Advancing the enforcement of the smoking ban in public places - Davao City, Philippines - WHO smoke-free city case study
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
WHO smoke-free city case study Advancing the enforcement of the smoking ban in public places – Davao City, Philippines
© World Health Organization 2011
All rights reserved. Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for
noncommercial distribution – should be addressed to the WHO Centre for Health Development, I.H.D. Centre
th
Building, 9 Floor, 5-1, 1-chome, Wakinohama-Kaigandori, Chuo-ku, Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture, 651-0073,
Japan (fax: +81 78 230 3178; email: wkc@wkc.who.int).
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines
on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or
recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not
mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital
letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication.
However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. The
responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health
Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
Abbreviations
FCAP Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Alliance
NGO Non-governmental organization
PhP Philippine peso
US$ United States dollar
WHO World Health Organization
WHO FCTC WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
1WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
Contents
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... 3
Foreword .................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6
2. The Context......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 City Background .......................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Tobacco Use and Smoking Behaviour ......................................................................... 6
2.3 The Health Costs of Tobacco ....................................................................................... 7
2.4 The Smoke-Free Policy and Legal Context: ................................................................. 7
3. The Davao City Smoke-Free Ordinance .............................................................................. 8
4. Key Stages in the Development of the Ordinance ........................................................... 11
4.1 The Political and Legislative Process ......................................................................... 11
4.2 Campaigns and Compliance Building ........................................................................ 12
4.3 Issues, Debate Topics and Arguments ...................................................................... 14
5. Compliance and Enforcement .......................................................................................... 15
6. Impact of Davao City’s Smoke-Free Actions ..................................................................... 16
7. Conclusions and Lessons .................................................................................................. 17
References ............................................................................................................................... 18
2WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
Acknowledgements
The WHO smoke-free city case study Advancing the enforcement of the smoking ban
in public places – Davao City, Philippines was developed for the WHO Centre for Health
Development in Kobe, Japan, WHO Tobacco Free Initiative in Geneva, Switzerland and the
Regional Office for the Western Pacific in Manila, Philippines. It was written by Domilyn
Villarreiz, Davao Anti-Smoking Task Force in Davao, Philippines and edited by Jon Dawson
Associates in Chester, United Kingdom.
3WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
Foreword
All people have a fundamental right to breathe clean air. There is no safe level of exposure
to second-hand smoke (SHS), which causes heart disease, cancer and many other diseases.
Even brief exposure can cause serious damage. Only a total ban on smoking in all indoor
public places, including workplaces, protects people from the harms of SHS exposure, helps
smokers quit and reduces youth smoking. Guidelines to Article 8 of the WHO Framework
Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) help countries know exactly what to do to
protect their people from SHS. An increasing number of countries have adopted legislation
to accomplish smoke-free environments. Smoke-free legislation is popular wherever it is
enacted, and these laws do not harm business. Any country can implement effective smoke-
free legislation. However, only a small proportion of the world’s population currently has
meaningful protection from SHS.
While a national law protecting all the people in a country is ideal, cities can often pass
legislation sooner than countries. In many cases public sub-national legislation or local
regulations can be effective ways to address the issue with measures beyond the legal or
political scope of national governments, and even to anticipate or promote national
interventions. A growing number of cities and counties across the globe have already taken
action. Many cities have every authority to pass comprehensive smoke-free laws to
eliminate SHS exposure. If comprehensive smoke-free legislation does not exist at another
jurisdictional level, these cities should use their authority to adopt laws or other available
legal instruments to prohibit tobacco smoke in these places. Some cities may not have
adequate authority to pass strong, comprehensive legislation. However, this does not mean
that they should not take action. Most cities will at least have the authority to prohibit
tobacco smoke in certain types of workplaces, for example, local public transportation and
municipal public buildings. They can adopt legislation prohibiting smoking indoors in
whatever categories of establishments they have authority to regulate. In addition, all cities
can advocate for action at other governmental levels. Mayors and other city leaders can
directly advocate for national comprehensive smoke-free laws.
In a joint project, WHO Centre for Health Development, Kobe (WKC) and the WHO Tobacco
Free Initiative (TFI) aimed to facilitate local action by documenting the experiences of nine
selected cities in becoming smoke-free. Their interventions and processes were examined
by local experts, based on evidence from a wide range of local sources. These included
documentation, archival records, direct observation, interviews and participant-observation.
A case study database was created and the most relevant documents kept on file, including
statements from key-informants. Some cities have banned smoking in enclosed public
places including workplaces, educational facilities, transportation, shopping malls,
restaurants, and bars. Other cities have implemented smoking bans as part of
4WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
comprehensive tobacco control regulations, while imposing other restrictions, for example
on tobacco sales and advertisements. Cities use different mechanisms to introduce such
regulations and their impact goes beyond the cities adopting the smoke-free policies.
The present case is one in a series of nine case studies of cities that have engaged in the
process of becoming smoke-free. Although not all of the cities have yet accomplished the
goal of becoming a "smoke-free city", they provide lessons learnt in relation to political
commitment for local action towards smoke-free air for their citizens and the role of civil
society in urging city governments to take action, helping them to build effective
partnerships and to conduct awareness campaigns that benefit enforcement and maximize
compliance. We hope that these lessons can be used by municipalities to succeed with local
smoke-free legislation or tobacco control programmes. Municipal success may trigger action
in other cities and countries, and thus contribute to worldwide protection from exposure to
SHS.
5WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
1. Introduction
1.1 Davao City is a leading example for taking forward smoke-free agendas in the
Philippines. In advance of the 2003 National Tobacco Control Law, the city
council passed its Comprehensive Anti-Smoking Ordinance in 2002 and has
actively promoted and enforced it. This case study examines Davao’s smoke-
free agenda and how it has been implemented. It discusses the impact of the
law and lessons learned.
2. The Context
2.1 City Background
2.1.1 Davao City is a sprawling metropolis located in the Southern part of the
Philippines. Covering 2,444 square kilometres, it is one of the largest cities by
area in the world. It has a population of about 1.4 million - 71% of which live in
urban areas.1 With a predominantly migrant population, the city has a diversity
of cultures that includes many migrants from Luzon (Tagalogs) and Visayas
(Cebuanos and Ilonggos) and at least 10 Indigenous Peoples (tribal groups).
Economically, the city has grown steadily over the last two decades with high
levels of inward investment in the last 10 years. With the presence of the
country’s top 200 companies in the city, Davao City has a mixed economy
incorporating agricultural, service and industrial sectors.2
2.2 Tobacco Use and Smoking Behaviour
2.2.1 Smoking prevalence in the Philippines is far higher for men than for women.
According to the 2009/10 Global Adult Tobacco Survey, overall smoking
prevalence is 28%. However, 42% of men smoke compared to 9% of women.
Amongst youth aged 13-15 years old, smoking prevalence reaches 23%.3
Estimates also indicate that the prevalence of daily smoking in Davao is at least
20%.4
2.2.2 There is also evidence that, nationally, poorer households spend proportionately
more of their incomes on tobacco than do other households in the country 5. In
this context, the affordability of tobacco – cigarettes can be bought for PhP0.75
(US$0.016) per cigarette – combined with the influence of cigarette advertising,
reinforces poorer people’s access to tobacco.
).
6WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
2.3 The Health Costs of Tobacco
2.3.1 In the Philippines, the major tobacco-related diseases, namely cerebrovascular
disease and coronary artery disease, caused the majority of deaths, based on
projected deaths for 2003 and using cause-specific mortality rates from 20025. In
1996, 144,931 men and 103,311 women older than 35 years of age were
reported to have died from smoking-related diseases such as trachea, lung, and
bronchial cancer, ischemic heart disease, respiratory disease and stroke.6
2.3.2 Within Davao City, smoking is one of the most significant threats to public
health. According to data compiled by the Davao City Health Office, between
2001 and 2007, there were 892 recorded deaths caused by lung cancer. The
number of yearly deaths from lung cancer peaked in 2004 when about 139
people died from the disease.
2.4 The Smoke-Free Policy and Legal Context:
National Tobacco Control Legislation
2.4.1 The Philippines ratified the WHO FCTC on 6 June 2005. Two years before, the
Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 (Republic Act 9211) was approved. Section two
of the Act stated that “the government shall institute a balanced policy whereby
the use, sale and advertisement of tobacco products shall be regulated to
promote a healthy environment and at the same time ensure that the interests
of tobacco farmers, growers and stakeholders are not adversely compromised”. 7
It consisted of three components:
a smoking ban in public places (see section 2.4.3);
restricting minors’ access to cigarettes - under 18’s are not allowed to
sell, buy or smoke cigarettes and cigarettes cannot be sold within 100
metres of a learning or recreational facility for minors;
a focus on tobacco advertising and promotion that bans tobacco
advertising on television, cable television, radio, cinema, outdoor
billboards and in mass media. Point-of-sale advertising is exempted.
2.4.2 The Inter-Agency Committee - Tobacco is charged with administering and
implementing the 2003 Act. The Secretary of the Department of Trade and
Industry and the Secretary of the Department of Health co-chair the Committee.
Its members include the Secretaries of a range of departments: Agriculture,
Environment and Natural Resources, Justice, Finance, Science and Technology,
and Education. Other Committee members are the administrator of the
National Tobacco Administration, a representative from FCAP (a non-
governmental organization involved with public health promotion) and a
representative from the tobacco industry (the Philippine Tobacco Institute –
which represents the five major tobacco companies in the country).8
7WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
National Smoke-Free Legislation
2.4.3 The 2003 Tobacco Regulation Act prohibits smoking in all centres of youth
activity, elevators and stairwells, locations where fire hazards are present,
health facilities, public conveyances, public facilities, and food preparation
areas. However, the Act requires the designation of smoking and non-smoking
areas for enclosed places that are open to the public. Moreover, owners can
determine the size and specifications of the smoking and non-smoking areas on
their premises. Enclosed areas are tightly defined. The Act states that, “the
mere presence of a roof or ceiling over the structure but without walls or
partitions... does not constitute an enclosed area” It also states that, “the walls
or partitions must be continuous interrupted only by doors and windows”.
2.4.4 Although far from comprehensive, earlier legislation provided some protection
against exposure to second-hand smoke. Section 24 of the Clean Air Act of 1999
(Republic Act 8749) addressed “pollution from smoking”. It prohibited smoking
inside a public building or an enclosed public place including public vehicles and
other means of transport or in any enclosed area outside of one’s private
residence, private place of work or any duly designated smoking area. It gave
the responsibility to local government units to implement the law.
The Previous Legal Framework for Smoke-Free Public Places in Davao City
2.4.5 Prior to its recent efforts to implement an effective smoke-free agenda, Davao
City had three pre-existing ordinances, from 1964, 1987 and 1996, that
addressed smoking in public places.9 The 1964 ordinance prohibited smoking in
cinemas and the second expanded its scope to government offices and public
utility vehicles. The 1996 ordinance banned smoking in restaurants and
accommodation establishments such as hotels, motels, lodges, inns and similar
places. However, these ordinances, which partially banned smoking in public
places, were not implemented and were regarded as “sleeping ordinances”.
Nevertheless, they were later amended to conform to the Philippine Clean Air
Act of 1999. Article 5, section 24 of the Clean Air Act focused on “pollution from
smoking”. It prohibited smoking in enclosed public places and public vehicles
but, in addition to private homes, exempted private places of work or “any duly
designated smoking area.”
3. The Davao City Smoke-Free Ordinance
3.1 The Comprehensive Anti-Smoking Ordinance of Davao City (City Ordinance 043-
02 series of 2002) bans smoking in all public places and enclosed places but has
an option for designating a smoking area - provided establishments pass through
a series of rigid inspections by the Anti-Smoking Task Force. It sets out specific
8WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
definitions of “enclosed areas”, “prohibited acts”, “persons liable”, penalties,
and inspection and monitoring by government agencies. Subsequent Executive
orders, culminating in Executive Order no. 06, in 2009, set out specific
regulations relating to the ordinance including for signage, smoking rooms and
enforcement roles. 10
Extent of Smoke-Free Spaces
3.2 The ordinance states that it is unlawful for any person to smoke or allow
smoking in vehicles, whether government-owned or for public transport for
passengers, accommodation and entertainment establishments, public
buildings, public places, enclosed public places, or in any enclosed area outside
of one’s private residence, and private places of work within the jurisdiction of
Davao City. “Private places of work” were not explicitly defined in the legislation
but, in practice, have been interpreted as a place to which the public does not
have access.
3.3 The ordinance defines enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited as “areas
which are totally or partially closed at the sides and are roofed or make use of
the floor above as ceilings, or even areas open on all sides but covered by a roof
that is permanent or temporary in nature”. This definition effectively makes
smoke-free places more extensive than does the definition of enclosed spaces
set out in the national law.
3.4 The ordinance also explicitly prohibits smoking in specific public places such as
gasoline stations, banks, malls, town squares, terminals, shopping/business
arcades, schools, churches, hospitals, cinema houses, gymnasiums, funeral
parlours and barbershops.
3.5 Moreover, it extends smoke-free places to some public outdoor spaces where
people congregate to be together or listen to or attend concerts, rallies and
other events. These include, but are not limited to, four parks in the city – Rizal
Park, Freedom Park, Magsaysay Park, and Osmeña Park.
Exemptions
3.6 The Anti-Smoking Ordinance contains some explicit exemptions that permit
smoking indoors. It allows for designated smoking rooms within accommodation
and entertainment establishments. These include restaurants, fast food outlets
and other eateries, hotels, motels, lodges, inns and boarding houses, bars,
cinemas and other recreation venues. However, the ordinance is stricter than
the 2003 Tobacco Regulation Act, where establishments are free to determine
the size and specifications of smoking areas. Unlike the national law, the city
ordinance lays down specific criteria that smoking rooms must satisfy.
Specifically, the smoking room should be totally enclosed and:
9WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
must not be more than one-quarter of the total accommodation area of
the establishment;
must be separate from the smoke-free part of the premises.
3.7 There are also specific requirements depending on whether the premises have
or do not have air-conditioning. For premises with air-conditioning, the
designated smoking room should have an exhaust fan and be completely
enclosed on all sides. For premises without air-conditioning, the designated
smoking room should be fully ventilated and include a separate ventilation/air
re-circulation system where the air is directly extracted to the outside.
3.8 Executive Order No. 06 further states that for designated smoking rooms:
they should be located away from entrances or common pathways;
food and drink are not allowed within them;
minors are not allowed to enter;
they cannot be converted into a room for meetings, gaming areas or
other private functions;
only tables and ashtrays are allowed in the room.
3.9 All designated smoking rooms need to be approved by the Anti-Smoking Task
Force before smoking is permitted. The ordinance assigns responsibility for
inspection and certification of smoking rooms to the City Health Officer and the
City Engineer.
Signage
3.10 The 2009 Executive Order sets out the minimum size and required content of no
smoking signs. It also states that they should be placed in “strategic areas of the
establishment”.
Penalties
3.11 Smoking where it is not permitted, including in public utility or government-owned
buildings, can lead to fines of between PhP300 (US$6) and PhP1000 (US$22) - or
imprisonment of between one and four months. Managers or owners of
establishments who knowingly allow, abet or tolerate and/or fail to warn, advise
or report violators of the smoking ordinance to any policeman or police station
within three hours of violation are liable to being penalised. Establishments
found violating the ordinance also face the possibility of being closed for non-
compliance following notice of violation. The fines contained in the city
ordinance are lower than those in the national law. Fines for smoking violations
of the 2003 Tobacco Regulation Act, range from PhP500 (US$11) to PhP10,000
(US$220). Business permits and licences to operate can also be revoked.
10WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
4. Key Stages in the Development of the Ordinance
4.1 The Political and Legislative Process
4.1.1 In 2002, Mayor Rodrigo Duterte initiated a review of the city’s ordinances
relating to smoking in public places. As the ordinances did not offer protection
to second-hand smoke in most public places, he asked the City Council through
the author of the 1996 Ordinance 3816, Councillor Bonifacio Militar, to conduct
hearings to amend the Ordinance and to draft a Comprehensive Anti-Smoking
Ordinance that would extend its scope to all public places. The Smoke-Free
Davao Co-ordinator, who was appointed by the Mayor, assisted in building the
case for the ordinance by gathering information on the effects of smoking -
including statistics on tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. The data was
presented during public hearings and utilised in mass media campaigns.
4.1.2 In accordance with the City Council’s legislative process, a draft ordinance was
prepared and a series of public hearings were held to obtain reactions from
various stakeholders. These included representatives of the business and
tourism sectors who had initially opposed the ordinance, citing their perception
that it could have a negative commercial impact.
4.1.3 At a committee hearing on 29 May 2002, Councillor Militar stressed that the
Comprehensive Anti-smoking Ordinance consolidated and amended previous
anti-smoking ordinances. The hearing also helped to generate support and
commitment for the ordinance from different sectors and it provided an
opportunity to clarify concerns.
4.1.4 A follow-up hearing on 10 June 2002, also chaired by Councillor Militar, focused
on discussing “grey areas” in the proposed Comprehensive Anti-Smoking
Ordinance. This hearing was attended by the Members of the Committee on
Rules, Privileges, Laws and Ordinances. These included an array of
representatives from the public and private sectors. In attendance were the
Davao City Chamber of Commerce, Davao Association of Tourist Attraction
(DATA), City Health Office, City Legal Office, the Davao City Police Office, owners
and managers of various hotels, malls, department stores, restaurants, bars,
drivers association, and other establishments in Davao City. Community leaders
also participated.
4.1.5 In addition to focussing on the smoke-free provisions in the ordinance, the June
hearing also discussed a resolution calling for the passage of an ordinance
prohibiting all minors from buying or smoking cigarettes and other tobacco
products in the City. The imposition of fines and penalties for any violation was
also considered.
4.1.6 During the period when the ordinance was being discussed by the Council, one
councillor suggested that smoking be allowed in small restaurants, since he
11WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
believed it would be financially challenging for small restaurants to set up
smoking areas. However, Councillor Militar, opposed this idea on the grounds
that the ordinance was intended to protect the people's health and so it was
important for the many small restaurants in the city to be smoke-free. Militar's
appeal to the council later led to the inclusion of all restaurants in the final
ordinance.
4.1.7 The City Council, through a unanimous vote by all its members, approved and
adopted the Comprehensive Anti-Smoking Ordinance on 30 July 2002. Following
its approval by the City Mayor on 14 August 2002, the ordinance took effect on 9
November of the same year.
4.1.8 A workshop focusing on drawing up Implementing Guidelines of the
Comprehensive Anti-Smoking Ordinance of Davao City was also held prior to the
ordinance coming into effect. It resulted in Executive Order No. 25 that
established the Anti-Smoking Task Force to monitor compliance and
implementation of the comprehensive anti-smoking ordinance, conduct
advocacy and campaigns and support the Police in filing charges for violation. It
was provided with an annual budget of PhP700,000 (US$15,220).
4.1.9 Davao’s smoke-free legislation was approved and came into effect in advance of
the national tobacco control law. It is also more protective against exposure to
second-hand smoke. For instance, “enclosed places” in the Davao ordinance
include places that have permanent or temporary roofing but are open on all
sides, while the national law restricts an enclosed place to one which is both
walled and roofed. However, local ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
the law are superseded, so it was necessary to bring the national law in line with
the local ordinance. In 2009, Executive Order no.26 harmonised the national law
and the Davao ordinance. However, the City Legal Office found ways to ensure
that the ordinance would not be totally affected and, in practice, Davao has
maintained its protective approach.
4.2 Campaigns and Compliance Building
4.2.1 The mayor appointed a Smoke-Free Davao Coordinator to take charge of all the
campaign initiatives and the Smoke-Free Davao Programme launched an
advocacy campaign on 31 May 2002 to raise public awareness about the
provisions of the smoke-free ordinance and to prepare the citizens of Davao for
its enforcement and implementation. The campaign also aimed to raise
awareness of the health risks associated with smoking and hence prevent
smoking initiation and increase smoking cessation. Led by the City Health Office,
health professionals were trained to deliver lectures and meetings in workplace,
school and community settings.
12WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
4.2.2 Information dissemination intensified following the publication of the ordinance
in local newspapers. A week before the ordinance came into effect, the city
government, in partnership with the NGO Kiwanis Club of Davao, conducted an
information campaign. It too focused on the dangers of smoking and making
people aware of the implementation of the ordinance. It included a "No
Smoking" sticker campaign with stickers posted on public utility vehicles and
billboards located at seaports and airport.
4.2.3 Over time, an extensive Information, Education and Communication campaign
was developed and delivered. It has incorporated social marketing, advocacy
and counter-marketing tactics. It has included:
a media campaign involving four local television stations, 28 radio
stations and five local newspapers;
lectures in schools, workplaces and communities;
education about the ordinance for managers and owners of eating
places, gas stations, nightspots and the business sector generally,
national government offices, transportation groups, civic society
organisations and NGOs;
advocacy with government bodies, private companies and civil society to
generate support in placing billboards and reproducing stickers,
handouts and posters;
a sticker campaign for public utility vehicles and transport terminals;
the provision of “certified smoke-free establishment” signs at the
entrance to all public places and “I support” stickers awarded by the
Anti-Smoking Task Force;
an advocacy meeting with the managers and owners of airlines, shipping
and bus companies - this led to an agreement that, on arrival in the city
passengers would be informed that a smoking ban in public places is
strictly implemented in Davao City;
training of health educators on the effects of smoking so they could
assist in the conduct of lectures.
4.2.4 A “Smoke-free Prison” campaign for Davao City Jail inmates was also launched.
It led to the prison warden discouraging the selling of cigarettes inside the jail
and to implement a “no smoking policy” within the prison cells. Moreover, law
enforcers were not exempted from the orientation and training. Police were
ordered not to smoke while on duty or wearing uniforms.
4.2.5 Initially, the campaign was handled solely by members of the task force. On the
third anniversary of the campaign on 31 May 2005, activities began to boost
significantly the scale of the campaign. In response to the 2005 World Health
Organization’s theme “Health Professionals against Tobacco”, health
professionals became more extensively involved in the campaign and especially
in conducting lectures in schools, workplaces and communities.
13WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
4.2.6 After several meetings and orientations with health professional groups, civil
society organizations and other smoke-free advocates, the task force was
expanded in 2005 to meet the demands of conducting lectures and monitoring
in all areas in Davao. The Association of Smoke-Free Davao Advocates - with
more than 1000 members to date - was organized by the Smoke-Free Davao
Coordinator. It comprises church leaders, community leaders, Muslim leaders
and health professionals. Responding to the need to have more people to
monitor the enforcement of the ordinance in different communities, these
advocates are inter alia required to inform the public on the ill effects of
smoking, and are encouraged to report violators to the Task Force and the law
enforcers.
4.3 Issues, Debate Topics and Arguments
4.3.1 Smoke-free agendas often encounter opposition from a range of organisations
and individuals. In Davao City, the ordinance was not, at first, welcomed by
some economic sectors that feared it would have a negative impact on business.
For instance tourism-related organisations feared that it would discourage
tourists from visiting the city. In response, Councillor Peter Lavina, chairperson
of the committee on Trade, Commerce and Industry suggested that the smoking
ban would “hit tourism but only momentarily”.11
4.3.2 However, in practice, people continued to frequent restaurants, shopping malls
and similar establishments despite the smoking ban. Anecdotally, this
experience of the smoke-free ordinance, led to a shift in opinions with the
business and tourism community becoming supportive of the smoke-free law.
Joaquin (2003), a columnist who shared fears, at the start of the campaign, that
the smoke free ordinance would have a negative effect during holidays,
commented that people “still had fun even without cigarettes”. He concluded
that the fears of the establishment owners may have been unfounded. 12
4.3.3 Some parts of 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.13 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. The lawyer, countering “right
to smoke” arguments, informed the public that arguing that the ordinance
curtailed individual freedom was “mere conjecture and speculation since the
ordinance shows the city’s police power is aimed at promoting public health and
welfare. Limiting one’s right as to when and where to smoke is hardly an
abridgement of one’s liberty but simply putting smokers in the right place at the
right time”.14
14WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
4.3.4 The tobacco industry also attempted to undermine directly the city’s smoke-free
agenda. On 18 December 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. Philip Morris released a statement that tobacco regulations should be
based on four “fundamental principles”. 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;
all tobacco manufacturers should compete on a level playing field.
4.3.5 However, neither the Mayor nor the city government gave an opportunity to
Philip Morris to discuss any of their proposed regulations or programmes.15
5. Compliance and Enforcement
5.1 Enforcement responsibilities are shared amongst key partners. The Anti-Smoking
Task Force is responsible for monitoring compliance with the law. The Davao
City Police Office is in charge of apprehending and filing charges against any
person or establishment that violates the ordinance. The City Legal Office
provides legal assistance and prepares formal notices while the roles of the City
Engineer’s Office include inspecting establishments and putting up anti-smoking
billboards. The Business Bureau - also one of the members of the Task Force - is
tasked with issuing violation or closure orders to non-compliant establishments
while the City Tourism Office monitors all tourism-accredited establishments.
5.2 In the immediate aftermath of the ordinance’s smoke-free provisions coming
into effect, many business establishments violated the ordinance. Anecdotally, a
major reason for the low level of compliance was “financial insufficiency”. Less
than 10% of businesses set up designated smoking rooms.16 Some
entertainment establishments, including hotels and restaurants, violated the
ordinance by converting large spaces, like dance floors, into smoking areas - in
contravention of the ordinance which specified that smoking spaces should be
solely for the use of smoking. The media reported the impact on business as
being the prime motivation for those opposing the ordinance.
5.3 513 violators were arrested in the first two months after the ordinance came
into effect - 494 were males. Over the seven years from 2002 to 2009, a report
by Davao Police indicates that there have been over 9000 violations for
smoking.17
15WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
6. Impact of Davao City’s Smoke-Free Actions
6.1 This section considers the impact of the smoke-free provisions of the ordinance
in terms of:
exposure to second-hand smoke;
the incidence of smoking;
wider influence of the Davao City smoke-free agenda.
Exposure to second-hand smoke
6.2 Prior to 2002, people in Davao were regularly exposed to cigarette smoke in
public places. Among those affected were children with parents who smoked in
their presence, food servers exposed to cigarette smoke from customers,
employees exposed to cigarette smoke inside workplaces, and commuters
exposed to smoking inside public utility vehicles.18 Despite the possibility of
incorporating designated smoking rooms, the majority of public places are
completely smoke-free. In this context, Davao’s casino is the only one in the
Philippines with a smoke free main playing hall.
Incidence of smoking
6.3 There is some evidence that the intensity of smoking reduced in the city. Traders
in the city estimated that cigarette consumption dropped by 60%, a loss of at
least at least PhP 1 million in sales. It was claimed that many sidewalk vendors
lost their jobs. However, they also reported that local demand for tobacco
products recovered later on.19
6.4 A focus group discussion with government employees who smoked revealed
that they had reduced the number of cigarettes they smoke following the
implementation of the ordinance. Moreover, they reported that the
inaccessibility of smoking areas and cigarette outlets reduced their cigarette
consumption and eventually led to some stopping smoking.20
Wider influence
6.5 Davao City’s smoke-free experience has been recognized by cities and other
countries in the region. The Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance and the
Thailand Ministry of Public Health in 2008 commended the city for its
commitment to implementing a Comprehensive Local Government Tobacco
Control Initiative. It has since become a popular destination for smoke-free
study tours by local and international advocates. Local government officials from
nine cities in Metropolitan Manila participated in a smoke-free workshop
conducted in Davao, and cities and municipalities from around Mindanao and
the Visayas visited the city for a study tour. In 2008, delegates from Hanoi’s
Peoples Committee and Health Bridge and, in 2009, Action on Smoking and
16WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
Health Thailand, together with representatives of Thailand’s Ministry of Health,
visited the city to learn about the strategies for enforcement and to observe the
implementation in establishments.
7. Conclusions and Lessons
Lessons learnt
7.1 The Davao Smoke-Free City experience highlights a series of factors that have
contributed to Davao’s achievements. These provide important lessons for
taking forward smoke-free agendas. Key amongst these are:
7.2 Political will and leadership. Mayor Duterte’s leadership underlines the vital
role that consistent political will from city leaders plays in initiating and seeing
through smoke-free legislation. Combined with public statements, his
unwavering stance has bolstered the implementation of the law.
7.3 Effective guidance and supervision. The Smoke-Free Davao Co-ordinator, who
was also co-chair of the Task Force, had an influential role in providing
leadership and guidance - in terms of both strategic direction and
implementation – for different members of the Task Force.
7.4 A motivated team to drive agendas forward. The leadership and intent of a
wide range of advocates has supported the effectiveness of Davao’s Anti-
Smoking Ordinance. In particular, the role of the Anti-Smoking Task Force - even
where it meant adding to members’ personal workloads - played a key role in
motivating establishment owners and managers to support campaigns and to
ensure regular inspection and monitoring of premises.
7.5 Building a wide partnership. Initially, the Davao Anti-Smoking Task Force
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 programmes and lectures in
schools, workplaces and communities. This valuable resource, formalised 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.
7.5 Intensive education and mass media campaigns. The Davao experience
highlights the importance of initiating intensive mass-media campaigns and
information drives in advance of legislation coming into effect. It also
emphasises the value of targeting different sectors of society to raise awareness
of the rationale for legislation and the provisions contained within it. The Davao
model shows how advocates can be deployed to raise awareness and
demonstrates how regular publicity of key messages can serve as constant
reminders to the wider population. In this context, securing support from the
17WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
private sector and NGOs in providing information materials enhanced the impact
of campaigns.
Final remarks
7.6 Davao’s smoke-free legislation was approved and came into effect in advance of
the national tobacco control law. It is also more protective against exposure to
second-hand smoke. Although, in 2009, Executive Order no.6 harmonised the
national law and local ordinance, in practice, it has maintained its protective
approach. Nevertheless, an amendment to the national law to bring it in line
with the WHO FCTC would provide greater support to the Davao smoke-free city
programme and prevent it being undermined by continuing legal challenges. In
this context, however, the continued involvement, at the national level, by the
tobacco industry, as one of the members of the government’s Inter-Agency
Committee-Tobacco, is an impediment to a more protective smoke-free national
law.
7.7 Notwithstanding these challenges, Davao city provides a leading example of a
city in the Philippines that has effectively implemented smoke-free legislation
and significantly reduced the extent that its citizens and those visiting the city
are exposed to second-hand smoke. Crucially, it has demonstrated that smoke-
free laws can work in the Philippines and it is being held up as a model for other
parts of Asia. Notable for its strong political leadership, good co-ordination and,
in particular, the development of an extensive network of committed smoke-
free advocates, large-scale information dissemination and a willingness to
enforce smoke-free status, the city has remained committed to protecting the
health of its people. As a result, for the most part, smokers in Davao have
“learnt to become responsible citizens”, leading them to form the habit of
smoking only in places were it is allowed. Dayanghirang, the majority floor
leader of the city council, observed that the smoking ban resulted in major
changes in behaviour to the point that it is hard to see anyone smoking in public
places anymore.21
References
1
2009 National Statistics Office (NSO) Philippines in Figures
2
Source: Davao City website: www.davaocity.gov.ph
3
WHO Statistical Information System [database on the Internet]. World Health
Organization. [cited July 6, 2009]. Available from: http://www.who.int/whosis
4
Francisco CQ. Davao businesses hit law banning smoking. Business World. 2003 December
18, 2003.
18WHO smoke-free city case study: Davao, Philippines
5
Tobacco and Poverty Study in the Philippines, WHO Publication, 2008 ISBN 978 92 4
159656.
6
Shafey O, Dolwick S, Guindon GE (eds). Tobacco Control Country Profiles 2003, American
Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, 2003.
7
Tobacco is cultivated in the Philippines on over 40,000 hectares and in 27 provinces.
Source: http://www.nta.da.gov.ph/moretobacco.html
8
Republic Act 9211, “Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003”
9
Ordinance No. 217 series of 1964, Ordinance No. 08 series of 1987, and Ordinance No.
3816 series of 1996.
10
Executive Order No.25 series of 2002 “An Order setting the Implementing Guidelines of
Ordinance No. 043-02 series of 2002” amended by Executive Order No. 26 “An Order
Revising Executive Order No.25 series of 2002”
11
Interview with Councillor Peter Lavina
12
Dimayuga A. “Straight Forward”. Mindanao Times, 4 June 2002.
13
Enobio OC. “Smoking Ban Offers Opportunities”. Sun Star Davao, 3 June 2002.
14
Maxey CR.”City Lawyers Support Anti-Smoking Drive”. Sun Star Davao, 6 June 2002.
15
[Anonymous].“Philip Morris breaks Silence on Smoking Ban”. The Mindanao Daily Mirror,
4 February 2003.
16
WEEKENDER - ENVIRONMENT - Going strong on anti-smoking. Business World. 2003
January 10, 2003.
17
Davao City Police Office Report
18
Interview with Mayor Rodrigo Duterte
19
Francisco CQ. “Davao businesses hit law banning smoking”. Business World. 2003
December 18, 2003 and “Davao's anti-smoking measure”. Business World. 2003 November
12, 2003.
20
Smokers’ Focus Group Discussion
21
Interview with Councillor Danilo Dayanghirang, 2008
19You can also read
