To be perfectly candid, the “Safer Cities” initiative of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) does not make sense. Why its Secretary, Jonvic Remulla, came up with it in the first place is outrageously insane, considering there are far more serious problems that deserve focus and critical attention.

This is not to say the “program” is inherently wrong or flawed. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, it could be part of a long-term plan that could help restore order and safety in Metro Manila.

Imposing curfews on minors, for instance, is not necessarily unlawful. It can be valid, says the Court, once certain conditions are present. Among these is providing adequate exemptions in order to protect minors’ right to freedom of movement. So clearly, it is not bad. As an ordinance, it can actually help promote public safety for as long as it only limits rights to the extent necessary to achieve its goal.

On the other hand, imposing a prohibition on public drinking, smoking, noisy, and other disruptive behavior is well within the ambit of the State’s exercise of police power. And yes, that also includes appearing topless in public places.

The problem, though, with this program is the timing and the manner in which it is being implemented. In the midst of a debilitating energy crisis, why should the government expend its strictly limited resources arresting topless “tambays” in the neighborhood instead?

To be honest, a contentious program like this should be carefully thought through, considering it is prone to abuse and violative of certain rights and freedoms. In the instant case, though, it is as if the honorable secretary just woke up one day and impulsively decided to pursue it. Clearly, he did not think it through. Otherwise, he would not have done it in the first place.

Certainly, this is a pure case of misguided priority, plain and simple. It disproportionately targets the most vulnerable and is clearly punitive, at least based on how the police have so far been “apprehending” targeted individuals.

This is the kind of initiative that one cannot just pursue on a whim. It requires careful planning and seamless integration as part and parcel of a much larger peace-and-order program.

Secretary Remulla has been saying this is not really anti-poor. But by targeting informal workers, street vendors, and residents in low-income areas rather than addressing serious crime, it is blatantly a “crackdown on the poor.” No more. No less.