advancing the enforcement of the smoking ban in public places

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 Building, 9

th Floor, 5-1, 1-chome, Wakinohama-Kaigandori, Chuo-ku, Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture, 651-0073,

Japan (fax: +81 78 230 3178; email: [email protected]). 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

1

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


2

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


3

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.


4

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


5

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.


6

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 country5. 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. ).


7

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


8

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


9

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:


10

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.


11

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


12

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.


13

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.


14

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


15

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


16

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


17

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


18

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.

http://www.davaocity.gov.ph/


19

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

advancing the enforcement of the smoking ban in public places

Documents