Labra ‘mum’ on Pepito’s disagreement over anti-drunk driving measure

Local

THE proponent of a proposed ordinance regulating alcohol service has declined to publicly rebut criticisms from a fellow councilor.

Cebu City Councilor Paul Labra, who filed the draft “Cebu City Responsible Alcohol Service Ordinance,” said he would respond to objections during formal deliberations.

“I will answer his comments at the proper venue in the council where this ordinance will be discussed,” Labra said.

Labra introduced the measure following a fatal road crash on Feb. 8 along Paseo Saturnino Road in Barangay Banilad that killed 23-year-old entrepreneur Kingston Ralph Ko Cheng. Authorities earlier said the incident allegedly involved a drunk driver.

The proposal has triggered a policy debate within the Cebu City Council over the scope of business liability and the limits of regulation in curbing drunk driving.

Cebu City Councilor Winston Pepito said he is “kind of against the general concept” of penalizing establishments for the actions of intoxicated customers.

“I am kind of against the general concept of penalizing other people for your own misbehavior,” Pepito said in an interview on Friday, Feb. 20.

He argued that the measure shifts personal accountability from individuals to business owners and employees.

To illustrate his point, Pepito likened the proposal to blaming a restaurant for a customer’s health condition.

“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.

Under Labra’s draft ordinance, establishments would be required to refuse further alcohol service to patrons who are “visibly intoxicated,” including those exhibiting 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 questioned the clarity and enforceability of the “duty of care” provision.

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

He also cast doubt on whether denying service at that stage would meaningfully 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,” Pepito said. “Before the law is triggered, he is already drunk. So what is the point?”

Pepito warned that the ordinance could create uncertainty for businesses already operating in a difficult environment.

“Businesses are already doing the hard thing. It’s not easy to run a business now,” he 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 trickle down to rank-and-file employees.

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

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

Pepito said the training requirement needs clearer parameters, noting the difficulty of confronting customers who may resist being denied service.

“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 could drive habitual 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.

While acknowledging that the intent of promoting public safety is valid, Pepito said he is concerned about unintended consequences.

“The intent is good. It’s the possible outcome and unintended consequences that are dangerous,” he said.

He added that he intends to formally register his opposition and propose amendments.

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

The city recently acquired alcohol testing kits for law enforcers. Pepito said stricter enforcement, supported by testing tools, 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.

“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 City Council’s committee on laws and styling. Deliberations are expected in the coming sessions.(TGP)