect the bureaucracy from tobacco industry influence, the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Health have issued Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2010-01 on Protection of the Bureaucracy against Tobacco Industry Interference which covers all government officials and employees, regardless of status, in the national or local governments; WHEREAS, in the said policy, public officials and employees, including the [Municipality/City of _____] shall limit interactions with the tobacco industry to those strictly necessary for its regulation and to ensure the transparency of those that occur; WHEREAS, the [Municipality/City of _____] shall serve the public interest and are prohibited from soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office from any person or business related to the tobacco industry; WHEREAS, the [Municipality/City of _____] shall not demand or receive any contribution from tobacco industry or receive any contri- bution from the tobacco industry for themselves, their families and relatives which shall include, but are not limited to payments, gifts and services, monetary or in-kind, research funding, financial aid, policy drafts and legal advice; WHEREAS, the Municipality/City of _____ shall avoid the creation of any perception of real or potential partnership or cooperation with the tobacco industry. NOW THEREFORE, I ______, Mayor of the [Municipality/City of _____] by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, deny all un- necessary interactions with, sponsorships from, and partnerships with the tobacco industry. This Order shall take effect immediately. [Date]. [Place].

1 WHO, Global Report Mortality Attributable to Tobacco, Geneva: WHO Press (2012), online at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2012/9789241564434_eng.pdf (visited May 31, 2015); See also Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, Global Tobacco Surveillance System 2009: Philippines’ GATS: Global Adult Tobacco Survey - Country Report, Atlanta GA (2012), online at http://www.who.int/tobacco/ surveillance/2009_gats_report_philippines.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). 2 American Cancer Society, The Tobacco Atlas, 3rd ed., 23-25 (2009). 3 World Health Organization (WHO), Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Conference of the Parties, Decision WHO FCTC/ COP2(14), online at http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf (visited May 31, 2015). ANNEX A

ANNEX B: HEALTHJUSTICE TEMPLATE SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Sanggunian [Panlalawigan/Panlungsod/ Bayan] [Name of Local Government Unit (LGU)] ORDINANCE NO. __, Series of 20__

AN ORDINANCE PROMOTING 100% SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT, TOBACCO ADVERTISEMENT BAN AND ACCESS RESTRIC- TION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS, IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Introduced by ______

WHEREAS, the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines provides that the State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them; WHEREAS, under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the Republic of the Philippines is determined to give priority to the right to protect public health and to promote measures of tobacco control based on current and relevant scientific, technical and economic considerations, and agreed to implement the measures provided in the treaty; WHEREAS, every local government unit (LGU) has been granted power and authority by Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of the Philippines, to promote the general welfare of its constituents to include, among others, the promotion of their health and safety. Towards this end, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to safeguard public health and ensure the physical well-being of all its constituents; WHEREAS, Section 24 of Republic Act No. 8749, otherwise known as the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, prohibits smoking inside enclosed public places, including public vehicles, and LGUs are directed by law to implement the said provision; WHEREAS, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9211, otherwise known as The Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, prohibits smoking in certain public places whether enclosed or outdoors, imposes bans on tobacco advertising and access restrictions by banning sales in places frequented by minors and prohibiting the purchase from and sales to minors of tobacco products, and LGUs are directed by law to implement these provisions; WHEREAS, Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 17 Series of 2009 prohibits smoking in all enclosed govern- ment property, except for outdoor designated smoking areas, WHEREAS, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) Memorandum Circular 2009-036 provides that driv- ers and operators of public utility vehicles are responsible for posting “No Smoking” signs in their vehicles; WHEREAS, scientific evidence has unequivocally established: that secondhand smoke kills; that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke; that even brief periods of exposure are harmful; and that ventilation/air filtration systems and indoor designated smoking areas are not effective in protecting people from second hand smoke; WHEREAS, an increasing number of Filipinos/our constituents die each year due to tobacco-related illnesses caused by smoking and secondhand smoke, such as stroke, heart disease, lung diseases and various forms of cancers, and the health issues related to tobacco-related illnesses result in productivity losses and contribute significantly to loss of income and poverty; WHEREAS, the increase in prevalence of tobacco smoking among the youth necessitates enforcement of measures to protect them from being initiated to cigarette smoking and tobacco use by prohibiting advertising and restricting access to tobacco products by minors; WHEREAS, the [Name of LGU] recognizes that there is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict of interest between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health, and that the CSC and Department of Health Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2010-01 prohibits government personnel from interacting with the tobacco industry and those representing their interests, unless strictly necessary for their effective regulation, supervision, or control; WHEREAS, the [Name of LGU] recognizes that the participation of civil society is essential in achieving the objective of this ordinance; WHEREAS, the Constitution and the Local Government Code provide that local governments have the power to impose reasonable fees and charges, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED, AS IT IS HEREBY ENACTED BY THE SANGGUNIANG [PANLALAWIGAN/PANLUNGSOD/ BAYAN] OF [Name of LGU], BY VIRTUE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN IT BY LAW, IN SESSION ASSEMBLED THAT: Section 1. Short Title. – This Ordinance shall be known as “THE COMPREHENSIVE SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE OF [Name of LGU]”. Section 2. Definition of Terms. –As used in this Ordinance: ANNEX B

a. “Civil Society Organization (CSO)” refers to a legally constituted voluntary civic and social organization or institution created with no participation of government, including but not limited to, charities, development non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, coalitions and advocacy groups. As used in this Ordinance, CSOs do not include organizations or associations related to or connected with the tobacco industry in any way. b. “Cigarette” refers to any roll or tubular construction, which contains tobacco or its derivatives and is intended to be burned, heated, or smoked under ordinary conditions of use. c. “Designated Smoking Area” refers to an outdoor area, where a person is allowed to smoke without violating this Ordinance that strictly meets the following requirements, at the minimum: i. It shall be located in an open space with no permanent or temporary roof(s) or wall(s); ii. It shall not be located within ten (10) meters of entrances, exits, or any place where people usually congregate; iii. It shall not have an area larger than five (5) square meters; iv. There shall not be more than one (1) designated smoking area; v. No food or drinks shall be served in the designated smoking area; vi. Every smoking area shall have a highly visible and prominently displayed “Smoking Area” sign and a graphic depiction with a corresponding explanation of the effect of smoking on the smoker’s health or of passive smoking on others. Under no circumstances shall any mark, device, word or image associated with any tobacco company or product be included in any of these signs and materials. All designated smoking areas shall be covered by a certificate of compliance from the Office of the Municipal Mayor through the Smoke-Free Task Force. d. “E-cigarette” refers to a device such as e-cigarette and other similar devices, whether or not it is used to deliver nicotine to the user, that resembles the outward appearance of real smoking products and/or a category of consumer products designed to deliver nicotine to the lungs after one end of a cylinder is placed in the mouth, like a cigarette or a cigar, and inhaled to draw a mixture of air and vapors from the device into the respiratory system. e. “Enclosed or Partially Enclosed” means being enclosed by one or more walls or sides, whether covered by a roof or not, or even if open on all sides but is covered by a roof, regardless of the type of material used for the roof, wall, or sides, and regardless of whether the structure is permanent or temporary in nature.

f. “Person in Charge” refers to any person who has control or responsibility over any place or means of public transport covered by this Ordinance, or any agent or designee of such person, including the proprietor, possessor, manager, or administrator. In case of public places, public outdoor spaces, or other establishments, it refers to the director, trustee, president, manager, or other officer of a corporation, the manager or partner of a partnership, the owner, proprietor or operator of a sole/single proprietorship, or the administrator of a government property, office or building, as the case may be. In case of a public transport, it refers to the owner, the driver, the conductor, or the captain of a public transport. In case of workplaces, it refers to the employer, who may be an individual employer, or a sole proprietor, or if the employer is a corporation, the director, trustee, president, manager or other officer of the corporation. g. “Minor” refers to any person below eighteen (18) years old. h. “Outdoor Advertisement” refers to any sign, model, placard, board, billboard, banner, bunting, light display, device, structure or representation employed outdoors wholly or partially to advertise or promote a tobacco product to the public. i. “Point-of-Sale” (POS) refers to any location at which an individual can purchase or otherwise obtain tobacco products, such as, but not limited to, convenience/”sari-sari” stores, market stalls, groceries, food/accommodation establishments, kiosks, side-walk/street vendors and the like. j. “Public Building” refers to any of the following: i. A building structure owned by the government or owned by a private person but used, rented or occupied by the government or any of its instrumentalities; or ii. Any building or structure used, or controlled exclusively for public purpose by any department or branch of government, local government unit or barangay without reference to the ownership of the building. k. “Public Outdoor Spaces” refers to outdoor spaces that are open to the public, or places where facilities are available for the public, or where a crowd of people would gather, such as, but not limited to, playgrounds, sports grounds or centers, church grounds, health/ hospital compounds, parks, gardens, resorts, markets, streets, sidewalks, walkways, entrance ways, waiting areas, and the like. l. “Public Places” refers to all places that are accessible or open to the public, whether or not by invitation or by payment, or all places for collective use, regardless of ownership or right to access, including, but not limited to, establishments that provide food, accommodation, drinks, professional services, merchandise, entertainment, or other services, as well as gasoline stations, banks, malls, shopping areas, business arcades, town squares, terminals, airports, seaports, schools, places of worship, churches, hospitals, cinema houses, gymnasiums, covered courts, funeral parlors, barber shops, cockpits, gaming areas, recreational facilities, pedestrian overpasses, parking areas, waiting sheds, sidewalks, common areas of apartments and multi-family housing complexes, and other places where people usually congregate. m. “Public Transport” refers to any vehicle, whether mobile or stationary, used in the transport of passengers or available to the public as a mode of transport, such as, but not limited to, jeepneys, buses, trains, ships, vans, taxicabs, tricycles, motorcycles, and other public utility vehicles, whether covered by a Certificate of Public Convenience or not. n. “Retailer” refers to any person or entity who sells tobacco products to individuals for personal consumption.

o. “Secondhand Smoke” refers to the smoke emitted from the burning end of a cigarette or from other tobacco products usually in ANNEX B

combination with the smoke exhaled by the smoker. p. “Smoking” refers to the lighting and/or puffing of a lighted, emission-producing tobacco product or e-cigarette, regardless of whether the smoke is being actively inhaled or exhaled. q. “Shisha” refers to a device or instrument, which may have a single or multi-stemmed pipe for smoking, whether or not it delivers nicotine to the user, in which the smoke is passed through a water basin before inhalation. It is also known as waterpipe, sheesha, hookah, nargeela, argeel, or nargile. r. “Tobacco Advertisement and Promotion” refers to any form of commercial communication, recommendation, or action with the aim, effect or likely effect of promoting a tobacco product or tobacco use, either directly or indirectly, including but not limited to, any message or image promoting smoking, tobacco use, tobacco products, brand names, or tobacco company names, logos, insignias or any promotional material or structure that contains these, such as, but not limited to, posters, streamers, signages, standees, billboards, fliers, umbrellas, parasols, buntings, awnings, tarpaulins, store display, CDs, film, t-shirts, caps, sweatshirts, visors, backpacks, sunglasses, writing implements, towels, mugs, candies, stickers, and the like. s. “Tobacco Industry” refers to organizations, entities, associations, and individuals that work for or in behalf of the tobacco industry, such as, but not limited to, tobacco manufacturers, wholesale distributors, importers of tobacco products, tobacco retailers, front groups and any other individuals or organizations, including, but not limited to, lawyers, scientists and lobbyists, that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry. t. “Tobacco Product” refers to any product that is entirely or partly made of tobacco as raw material, or any product containing tobacco or any ingredient derived from tobacco (including, but not limited to, nicotine), which is intended to be used for smoking, sucking, chewing, or snuffing, or other oral or nasal use. For purposes of this Ordinance, the term shall include cigarettes and tobacco product substitutes, as respectively defined in this Ordinance, and the requirements pertaining to each shall apply to the others. u. “Tobacco Product Substitute” refers to any device or instrument that resembles the outward appearance of a traditional smoking/tobacco product or that is intended to be a substitute for traditional smoking/tobacco products, whether or not used to deliver nicotine to the user, including, but not limited to, electronic cigarettes, electronic nicotine delivery systems, shisha, and other similar devices. v. “Tobacco Sponsorship” refers to any form of contribution to any event activity or individual with the aim, effect or likely effect of promoting a tobacco product or tobacco use either directly or indirectly. w. “Vaping” refers to an act of inhaling vapor from Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), e-cigarettes and other similar devices. x. “Workplace” refers to any place where more than one person, regardless of employment status, performs work. Vehicles used in the course of work are considered workplaces. Section 3. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts shall be prohibited: a. Smoking and/or vaping any tobacco product and/or tobacco product substitute in any part of any enclosed or partially enclosed public place, workplace, public transport, or public outdoor space, except in duly approved designated smoking areas; b. Smoking and/or vaping any tobacco product and/or tobacco product substitute within government premises, and while inside a government-owned vehicle, whether moving or stationary; c. Knowingly allowing, abetting, or tolerating smoking or the use of any tobacco product in any of the places enumerated in the immediately preceding paragraph, except when smoking is done within duly approved designated smoking areas; d. For parents or guardians who knowingly allow, abet or tolerate their minor children/ward to smoke tobacco products and/or tobacco product substitutes; e. Selling, distributing, or advertising tobacco products and/or tobacco product substitutes in a school, public playground, or any other facility frequented by minors, or within one hundred (100) meters from any point of the perimeter of these places; f. Placing, posting, or distributing any type of tobacco advertisement in any place, except inside the premises of retail establishments; g. Purchasing or buying any tobacco product from a minor, or selling or distributing any tobacco product to a minor, or using, buying, or selling any tobacco product by a minor; h. Facilitating or participating in any form of contribution or sponsorship to an event, activity, program or project, individual or group, within the territorial jurisdiction, with the aim, effect or likely effects of promoting tobacco products and/or tobacco product substitutes, and their use, either directly or indirectly; i. Failure to comply with any of the duties and obligations set forth in Section 4 or in any other provision of this Ordinance; j. Selling or advertising tobacco products without a permit or license. Section 4. Duties and Obligations of Persons in Charge. – The person in charge of any enclosed or partially enclosed public place, workplace, public transport, or public outdoor space shall: a. Post and display prominently “No Smoking” signages in the most visible locations in the area where smoking is prohibited: i. For public places, workplaces, and outdoor spaces, at the minimum, a “No Smoking” sign must be posted at the entrance to the area. The “No Smoking” signage shall be at least eight (8) inches x eleven (11) inches in size and the International “No Smoking” ANNEX B

symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall occupy no less than seventy percent (70%) of said signage. The remaining lower thirty percent (30%) of such signage shall provide the following information:

[International No Smoking symbol] “STRICTLY NO SMOKING As per ORDINANCE NO. ______Violators can be fined up to _____ Report violations to ______Hotline number ______”

ii. For public transport, the “No Smoking” signage shall be in the form of a three and one-half (3.5) square inch-sized sticker to be placed on the windshield, in addition to a ten (10) square inch-sized “No Smoking” sign in the most conspicuous location within the vehicle facing the passengers; b. Remove all ashtrays or any receptacles for disposing of cigarette refuse from places where smoking is prohibited; c. Ensure that all the employees in the establishment are aware of the Ordinance and provide a procedure for them to warn violators; d. Undertake all reasonable steps to ensure strict implementation of this Ordinance, and to inform and refrain people from smoking or using any tobacco product in their establishments, except in duly approved designated smoking areas. At the minimum, establishments shall ensure compliance with the following procedure: i. Stop people from smoking or using any tobacco product by warning the violators and/or requesting them to leave the prem- ises; ii. If the violator fails to comply by ceasing to smoke or by leaving the premises, the person in charge or his agent shall immedi- ately report the incident to the proper authorities (e.g., the nearest peace officer or police officer). e. Remove all forms of tobacco advertisement other than those found inside the premises of a retail establishment that is authorized or permitted to sell tobacco products; f. Remove all tobacco products and tobacco product substitutes, and related advertisements from establishments and properties located within the one hundred (100)-meter perimeter of a school, public playground or other facility frequented by minors; g. Indicate any intention to sell or advertise tobacco products and tobacco product substitutes in all its business permit and related applica- tions (including in case of renewal) for permits and licenses; h. Allow inspectors and representatives of duly designated Civil Society Organizations (CSO) and deputized civilians, entry into the estab- lishment on any regular business day and during regular business hours for the purpose of inspecting the premises’ compliance status; i. Secure a permit for the establishment of a designated smoking area in accordance with the specifications provided in Section 2(a) and in this Section 4, and ensure that the designated smoking area remains compliant with such specifications; and j. Ensure that all the employees/workers in the establishment, facility, government premise, terminals are aware of the Ordinance and to provide a procedure and measures for implementing and enforcing it, including a procedure for them to warn violators. The procedure should include the following: i. Stop people from smoking such as, but not limited to, warning the violators and requesting them to leave the premises; and ii. If the violator fails to comply by ceasing to smoke or by leaving the premises, the person in charge or his agent shall immedi- ately report the incident to the proper authorities (e.g., the nearest peace officer or police officer). Section 5. Persons Liable. – The following persons are liable under this Ordinance: a. Any person who commits any of the prohibited acts enumerated in Section 3 hereof; b. Persons in charge who knowingly allow, abet, or tolerate the prohibited acts enumerated in Section 3, or who otherwise fail to fulfill the duties and obligations enumerated in Section 4 of this Ordinance c. The parents or guardians of minors found violating this ordinance; and ANNEX B

d. In addition to or regardless of the liability of the persons in charge, any corporation, partnership, entity or establishment that fails to com- ply with the requirements under Section 3 and Section 4 in relation to Section 2 of this Ordinance shall also be liable, unless the person in charge and the establishment have only one legal personality. Section 6. Penalties. a. The following penalties shall be imposed on violators of this Ordinance: First Offense: Fine of One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php1,500.00) Second Offense: Fine of Two Thousand Pesos (Php2,000.00) Third and Subsequent Offenses: Fine of Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php2,500.00), or imprisonment for a period of not more than six (6) months, or both, at the discretion of the court. Parents/Guardians of minors who have violated this Ordinance shall be subject to fine of Php 500.00 and will undergo counseling with the [Municipal/City] Social Welfare and Development Office. Minors who have been found violating this Ordinance shall be properly dealt with in accord with the provisions of the Child and Youth Welfare Code and Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. For a government official or employee violating this Ordinance, in addition to the applicable penalties provided under this Section, he/ she shall be dealt with administrative sanction, as per CSC MC No. 17, series of 2009. The penalty of fine, as provided above, may be imposed administratively through the Citation Ticket System established pursuant to this Ordinance. The Smoke-Free Task Force shall include a schedule of administrative fines in the rules and regulations implementing this Ordinance to be formulated pursuant to Section 20 hereof, for the approval of the Municipal Mayor. b. Suspension of License/Permit – In addition to fine or imprisonment, the license or permit to operate of any establishment shall be sus- pended upon: i. Failure to take corrective action within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of notice of violation of this Ordinance, which may be in the form of a citation ticket; and ii. Failure to pay the fine within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of notice of violation, which may be in the form of a citation ticket, regardless of whether or not such notice or citation ticket was accepted. c. Cancellation of License/Permit and Closure Order – The license/permit of any business entity or establishment shall be subject to revo- cation or cancellation by the Municipal Mayor, upon the recommendation of the Smoke-Free Task Force, in the event that the business entity or establishment: i. continues operations despite the suspension of its license/permit; ii. fails to take corrective action despite the receipt of two (2) consecutive notices of violation of the Ordinance, which may be in the form of citation ticket(s), within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the second notice; iii. re-installs, re-posts, or distributes any removed or confiscated tobacco advertisements; and/or iv. is found to have committed three (3) or more violations of this Ordinance. d. Confiscation and Removal of Tobacco Advertisements – In addition to other penalties imposed, any tobacco advertisement found in violation of this Ordinance shall be removed or confiscated and destroyed by the deputized authorities concerned after due notice.

e. Community Service – If a violator is unable or unwilling to pay the fines imposed, he/she may choose to render community service to the LGU. For every hour of community service rendered, the outstanding fine shall be reduced by an amount equivalent to triple the hourly minimum wage within the LGU. Section 7. Lifting of the Suspension/Closure Order. – An order for the suspension or cancellation of the business permit/license and closure of any business entity or establishment shall be lifted only after compliance with the following requirements: a. Submission of a written request to the Municipal Health Officer or other proper local health authority for re-inspection; b. Payment of re-inspection fee; c. Full compliance with the Ordinance upon re-inspection; and d. Secure from the Smoke-Free Task Force an endorsement to lift the order of suspension or cancellation of business permit/license and closure. Section 8. Compliance with the Ordinance as Additional Requirement of Sanitation Standards. – Compliance with the Ordinance shall form part of the Sanitation Standards of the Municipal Health Office or other proper local health authority. The Municipal Health Office or other proper local health authority shall integrate the requirements of this Ordinance with its Sanitation Standards and its requirements for the issuance of a sanitary permit. No sanitary permit shall be issued, unless the Municipal Health Office or other proper local health authority has verified, upon inspection, compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance.

Section 9. Compliance with the Ordinance as Additional Requirement for Business Permits and License Applications and Renewals. - Compliance ANNEX B

with the Ordinance shall form part of the requirements for the issuance of business permits and licenses. No business permit or license to operate shall be issued, unless the applicant business entity or establishment is found to have complied with the requirements of this Ordinance. SMOKE-FREE TASK FORCE Section 10. Task Force. – A Smoke-Free Task Force is hereby created to aid in the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of this Ordinance, as well as to undertake educational awareness campaigns, information dissemination, and capacity building programs for constituents and enforcers. The Smoke-Free Task Force shall be composed of the following:

a. Municipal/City Mayor or his/her representative b. Municipal/City Health Officer c. Municipal/City Administrator d. Municipal/City Legal Officer e. Municipal/City Engineer f. Municipal/City Building Official g. Municipal/City Architect h. Municipal/City Environment and Natural Resources Officer i. Municipal/City Information Officer j. Health Education and Promotion Officer k. Municipal/City Business Permits and License Officer l. Municipal/City Treasurer m. A representative of the Philippine National Police (PNP) n. President of Association of Barangay Captains o. Representative(s) of one (1) or more CSOs duly designated by the Municipal/City Health Officer in accordance with Section 12 hereof; The Smoke-Free Task Force shall not include as member any person or entity that works for or on behalf of the tobacco industry, or that works to further the interests of the tobacco industry. No member of the Smoke-Free Task Force shall represent or receive any contribution or compensation, directly or indirectly, whether financial or otherwise, from the tobacco industry. The Smoke-Free Task Force and its members shall not deal with the tobacco industry or individuals or entities that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry, except to the extent strictly necessary to effectively regulate, supervise, or control the tobacco industry and tobacco products. These measures are necessary to protect the primary health objectives of this Ordinance and avoid conflict of interest for its enforcers. Section 11. Civil Society Participation. – Within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Ordinance, the Municipal Health Officer shall designate, with the approval of the Municipal Mayor, a representative(s) of one or more CSOs, with no tobacco industry relationship, affiliation, or membership, to form part of the Smoke-Free Task Force and assist in the implementation of this Ordinance. Section 12. Powers and Duties. – The Smoke-Free Task Force shall have the authority and duty to: a. Formulate and recommend rules and regulations for the implementation of this Ordinance, together with a schedule of administrative fines in accordance with Section 6 hereof, for the approval of the Municipal Mayor; b. Enforce the provisions of this Ordinance, including processing complaints and pursuing all possible legal actions against violators; c. Deputize civilians and members of CSOs, except those with tobacco industry interests and relationships, to assist in the enforcement of this Ordinance, together with or in addition to members of the PNP, and other proper municipal officials; d. Authorize barangay officials to form their own task forces, whose members shall be duly deputized by the Smoke-Free Task Force to apprehend violators, and issue citation tickets to violators within their respective jurisdictions; e. Conduct regular inspections, as well as special operations and random unannounced inspections; f. Mobilize an inspection team or deputize enforcers in response to reports of violations received from civilians or through the hotlines; g. Review applications for designated smoking areas and other clearances, and monitor compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance; h. Establish links with transport groups, management of commercial establishments, and other organizations, to promote awareness of the Ordinance and ensure their cooperation; i. Establish a database that will facilitate the monitoring and reporting of violations; j. Manage and maintain the trust fund for purposes of use for implementation of the Ordinance and operations of the Task Force; k. Develop and oversee a [City/Municipal] Smoking Control Plan, for inclusion in the Annual Operational Plan and Province-wide Investment Plans for Health. These shall follow the guidelines prescribed by the Department of Health and be forwarded to the Provincial and City Health Services Office; l. Convene regular meetings for purposes of planning and coordinating the implementation of the plans of the respective barangays; m. Evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation and enforcement of this Ordinance; n. Submit a progress report on the status of compliance to the Office of the Mayor every six (6) months; and

o. Recommend amendments or revisions to any provision of this Ordinance or any other measures that will improve and strengthen the tobacco control policies of the LGU. ANNEX B

Section 13. Meeting, Quorum and Venue. – Within fifteen (15) days upon approval of this Ordinance, the Mayor shall convene the Smoke-Free Task Force to conduct its first meeting. Thereafter, the Smoke-Free Task Force shall meet regularly once every two (2) months, or as often as may be deemed necessary, the date, time and venue of which shall be agreed upon by its members. A presence of three (6) regular members shall constitute a quorum. Section 14. Fees. – The Smoke-Free Task Force, with the approval of the Municipal Mayor, shall impose such reasonable fees as may be necessary to defray the costs of inspections for purposes of monitoring compliance with this Ordinance and of the processing of applications for the necessary permits and licenses. Fees collected in accordance with this Ordinance shall be earmarked to supplement the operational funds of the Smoke-Free Task Force and the Smoking Cessation Program to be established pursuant to this Ordinance. The fees shall be remitted automatically, with the approval of the Mayor, to a separate trust fund for this purpose. SMOKING CESSATION PROGRAM Section 15. Smoking Cessation Program. – The Municipal Health Officer, with the assistance of the Health Education and Promotion Officer, Municipal Information Officer, and CSO Representative(s), shall develop and promote a Smoking Cessation Program, and encourage the participation of public and private institutions and facilities in this program so that smokers who are found violating this Ordinance may be referred to said facilities. HOTLINE & CITATION TICKET SYSTEM Section 16. Hotline. – There shall be established a local hotline to which violations of this Ordinance may be reported, either by phone call, short message service (SMS), email, or other forms of communication. A hotline coordinator will be designated to receive information reported in the hotline so that appropriate action may be taken. Section 17. Citation Ticket System. – Any and all violators of this Ordinance shall be informed of their violation and the penalty corresponding thereto by means of a Citation Ticket System. a. A citation ticket shall be issued to persons liable for any violation under the Ordinance. It shall contain, among others, the name and address of the violator, the specific violation committed, the corresponding administrative penalty, and the due date for compliance in accordance with the Ordinance. b. When a citation ticket is issued to a violator, the violator shall report to the Municipal Treasurer on or before the due date stated in the citation ticket, which shall in no case be more than five (5) business days from the date of apprehension and issuance, in order to pay the fine imposed. c. Members of the PNP and other enforcers duly commissioned or deputized by the Smoke-Free Task Force shall have the power to apprehend violators of the Ordinance and issue citation tickets. d. Enforcers and deputies shall submit duplicates of the citation tickets issued to the Municipal Treasurer and the Municipal Health Officer within three (3) business days. The Municipal Treasurer and the Municipal Health Officer shall keep duplicates of all citation tickets issued to violators, and other records of violations of the Ordinance reported through other means, such as the hotline. e. The citation ticket booklet shall be issued by the Municipal Treasurer and distributed by the Municipal Health Officer to enforcers and all other persons charged with the enforcement of the Ordinance. Section 18. No Contest Provision. – Any person apprehended or cited for violation who does not wish to contest the violation and is willing to pay voluntarily the fine imposed upon him/her prior to the filing of formal charges with the proper court, shall be allowed to pay said fine with the Municipal Treasurer until the due date stated in the citation ticket, which shall in no case be more than five (5) business days from the date of apprehension and issuance of the citation ticket, to avoid being criminally prosecuted. Otherwise, the case shall be prosecuted in court. In the rules and regulations to be formulated for the implementation of this Ordinance, the Smoke-Free Task Force shall include rules of procedure for the guidance of persons who wish to contest violations stated in the citation tickets. At the minimum, these rules: shall require proceedings to be summary in nature; shall require proceedings to be conducted and concluded within seven (7) business days; shall not allow postponements or extensions for any reason; shall not allow the presence of counsel; shall be conducted by means of position papers; and any testimony shall be taken by submission of sworn affidavits. A finding of violation shall be forwarded to the appropriate court for criminal prosecution. The non-promulgation of rules of procedure shall not preclude the effectivity of this Ordinance. INFORMATION DRIVE Section 19. Information Drive. – Within sixty (60) calendar days from the effectivity of this Ordinance, the Municipal Health Officer, together with the Municipal Information Officer and the Health Education and Promotion Officer, shall: a. In coordination with the Office of the Mayor or his/her representative and the Smoke-Free Task Force: i. Provide at least two (2) copies of this Ordinance to every PNP station or precinct within the LGU; ii. Provide a primer on this Ordinance for every member of the PNP and every enforcer in the LGU; and iii. Conduct lectures and brief all members of the PNP and enforcers of the Ordinance on its provisions and their responsibilities with respect to its enforcement; b. In coordination with the Engineer’s Office, put up billboards in conspicuous places in the LGU to notify the public of the restrictions and sanctions provided in the Ordinance; ANNEX B

c. In coordination with the Business Permits and Licenses Office, provide a copy of this Ordinance and its primer to all existing establishments that are currently licensed to operate and to every establishment applying for a new license to operate; d. In coordination with the Municipal Information Office, provide a copy of this Ordinance and its primer to all operators of public transport in the LGU; e. In coordination with the Smoke-Free Task Force, undertake an information and education campaign to raise awareness on and ensure compliance with the Ordinance. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 20. Financial Mechanisms. – To defray the costs and expenses necessary for or incidental to the implementation of this Ordinance and the operation of the Task Force: a. Seed Funding. Initial funding in the amount of [amount] shall be sourced from the [Name of LGU] and is hereby allocated. b. Trust Fund. Every year thereafter, at least [amount] shall be included in the annual budget of the [Name of LGU]. Furthermore, proceeds of the fees and charges, and of at least fifty percent (50%) of the administrative fines collected pursuant to this Ordinance, shall be remitted to a Trust Fund and earmarked exclusively for the continued implementation of this Ordinance and the operation of the Smoke- Free Task Force in relation thereto. c. Mandatory Funding. The [City/Municipal] Government shall ensure the mandatory funding of the Comprehensive Smoking Control Ordinance, to be sourced from the LGU fund, with the initial amount of [amount]. The Smoke-Free Task Force, through the City Health Services Office shall submit an Annual Work and financial Program to the City Planning and Development Office, which shall be incorporated to the Annual Investment Program of the city. The Annual Work and Financial Program shall contain the Programs, Projects, and Activities with their corresponding Outputs and Funding Requirements to implement the Ordinance. d. Other Funds. The Smoke-Free Task Force shall also access funds from other sources such as national government agencies, foundations or funding institutions provided such funding organizations are not connected in any way with the tobacco industry. Section 22. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Smoke-Free Task Force shall formulate and recommend, for the approval of the Municipal Mayor, such rules and regulations as are necessary to ensure the effective implementation of this Ordinance. The rules and regulations shall include a schedule of administrative fines. Section 23. Repealing Clause. – All Ordinances, rules and regulations, or any part thereof, which are contrary to or inconsistent with any provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 24. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Ordinance is declared unconstitutional or illegal, the same shall not affect the validity and effectivity of other provisions hereof. Section 29. Effectivity Clause. – This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the province and posting in at least two (2) conspicuous places in the LGU, in accordance with Section 59 of RA 7160. ENACTED BY THE [Name of LGU], in its session on [date of session]. ANNEX C

ANNEX C: CSC-DOH JOINT MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR 2010-01 ANNEX C ANNEX C ANNEX C ANNEX C ANNEX C ANNEX C

HealthJustice is a non-stock, non-profit organization created to fulfill the vision of bridging the gap between public health and law through policy development and research. It is committed to be the leading resource in research and capacity building for priority public health policies.

First published in Manila in June 2015 HealthJustice, Inc. 6F Victoria I Building 1670 Quezon Ave cor. EDSA Quezon City, Philippines http://healthjustice.ph