‘One expensive fish does not define Bohol’

Architect defends Bohol amid tourism price debate

The viral ₱1,650 pompano that sparked a debate over the cost of vacationing in Bohol is now drawing a strong defense from within the province.

Boholano architect and digital creator Dodong Arambala pushed back against the suggestion that one expensive restaurant meal could be used to portray Bohol as an overpriced destination—or explain the province’s sharp decline in tourist arrivals.

“One expensive fish does not define Bohol,” Arambala declared in a Facebook post.

His reaction came after a Threads post by a Boholana went viral for complaining about a ₱1,650 pompano she ordered at a hotel or resort in Panglao. She argued that expensive food, accommodations, tours and airfare were among the reasons tourists were turning away from Bohol.

The discussion gained particular significance because Bohol recorded a 59.3-percent year-on-year decline in tourist arrivals in the first quarter of 2026, from 417,142 to 170,016.

But Arambala said connecting the two too readily is misleading.

‘Correlation is not causation’

“A ₱1,650 pompano served inside one hotel or resort may certainly be questioned,” Arambala wrote, saying the establishment should disclose its prices, serving size, preparation and other charges.

If customers were deceived or abused, he said, the particular business should be identified and held accountable.

“But using one restaurant bill to portray the whole of Bohol as overpriced and blame it for a province-wide decline in tourism is unfair, misleading and irresponsible,” he said.

Arambala argued that Panglao caters to different budgets, ranging from luxury resorts and beachfront restaurants to homestays, carinderias and local eateries.

“A premium resort price cannot be treated as the standard price everywhere in Bohol, just as the price of one restaurant in BGC does not represent the entire cost of visiting Manila,” he said.

He also challenged comparisons between Bohol and cheaper destinations such as Vietnam, noting differences in labor costs, taxation, transportation, supply chains and economies of scale.

More importantly, Arambala stressed that the tourism figures themselves do not establish why visitor numbers fell.

“Correlation is not causation,” he wrote, saying airfare, flight availability, international market conditions, seasonal factors and even tourism data collection should be examined before drawing conclusions.

‘Do not put the whole of Bohol on trial’

Arambala did not dismiss complaints about high prices altogether.

He said Bohol should improve price transparency, transportation choices, service quality and value for money, while authorities should act against establishments found deceiving or exploiting customers.

But he appealed for criticism to be directed at businesses responsible for questionable practices rather than at the province as a whole.

“Bohol is more than one fish, one restaurant or one viral complaint,” he said. “It is the livelihood of thousands of honest workers, farmers, fishermen, drivers, guides and small entrepreneurs.”

His challenge was straightforward: “Name the establishment. Show the menu. Examine the complete bill. Verify the tourism data. Do not put the whole of Bohol on trial because of one pompano.”

The exchange has now turned what began as a complaint about a costly fish into a broader debate over two legitimate concerns: whether tourists are getting fair value for their money—and whether viral anecdotes are enough to characterize an entire destination.

For Arambala, Bohol can accept criticism without accepting a sweeping verdict.

“We will correct what needs correcting, but we will not allow one expensive fish to define our entire island.”

READ: