TO the Cebu City Council’s surprise, the City Traffic Operations Management (Citom) opposed the proposal to increase the penalty for jaywalking from P50 to as much as P1,000.
A University of San Carlos (USC) professor and a student also opposed the increase, calling it “anti-poor.”
All eyes were on Citom Executive Director Rafael Yap when he registered his opposition to Councilor Richard Osmeña’s proposed measure, which seeks to amend City Ordinance 1514 or the Anti-Jaywalking Ordinance.
The proposed amendatory ordinance raises the jaywalking penalty from P50 to a minimum of P200 and a maximum of P1,000.
The council thought that the proposed legislation was already endorsed by the Citom board, where Yap sits as the board secretary.
Too high
However, Yap said he can’t recall any discussion of the ordinance in any of their board meetings.
During the public hearing on the measure yesterday, Yap said the increase that Osmeña is proposing is “too high.”
“Based on my observations, the vast majority apprehended for jaywalking are students, ordinary citizens, and the marginalized sector. While there is a very valid point that a high penalty will deter the violation of the jaywalking ordinance, we also have to remember that the minimum wage right now is P285. Most of them do not carry P200 in their pocket. There is an established rule in penology that the penalty must be commensurate to the violation,” he said.
In an interview after the hearing, Yap said he is amenable to an increase, as long as the penalty serves its purpose, and it is not arbitrary and excessive.
As he expressed opposition to the proposed measure, Councilor Margarita “Margot” Osmeña asked Yap to comment on Mayor Michael Rama’s statement that increasing the jaywalking penalty will only be a temptation for traffic enforcers to be corrupt, and will make the public part of the corruption.
Yap said he cannot comment on the matter, but he assured that mechanisms that mitigate corruption among Citom personnel are already in place.
For one, he said, they encourage pedestrians to report to their office any experience with corrupt enforcers.
Be careful
Margot then asked the Citom chief if increasing the penalty will not encourage corruption, despite the mechanisms to mitigate it.
Before Yap could answer, Young said in jest: “Be careful, be careful. Remember what Mike said,” which made Yap, the councilors and the people inside the session hall laugh.
When the laughter subsided, Yap said that one cannot really anticipate what goes on in the mind of enforcers.
Osmeña then said that “this is not a psychology class,” which prompted Yap, who paused for a while before answering, to ask the council to give him more time to answer Osmeña’s question.
“May I take more time to answer this?” he asked.
Aside from Yap, a USC teacher and student also expressed their views during the public hearing.
Brenette Abrenica, a faculty member of USC, said the proposed increase of the jaywalking penalty is “anti-poor.”
For the marginalized, she said the money can already be used to buy several kilos of rice.
For his part, USC student Sonny Montecosa said that the proposed penalty is “too huge.”
Montecosa suggested a status quo and asked Citom to increase the visibility of Citom enforcers, to deter pedestrians in violating the jaywalking ordinance.
Yap, Abrenica and Montecosa submitted their position papers to the council and said they hope that their comments will be considered in the final draft of the proposed measure.
