During the Baguio City Council’s special session on June 10, 2026, the proposed environmental user’s fee (EUF) for Baguio City faced scrutiny as City Council members and stakeholders raised concerns over its legal basis, economic impact, implementation mechanics, and scope of coverage.
Lobbied by the City Environment and Parks Management Office (CEPMO), the ordinance seeking to impose a P150.00 fee on visitors to fund environmental protection, sanitation, tourism management, and visitor infrastructure, drew mixed reactions from the private sector and local lawmakers.
The proposed P150.00 environmental user’s fee, valid for 10 days, is intended to grant tourists priority access to designated tourism sites and attractions, as well as exclusive discounts and promotional offers from partner establishments. It also covers access to special tourism programs and curated local experiences.
Exemptions will be granted to residents and students of Baguio and the BLISTT area, as well as individuals traveling for official business or specific purposes such as medical, legal, government, or employment-related concerns, subject to validation.
Under the proposed collection system, authorized agents including accredited accommodations, online platforms, tourism gateways, and tour operators will facilitate payment and remittance to the City Treasurer’s Office. They will likewise be required to submit periodic reports on visitor numbers and collected fees to both the City Treasurer’s Office and the City Tourism Office.
The VISITA platform will serve as the central hub for registration, payment, and validation, allowing secure, efficient, and contactless processing of the fee prior to check-in or entry.
Van Payno, a representative from the Hotel and Restaurant Association of Baguio (HRAB), cautioned that the proposed measure may place an additional burden on accommodation establishments which would be tasked with collecting and remitting the fee.
Payno said hotels already comply with existing taxes and regulatory fees including occupancy-related collections and warned that the EUF could increase operational costs, particularly small establishments.
She also described the P150.00 EUF as potentially excessive given the city’s current economic conditions, inflation rates, and recovery challenges in the tourism sector and warned that additional fees could discourage travel to Baguio City and may push visitors toward unregulated or informal accommodation options.
Members of the City Council flagged several legal and operational issues in the draft ordinance, particularly the broad definition of “tourist” and “visitor” which could include individuals visiting for medical treatment, legal proceedings, examinations, or short-term business activities. They stressed that the inclusion of such categories may require clearer exemptions to avoid unintended coverage and possible legal disputes.
Councilors also questioned the practicality in enforcement of the proposed “primary purpose test” used to determine whether a visitor is covered by the fee. They likewise pointed out the need to clearly distinguish the EUF from existing taxes such as the hotel occupancy tax, with some warning against possible duplication of revenue measures.
The reliance on digital platforms, particularly the Baguio VISITA website, also came under discussion. While CEPMO argued that an electronic system would improve transparency and reduce under-declaration, councilors raised questions about coverage, especially for visitors staying in private residences or unregistered accommodations.
Concerns were likewise raised about safeguards ensuring full remittance of collected fees to the city government.
Furthermore, City Council members emphasized that environmental user fees must be strictly tied to conservation objectives to withstand legal scrutiny. Councilor Peter Fianza noted that portions of the proposed ordinance include tourism management and sanitation functions which are typically funded through general revenues rather than earmarked environmental charges.
The discussion also referenced legal principles related to livelihood and constitutional rights, with warnings that overly broad application of fees could face legal challenges.
Amid concerns and questions raised, the City Council directed the executive department to further refine the proposal, particularly in defining the coverage, exemptions, and enforcement mechanisms.
The City Council likewise called for strengthening provisions on penalties, appeals, and administrative procedures, including clearer timelines for resolving contested fines.
The proposed ordinance will undergo further review through an executive-legislative meeting on June 22, 2026. Stakeholders from the private sector were also asked to submit formal position papers.
Further deliberations are expected to continue before the proposal is calendared for final discussion in June 2026. **Jordan G. Habbiling
