EDITORIAL

The Cebu City government, through Councilor Dave Tumulak, the chairman of the Council Committee on Public Order and Safety, has identified at least 17 business establishments that allegedly violated regulations set forth by City Hall to govern the conduct of the recently-held Sinulog facilities. They supposedly violated rules against selling intoxicating drinks and holding parties along the parade route, against using their parking lots for business, and against putting up loudspeakers.

Tumulak and Mayor Tomas Osmeña himself separately went around checking on compliance with these rules and noting the alleged violators, which were all located along F. Ramos and Juana Osmeña streets, and at a commercial complex on Mango Avenue. These alleged violators could face a suspension or cancellation of their business permits as threatened by Osmeña prior to and during the Sinulog.

What got Osmeña's goat was that some of the alleged violators, after being confronted by Osmeña during his inspection, reportedly went right back to violating the prohibitions after he had gone. The prohibitions were put in place because for the past several years, the Sinulog has increasingly become rowdy and violent, resulting in some injuries and damage to property, as well as the deprivation of the public of the use of streets by revelers who take over entire streets.

It might be interesting to know why some business establishments actually dared to defy the mayor's prohibitions, aside from it running counter to the dictum that "you cannot fight city hall." Maybe it was the sheer temptation to make as much money as can be made from the Sinulog. After all, this was the one day of the year where unbridled drinking is to be concentrated in a very specific place.

Maybe, too, the establishments in question believed that the Sinulog being what it is, the authorities would be so busy and have their hands full to bother and check with compliance. If that was the case, then they clearly underestimated Osmeña. They should have realized that when Osmeña issued his warning over and over again in the days prior to the Sinulog, he surely must have meant business.

Or maybe they relied on a little ambiguity in the warning, which focused the prohibitions "along the parade route." Technically, F. Ramos and Juana Osmeña are not "along the parade route" because they branch away from it. But the fact that one end of either street abuts the parade route could qualify them as, on the whole, part of the overall scope of the prohibition. A tiny legal loophole may be open for them, but then, the power of the permit is with City Hall.