The Pampanga Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc. (PamCham) has opposed the City of San Fernando Council ordinance for businesses to hire security guards and offered “alternative approaches” that would enhance security in the city.
In a letter addressed to Reden S. Halili, chairperson of the Committee on Peace and Order, Public Safety of the CSF LGU, PamCham President Teresa David-Carlos said “these alternative approaches would be more effective in achieving the desired security outcomes while supporting a business-friendly environment.”
The CSF LGU Council has resurrected the ordinance that will require businesses in the capital city to hire security guards as a pre-condition for obtaining a Mayor’s Permit.
Former PamCham president Rene Romero has described the CSF Council ordinance as “anti-business.”
“This proposal is unfavorable for businesses, as not all require security guards. It is anti-business!,” according to Romero.
Romero said the ordinance will impact the “Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) that we supposed to represent. This is a crucial moment for the business sector, especially Pamcham members, to advocate for their interests. We pay taxes to the local government expecting services like community and business security. The government should not shift its duty of providing security onto businesses, as it is its responsibility.”
David-Carlos has urged the CSF LGU to “reconsider the ordinance and explore alternative approaches to enhance security in the city while also supporting a conducive business environment.”
David-Carlos has proposed the following alternative approaches:
- Data-Driven Approach – Analysis of crime statistics
- Tailored Security Solutions – Measures tailored to specific risk levels
- Public-Private Cooperation – Collaboration between businesses and law enforcement
- Streamlined Compliance – Partnership with security agencies
- Support for SMEs – Recognize challenges faced by SMEs
- Use of AI Against Crime – Installation of CCTV systems with Artificial Intelligence to deter crime
“We urge the City Council to engage in meaningful dialogue with the business community and other stakeholders to find a balanced and pragmatic solution to the security concerns in San Fernanco,: said David-Carlos.
“It is also essential to acknowledge the distinct roles of businessmen and government entities. Business owners drive investment, job creation, and economic growth, while the essential responsibility of maintaining peace, deterring crime, and ensuring public safety rests with the Local Government Unit and the Philippine National Police.
“Our diligent payment of taxes is a testament to our commitment to support these fundamental functions of government,” said David-Carlos.
David-Carlos has echoed the views of Romero noting the “existing businesses may choose to relocate to areas without this security guard requirement.” She added “potential new businesses might decide to establish themselves elsewhere.
This scenario would result in a significant loss for San Fernando, both in terms of business activity and economic vitality.”
Among others, the “anti-business” CSF Council ordinance will result to the following issues: Financial burden on businesses, bureaucratic complexity, contradiction with ease of doing business initiatives, potential for abuse and corruption, one-size-fits-all approach, and lack of data-driven justification.
Meanwhile, Pampanga Board Member Ananias Canlas has deplored the proposed CSF Council ordinance which “appears arbitrary and lacking a clear rationale.”
Canlas said the proposed “ordinance fails to provide any evidence or data suggesting that businesses without security guards pose a higher risk to public safety. Without a clear link between security guards and business permit issuance, this requirement may be viewed as an arbitrary burden imposed on business owners.”
Canlas also said the proposed ordinance may conflict with existing laws and regulations governing business operations noting “any inconsistencies or contradictions must be addressed to ensure legal compliance and avoid potential legal challenges.”
Among others, Canlas said the proposed ordinance’s alignment with public policy objectives must be critically evaluated citing that “while public safety is undoubtedly a priority, mandating the hiring of security guards for all businesses may not be the most effective or efficient approach.”
He also said that the matter “may raise constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the violation of business owners’ rights.”
The requirement to hire security guards as a condition for obtaining a business permit could be seen as an infringement on business owners’ freedom to manage their operations as they see fit, according to Canlas. “This potential violation of constitutional rights should be carefully considered and weighed against the intended benefits of the proposed ordinance.”