Groups seek CHR probe of Iloilo market clearings

By Juliane Judilla

ILOILO CITY — The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers Panay Law Students Chapter and the Panay Consumers Alliance have asked the Commission on Human Rights Region VI to investigate the Iloilo City government’s clearing operations against ambulant vendors.

The groups alleged that the enforcement campaign may have violated the vendors’ constitutional and human rights.

In a complaint submitted to CHR Region VI Director Jonnie L. Dabuco, the organizations sought an independent investigation into clearing operations conducted in April along Jalandoni Street in City Proper.

They also asked the commission to examine similar operations in other parts of the city.

The groups alleged that Philippine National Police personnel, including members of Special Weapons and Tactics units, repeatedly dispersed ambulant vendors and confiscated their goods alongside personnel from the Local Economic Enterprise Office.

They said many of the affected vendors depend entirely on street vending for their livelihoods.

According to the organizations, the city government cited Regulation Ordinance No. 2009-316, or the Iloilo City Market and Slaughterhouse Code, as the legal basis for the operations after the enforcement campaign drew public criticism.

While acknowledging the city’s authority to regulate vending, the groups argued that the exercise of police power must still comply with constitutional guarantees and human rights standards.

“The issue is not whether the City Government may regulate vending activities,” the organizations said.

“The issue is whether such authority has been exercised in a manner consistent with due process, human dignity, and the constitutional rights of those affected,” they added.

Based on interviews with vendors, the groups alleged that enforcement personnel immediately dispersed them and confiscated their merchandise.

They also alleged that personnel damaged property in some cases without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, or a clear process for recovering seized goods.

The groups said the reported incidents raised questions about possible violations of the constitutional rights to due process, property, and livelihood.

The organizations also questioned the timing of the intensified clearing operations, noting that they coincided with the opening of newly redeveloped public markets.

A substantial portion of the redeveloped markets operates under a public-private partnership.

“The modernization of public markets and the participation of private corporations in their operation should never come at the expense of small vendors and marginalized communities,” the organizations said.

The complaint included an incident report documenting interviews with ambulant vendors affected by the clearing operations.

According to the report, the testimonies showed an alleged recurring pattern of abrupt dispersals, confiscation of goods, and disruption of long-established livelihoods.

The report also raised concerns about the reported deployment of heavily armed law enforcement personnel, including police SWAT members, during operations involving vendors engaged in peaceful livelihood activities.

The organizations said the deployment warranted scrutiny to determine whether the enforcement measures were necessary and proportionate.

The groups asked the CHR to determine whether the city’s enforcement methods complied with the state’s obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights.

They also urged the commission to recommend rights-based enforcement mechanisms that ensure due process and prohibit the arbitrary confiscation of goods.

The groups sought transparent documentation of seized property and effective remedies and compensation for affected vendors.

They also called for consultations before the government implements measures that significantly affect livelihoods.

The NUPL Panay Law Students Chapter and the Panay Consumers Alliance maintained that urban development and public market modernization should not come at the expense of vulnerable sectors.

“Regulatory authority over public markets is not being questioned,” the organizations said.

“What is being questioned is whether that authority has been exercised in a manner that is proportionate, consistent with due process, and respectful of the rights and dignity of the people most affected by its implementation. The existence of an ordinance, by itself, does not make every act of enforcement lawful or just. Government action must always remain faithful to the Constitution and to the fundamental rights it guarantees,” they concluded.