‘Be more transparent on security’
Police have yet to disclose any specific security risk during the Sinulog, but for some netizens and ordinary Cebuanos, the mounting concern about security deserves more explanation from authorities.
For instance, why do phone signals have to be cut off for two days? Are there serious security threats that merit the shutdown of telecommunication lines? More importantly, what are these threats?
"I think the public deserves greater transparency of the threat level and alert state systems adopted by the PNP and (Cebu) City. Officials should consider what messages about the level of the threat or alert state could usefully be conveyed," wrote lawyer Ethelbert Ouano, professor at the University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law, in his Facebook account yesterday.
"Keeping the public in the dark breeds fear and uncertainty; it is like letting the terrorists win," he said.
Ouano said the government should recognize that the public is its partner in the fight against terrorism.
The Cebu City police, however, yesterday maintained there was no threat whatsoever.
Senior Superintendent Joel Doria, Cebu City Police Office director, discounted reports that circulated on social media about the presence of terrorists to supposedly carry out attacks during the Sinulog grand parade this Sunday.
He said they have not received similar information from their intelligence unit.
He advised the public to check the sources and stop disseminating unverified information to prevent panic.
Doria believed that the information circulating online was a hoax, although he made it clear that authorities are not putting their guards down, as he assured they would look into the report.
"I-check natin ang source. Hindi tayo maging complacent about that we have to validate. Walang dapat ikatakot. Ang kapulisan ay suportado ng AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) and other agencies," he said.
Meanwhile, the National Telecommunications Commission's decision to switch off cell sites this Saturday and Sunday drew mixed reactions from netizens. Those against the move raised the issue of connectivity in dire times, such as during emergencies and untoward incidents.
"Definitely feels sketchy to shut (the cell sites) down. By shutting down cell signals, you pretty much cut off access to emergency services," said college student Thomas Leonard Shaw.
He said the shutdown might even allow terrorists better freedom to move around, with people unable to report suspicious activity to the police. It may also cause failure in bringing services together fast enough in the case of a major bombing. (Thousands of policemen, though, would be deployed all throughout the Sinulog route.)
Angela-Aldo Dizon, another social media user, said, "We should preserve the sanctity and holiness of the celebration. So yes, people did not have any mobile phones then and we were able to have fun. However, we may need to increase booths focusing on assistance for any missing items or kids. Safety and understanding what the celebration is for should be the priority."
As for those advocating for the signal blackout, they said giving up that freedom sometimes may be necessary to ensure safety.
"When we board airplanes, we don't invoke the right to communication through cellphones because we know that it will affect
DAY 9
the air navigation system. Temporarily giving up our freedom of communication for the sake of our own safety on board a long-haul flight happens every so often, and we are ok with it even if we still need to check up on what's happening to our loved ones at home or elsewhere during these times," saidAhmed Cuizon, Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board-7 director.
"If it is standard practice during flights, I don't see any reason why we can't adopt the same during the Sinulog," he said.