Oplan Bulabog nets 579 Cebu City violators
CEBU CITY, Philippines — Cebu City policemen apprehended 579 quarantine violators in three days of Oplan Bulabog, majority of which were curfew violators.
Police Lieutenant Colonel Wilbert Parilla, deputy director for operations of Cebu City Police Office (CCPO), said that 385 out of the 579 violators were caught violating curfew during the Oplan Bulabog conducted from August 6 to 8.
Parilla said that curfew in the city would start from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m.
He also said that the rest of the violators were caught not wearing face masks.
He attributed the increase in violators to either complacency of the Cebu City residents or their tight implementation of the quarantine protocols especially since the city had been placed under modified enhanced community quarantine starting August 1 until August 15.
Despite this, Parilla said they would continue in their information awareness campaign through their daily recorrida in the city.
He said they would also continue to provide assessment reports about the city’s situation to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
Aside from that with the assessment reports from police station chiefs in the city, they could then find out what the situation on the ground was and zero in on problems and take action to address them.
Again, Parilla appeals to the public to follow health protocols as their cooperation would help lessen the COVID-19 cases in Cebu City.
As of August 8, according to the Department of Health in Central Visayas, Cebu City has 200 new cases bringing its total active cases to 3,640.
RELATED STORIES
Mandaue City to continue penalizing health protocol violators
Cebu City police focus on net cafes amid increase of rescued minors
Police chief: 1K Lapu-Lapu violators caught for not wearing face masks
Oplan Bulabog nets 400 MECQ violators so far in Cebu City
/dbs
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.