Pepito on anti-drunk ordinance: ‘The intent is good but may yield dangerous consequences’

Local

A BREWING policy debate over alcohol regulation has emerged.

Cebu City Councilor Winston Pepito warned on Friday, Feb. 20, that a proposed ordinance holding establishments liable for serving visibly intoxicated customers could unfairly shift personal accountability to businesses, harm workers, and fail to address the root problem of drunken driving.

In an interviewy, Pepito said he is “kind of against the general concept” of penalizing establishments for the actions of misbehaving customers.

He argued that the proposal transfers personal responsibility from individuals to business owners and employees.

To illustrate his point, Pepito compared the measure to blaming a restaurant if a customer with high blood pressure overeats fatty food.

“You know you have high blood pressure, you order too much ‘humba’ in a restaurant, and then you blame the establishment because the server allowed you to keep ordering. It’s the same thing with drinking,” he said.

Pepito raised concerns that the proposed “duty of care” provision, requiring establishments to refuse service to visibly intoxicated patrons, could create ambiguity and expose businesses to liability based on subjective judgment.

“One of the problems is the definition of ‘visibly intoxicated.’ How do you define that?” he said.

Under the draft “Cebu City Responsible Alcohol Service Ordinance” filed by Councilor Paul Labra, establishments would be required to refuse further alcohol service to patrons showing slurred speech, impaired coordination, aggressive behavior, or other clear signs of intoxication.

The measure also mandates staff training, visible advisories, and responsible liquor service practices.

Pepito, however, questioned whether denying service would effectively prevent harm.

“If you look at someone and say he is already intoxicated and you deny him another drink, he is still intoxicated. Whether you serve him or not, he is already drunk,” he said. “Before the law is triggered, he is already drunk. So what is the point?”

He also warned of possible economic repercussions.

“Businesses are already doing the hard thing. It’s not easy to run a business now,” Pepito said. “They might hesitate to serve alcoholic drinks because how would they know if a person can still be served? People have different alcohol tolerances.”

He added that penalties imposed on establishments could ultimately affect rank-and-file employees.

“If there is a violation, the owner will likely blame the waiter,” he said.

He questioned whether staff would even need tools such as breath analyzers to justify refusing service.

The ordinance includes a mandatory Responsible Alcohol Service Training program for managers and frontline staff, covering the recognition of intoxication, lawful refusal of service, de-escalation, and patron safety.

Pepito said the training provision should be more clearly defined, noting the practical difficulty of confronting customers.

“Imagine approaching a customer and telling him you will no longer serve him because you think he is drunk. Most customers will not easily accept that,” he said.

He also raised the possibility of “displacement,” arguing that stricter regulation of licensed establishments might drive heavy drinkers to unregulated venues.

“Because of this law, it will not eliminate those who habitually get drunk. Instead of going to regulated establishments, they might go to unregulated ones. It will just be displaced,” he said.

Pepito emphasized that while he supports the intent of promoting public safety, he is concerned about unintended consequences.

“The intent is good. It’s the possible outcome and unintended consequences that are dangerous,” he said, adding that he plans to formally register his opposition so the proponent can consider possible amendments.

As an alternative, Pepito suggested strengthening enforcement of existing laws, particularly against drunk driving.

The city recently acquired alcohol testing kits for law enforcers. Pepito said stricter enforcement could serve as a more effective deterrent.

“If they are afraid to drive drunk because enforcement is strict and there are tools to test intoxication, then that can deter people,” he said.

He also proposed requiring establishments to post reminder signs encouraging moderate drinking and warning against driving under the influence, focusing on information campaigns rather than punitive measures.

“I am also worried about overregulation and where we should draw the line, so the government does not harm the majority while trying to protect them from the actions of a few,” he added.

The proposed ordinance is now under review by the committee on laws and styling.

The measure is a proposal before the Cebu City Council, both introduced in the wake of a fatal hit-and-run incident in Barangay Banilad earlier this month.(TGP)