One wonders if Health Secretary Enrique Ona would still pursue the initiative of his predecessor to prohibit government officials and employees and their relatives from having any dealings with the tobacco industry. While laudable, the policy is simply impractical for being too difficult to implement, not to mention possible violation of constitutional rights.
The initiative, contained in Joint Memorandum Circular 2010-01 issued by the Department of Health (DOH) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC), reportedly aims to supplement a CSC memorandum last year that prohibited smoking inside government offices and within 10 meters from their entrances.
Not content with simply banishing smokers from public offices, the joint circular, which was issued also in line with the government’s antismoking campaign, reportedly prevents government workers from interacting with any tobacco company, except “when strictly necessary for the latter’s effective regulation, supervision, or control.”
A news report also showed that the memorandum prohibits, among other things, the acceptance from tobacco entities of gifts, donations and sponsorships, “which may affect the functions of offices.” It also bans public officials and their family members from “accepting employment or recommend any one to any position in any private enterprise connected with the tobacco industry.”
“Public officials or employees, regardless of status, shall avoid conflicts of interest with the tobacco industry at all times. When a conflict of interest arises, he/she shall resign from his position in the tobacco industry within 30 days from his/her assumption of office and/or divest himself/herself of his/her shareholdings or interest within 60 days from assumption,” the memorandum reportedly reads.
One would think that much thought was put into the joint memorandum-circular before it was issued. However, with the way it was drafted, one gets the impression the memorandum is all for show. After all, it doesn’t seem to be within the government’s right to dictate that a relative of any government official or government employee cannot work for the tobacco industry.
What if one is born to tobacco farmers, schooled, and eventually employed in government? Does this mean his family will have to give up tobacco farming as livelihood? Can the government actually deny people employment in a particular industry simply because their spouses or relatives work for a public office?
As for public officials themselves, with or without the new joint memorandum, they are actually prohibited from accepting employment in the tobacco industry—or whatever industry in the private sector, for that matter—while still employed by the state. They are, likewise, prohibited from accepting gifts, donations, or sponsorships from anybody, not just the tobacco industry.
But once no longer working for the state, then they can do whatever they want. As for their relatives, since they do not work for the government, then the government cannot dictate where they should work or who they should deal with. Conflict of interest arises only if their direct relation works with an office directly regulating the tobacco industry.
Perhaps, the point is that the DOH and the CSC seemed to have gone overboard with Joint Memorandum-Circular 2010-01 by having to indicate so many prohibitions relative to government dealings with the tobacco industry when, in fact, these prohibitions are either already existing or are perhaps legally questionable.
One thinks that the joint memorandum aims to indicate that the government complies with its obligations under international agreements to discourage smoking in the bureaucracy and to promote tobacco control within the government. But for practical reasons, it seems unlikely that the memorandum will be enforced to the letter.
One also wonders whether the Muslim community can also succeed in its own initiative to become smoke-free. The Supreme Council of Darul Ifta of the Philippines in Cotabato City has reportedly released an Islamic ruling, or fatwa, declaring cigarette smoking haram, or forbidden. Thus, Muslims will reportedly no longer be allowed to manufacture, buy, sell, trade or promote tobacco, since these actions represent “aiding someone in committing a sin.”
By his estimates, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Health Secretary Kadil Sinolinding Jr. said the new fatwa would help reduce by at least 60 percent to 70 percent the estimated 1 million Muslim smokers in the autonomous region, one newspaper reported. It will be good to get statistics in a year’s time, just to see if the Islamic ruling is effective in curbing smoking.
In 2002 the two holy cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia, were already declared tobacco-free. All commercial activities involving tobacco are prohibited within the boundaries of the two cities and no form of tobacco advertising is permitted. Perhaps, this is what the ARMM aims to achieve as well.
The ARMM and the DOH-CSC will need all the luck to effectively address concerns regarding smoking through their recent initiatives. While it is best not to quickly judge their efforts, one cannot help but recall the United States’ experience with prohibition in the 1920s, which proved that efforts to curb vice like drinking and smoking are better addressed not by bans or attempts to stop the trade, but by strict regulation of marketing and trade. And what better way to regulate such trade and, at the same time, boost government coffers, than by higher taxes.
Comments to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
