CONSISTENCY OF A MUNICIPAL’S MARKET REGULATION TO NATIONAL AND PROVINCIAL POLICIES
One of the culprits blamed for Cebu City’s growing number of COVID-19 cases was the late enforcement of Market Coding Scheme. In Southern Mindanao, particularly in General Santos City where this author was locked down for almost three months, a Market Coding Scheme was implemented during the early stage of the community quarantine. Under the scheme, residents of a Barangay or group of Barangays (constituting a Zone) are limited on certain days wherein they can enter malls and public markets. Because of the recent confirmed community transmission in the Province of Bohol, at least two of the municipalities imposed additional regulation on the operation of their public markets. These municipalities prohibited the influx of sellers and buyers from other municipalities during their Market Days or known as Tabo.
On the one hand, this measure can easily be assailed by pundits as inconsistent to national policy and provincial directives. Precisely, the purpose of downgrading our community quarantine to a Modified General Community Quarantine is to jumpstart our ailing local economy caused by the prolonged imposition of Enhanced and General Community Quarantine. Moreover, Par. 1, Section 7 of the Omnibus Guidelines on the Implementation of Community Quarantine in the Philippines (“Omnibus Guidelines”) issued by the National Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Disease (“IATF”) provides that “the movement of all types of cargoes by land, air, or sea within and across areas placed under any form of community quarantine shall be unhampered.” Suppliers and distributors may raise a question if they are covered by the prohibition of outsiders selling during these Market Days. If during these prohibitive days, the products/supplies are limited from those residents of these municipalities, will it not affect the choices and prices of basic goods and commodities?
On the other hand, these Local Government Units (“LGUs”) may argue that imposing additional regulation or prohibition on their Market Days constitutes valid exercise of police power in the interest of public health and safety. Public markets, where people naturally congregate, are potential hotbed for further spread and transmission of the dreaded COVID-19. Moreover, LGUs may argue that even the Provincial Government imposed limitations and restrictions on the operation of public markets such as “One Entry, One Exit” policy, hours of operation and strict hygiene and sanitation. Furthermore, Par. 6, Section 8 of the IATF Omnibus Guidelines provides that “in the operation of wet markets, LGUS are encouraged to adopt reasonable schemes to ensure compliance with strict social distancing measures, such as, but not limited to, providing for specific daily schedules per sector, barangay, or purok, as the case may be.”
To reconcile, in the case of distributors and suppliers, LGUs must clarify that they are not covered by their regulation or prohibition of trade during Market Days. They are not being hampered in delivering their goods and supplies to their retailers in the public markets as this is inconsistent with the national policy to ensure the free flow and unhampered transit of goods. Regarding buyers or “manaboay” from other towns and those retailers/itinerant vendors without permanent stalls, it is arguable that these LGUs may validly issue such regulation and prohibit entry of non-residents in their public markets during their Market Days. Finally, for those non-residents but with permanent stalls, LGUs may wish to clarify that they are not covered by this prohibition as this directive may constitute violation of the Contracts of Lease between the LGUs and their non-resident stall owners/lessees. The latter may even argue that such regulation or prohibition constitutes an impairment of the obligation of the LGUs to them under their Contracts.