Motorcycle uniform as per LTO

Finally, after days of searching, I came a across a motorcycle driver who has dutifully complied with the requirements of the controversial LTO regulation (AHS-2008-015).
This is the new "uniform" to be worn by all motorcycle drivers everytime they ply the highways.
When you go to church, go marketing, go to school, watch a movie, you have to wear a "uniform" outfit prescribed by the LTO regulation.
I took a picture of this compliant driver named "Bong"

Due process v. police power

The constitutional and legal battlelines have been drawn in the controversy involving the Land Transportation Office (LTO) regulation (AHS-2008-015) issued last May 15, 2008.
The state, represented by the Department of Transportation and Communications and LTO maintain the LTO regulation is a legitimate exercise of the state's police power.
Certain quarters in the community, the motorcycle-riding sector, attack the constitutionality of the LTO regulation claiming it violates the due process clause of our constitution.
Hence, the a classic tug-of-war between the state's exercise of its inherent power---police power--- and invoking the due process protections in the bill of rights.
Let use discuss the two competing interests.

Police Power

Police power has been, commonly and loosely defined as the power of the state to interefere with private rights and liberties, to promote the welfare of society.
Police power is the inherent and plenary power of the state which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.
In this case, the state through the Dep't of Transportation and the L.T.O. have issued a regulation governing the use and operation of motorcycles in the highways, basically to promote safety.
The state will have to interfere with private rights, by imposing certain (economic) requirements and inconveniences, in the use of motorcycles (like requiring use of helmets, prohibiting slippers, sandals, being barefooted, etc.), to promote the welfare of society.
Any violation of these requirements would result in fines and other penalties.

Tracing the authority

The Dep't of Transportation traces its authority in issuing the regulations from its rule-making powers.
This is provided in Executive Order 292, the revised administrative code of 1987 which specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to issue regulations. Executive Order No. 292, is a law signed by then President Cory Aquino at a time when she exercised legislative powers under a revolutionary government.

Police power is essentially legislative in nature. It is exercised by the Congress, the lawmaking body.
But this power can be delegated to agencies, like the Dep't of Transportation.
Surprisingly though, while the AHS-2008-015 expressly provides that it is issued pursuant to Executive Order 292 and the Vienna Convention, it does not refer to the national law involved, Republic Act 4136 "The Land Transportation and Traffic Code" of 1964.

Doctrine of incorporation

The state also invokes the doctrine of incorporation under international law.
This doctrine provides that international treaties and conventions of which the Phililippines is a signatory, are incorporated as part of the law of the land.
The Philippines is a signatory to the Convention on Road Traffic done in Vienna on November 8, 1968.
Being a signatory to the Vienna convention, the code also becomes part of our laws.

Thus, the state presents a strong constitutional and legal basis to uphold the validity of the controversial LTO regulation.

Aside from this, the state anchors its position on the time-honored principle that laws are presumptively constitutional.

On the other end of the spectrum, is the competing interest enshrined in the bill of rights: The peoples right to due process of law.

Police power is not unlimited

Our democratic society recognizes the state's inherent police power.
Police power, however, may not be done arbitrarily or unreasonably and could be set aside if it is either capricious, discriminatory, whimsical, arbitrary, unjust or is tantamount to a denial of due process and equal protection clauses of our constitution.

The concept of due process

Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and procedural due process.
In order that a particular act may not be impugned as violative of the due process clause, there must be compliance with both substantive and the procedural requirements thereof.

Substantive due process refers to the intrinsic validity of a law that interferes with the rights of a person to his property.
Substantive due process "requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just."

On the other hand, procedural due process means compliance with the procedures or steps, even periods, prescribed by the statute, in conformity with the standard of fair play and without arbitrariness on the part of those who are called upon to administer it. Procedural due process "refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced,"

I remember Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas shorten the entire discussion of the due process concept, in two simple questions: Is the law valid (fair, reasonable just)? Are the means reasonable?

The people against the LTO regulation attack the substantive parts of the issuance. Are the provisions of the regulation fair, reasonable and just so as to enable the law to pass the tests of constitutional validity?

Ultra vires
The LTO regulation is attacked for being "ultra vires".
Ultra vires means going beyond what the law which the LTO regulation seeks to enforce.

The helmet provision
Take for instance, the helmet provision.
The assailed LTO regulation requires the use of helmets, under pain of punishment.
If the LTO regulation merely enforces the law, what law requires the use of helmets?
I have read the lengthy vienna convention on traffic safety.
I have read Republic Act 4136 on traffic rules.
I have yet to see a provision in these laws that require the use of helmet.
Is there a law, passed by congress requiring the use of helmets?
If congress (as a matter of policy) refused to pass a law requiring the use of helmets, if the vienna convention did not require it, what legal authority has the secretary of transportation in imposing it, and providing penalties?

You can then see a series of provisions in the assailed LTO regulation that have been 'invented' by the secretary of transportation.
Among these are prohibiting slippers, sandals, or being barefooted, and providing penalties.
And yet, the LTO regulation does not prohibit step-ins, bakya, rubber shoes (which are more dangerous).
The regulation requires signal lights, while the vienna convention does not.
The penalties in the LTO regulation are way above R.A. 4136.
Where is the valid classification and reasonable distinction?
The regulation is attacked as not only being unfair, unreaonable, and unjust.
It is also attacked for being unfair to people who use slippers, or are barefooted (mostly the poor drivers)
The equal protection clause comes into play.

The questioned LTO regulation requires prior government permission for any modification made on the motorcycle, under pain of penalties.
And yet, the motorcycle is private property.
In requiring prior permission to modification, is the law fair, reasonable, and just?

One of the hallmarks in our democracy is the guarantee of due process of law.
Due process of law mandates due protection to the basic rights, inherent or accorded, of every person against harm or transgression without an intrinsically just and valid law.

Conclusion

The state's exercise of police power and the peoples right to due process, I believe are the competing interests, that is ripe for judicial determination.

The "Big Brother" syndrome

Another perspective about the controversial LTO regulation (AHS-2008-015) is the state's attempt to play "big brother" over the soveriegn people.
Commentator "noypito" advances a strong argument.
Wearing helmets protects motorcyclists.
But should the state force the wearing of helmets, under pain of punishment?
Would it not infringe on personal liberties?
How can imposiing helmets protect the "public"?
Imposing wearing of helmets on motorcyclists protects motorcycle driver or back-riders. But are the motorcyclists the "public"? Or are they merely a sector?
Isn't the "public" mainly bigger, non-motorcyling sector?
A converse analogy, I think, would be smoking cigarettes.
Smoking is harmful to one’s health. The surgeon general says so.
But why doesn’t the state totally ban smoking altogether?
Its because of respect for freedom of choice.
If you want to kill yourself go ahead, smoke.
But don't include the public with your killer instincts.
Yet, all the sate can do is ban smoking in public places, or places where the public can be affected, or ban cigarette advertising.
But the state can’t prohibit you from smoking in your own private bathroom.
If you survey the helmet laws in the US, most have helmet laws (Only four states don’t have helmet laws)
But the state helmet laws are not unreasonably sweeping.
In many US states, helmet is mandatory only on teenager-drivers.
(Age is made a factor)
Its a balancing act between the state's playing "big brother" on one hand, and respecting freedom on the other.
I can't help but remember Manoling Morato during his days as MTCRB chairman, telling people what movies to watch, and what not to watch.

Balancing police power and individual liberty

The reason why there are impassioned discussions regarding this controversial LTO regulation AHS-2008-015, is because it pricks the tension between the police power of the state, and respect for individual liberties.
A commentator, in the Negros Chronicle, "noypito" advanced the following argument, which I think, hits the core of the political discussion. He says:

"I don’t think the point here is the advantages of wearing a helmet over not wearing a helmets. It is a no brainer. Wearing a helmet is beneficial in minimizing the ods of riders getting brain injury in the event of a spill.
The question is should it be mandatory? Should the law dictate to us what we should be doing for our own good? Is the Philippines a fascist state? I should hope not. In the bill of rights of the Philippine Constitution, it is stated that we have the right to life liberty and property. they state should protect our freedom of choice. the only time the state should step in is if in our exercise of freedom, we infringe upon the freedom of others.
If I want to engage in the sports of motorcycling, I should have the right to do so. If I want to go sky diving, I should have the right to do so. The state shouldn’t dictate to me that I can’t do those things because they think it is too dangerous and that i might injure myself or die in doing those things. Same principle applies to use of helmets. I personally use a good helmet everytime I ride my bike. I don’t want the state to dictate to me that I have no choice but to wear a helmet.
If I decide not to wear a helmet, I don’t think I will be harming others in the process.
what the LTO should concentrate upon is how to keep the imcompetent drivers off the streets. It is common knowlege that anyone can easily get a driver’s license even if they don’t know how to drive. DUI is also another potential road hazzard. I believe there are exsisting laws on DUI but it is rarely being implemented.

the solution if the state would really like to promote the use of helmets in not through regulation. it should be done through education. Educate the people on the benefits of using a helmet and trust them to make the right choice".

LTO regulation: Absurd, illogical

I am inclined to seek a permanent injunction against this LTO regulation (AHS-2008-015) because, it seeks to ram through our throats certain provisions which are not only unclear, but absurd, illogical, impractical, and inapplicable to local conditions.
This LTO regulation was crafted without consulting a cross section of Philippine society, particularly the economically marginalized.
Take for example the requirement for helmets.
The LTO regulation states that: “Standard helmet” shall mean the protective helmet approved by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) with PNS-UNECE 22 marking.
Now what animal is this “PNS-UNECE 22″
Does any one know what this mean?
I myself didn’t know this, until I had to research its meaning in the internet.
PNS means “Philippine National Standard”
UNECE means “United Nations Economic Commission on Europe”
This regulation is rammed through our throats without a deliberative process so all stakeholders can participate.
This is undemocratic.
Look at the provision on “protective devices”:
“Protective devices” shall include helmet, goggles, leather boots and protective clothing such as heavy pants, heavy jackets, leather gloves and rain suit.
What is meant by “heavy pants”?
What is meant by “heavy jackets”?
So how many kilos would constitute "heavy"?
Do we have to weigh our outfits—pants and jackets—before we drive our motorcycles, so as to be compliant with the LTO regulation?
And there is an addition: “rain suit”
So try to imagine yourself, complying to-the-letter with this LTO regulation.
Try imagining yourself wearing a helmet, goggles, heavy pants (is the regulation endorsing Levi’s jeans?), a heavy jacket, leather gloves and leather boots, plus a rain suit.
How would you look?
Just try wearing them all, each time you ride your motorcycle.
Better practice it now.
There is another LTO provision that requires motorcycle drivers to turn on the headlight anytime of the day while in the highway (Section VIII).
Why will you turn on the headlight at high noon?
Can somebody explain that?
Next, there is a provision in the LTO that says:
“Any modification of the original standard design of a motorcycle or scooter shall first be subject to the approval of LTO and the DTI.”
But isn’t the motorcycle private property?
I have to ask permission from the government if I want to do something to my private property?
Suppose I want to place a basket on the front of my motorcycle below the headlight, where I can place books, grocery items, so I wouldn’t be holding them while driving. Do I have to ask permission from the government/LTO?
Suppose I want to install an anti-hand perspirant around the motorcycle's grip, because my hands easily sweat, and get slippery. Do I have to ask permission from government/LTO?
Suppose I want to install a muffler to lessen the noise of the motorcycle. Do I have to ask permission from the government/LTO?
There are some people who love to just follow
any government regulation hook-line-and-sinker, no matter how absurd and illogical.
Well, I respect them.
They probably are fans of the governments of China, and monarchies ruled by dictators and kings like Saudi Arabia.
But not in the Philippines, my friend.
The people here demand that they be allowed to join in the deliberative processes, in the formulation of laws and regulations.
People here are allowed to question, to reason, to discuss, to debate in the marketplace of ideas, so we can come up with better laws.
Why, we can even freely write our comments on websites, like the the Negros Chronicle.
Try doing that in Egypt or China and chances are, you’ll be jailed.
It has happened to bloggers there.
That is the reason why I question this LTO regulation because most of its provisions do not make sense to me.
Don’t make me follow a regulation that cannot be understood.
Don’t make me follow a regulation that is devoid of reason and logic.
Don’t make me follow a regulation that is vague.
It just doesn’t happen in the Philippines.

Leather boots to drive a motorcycle?

In the Philippines, you have to have a pair of leather boots before you can drive a motorcycle.
This is the implication of a new administrative regulation issued by the Land Transportation Office AHS-2008-015.
This LTO administrative issuance is titled RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE AND OPERATION OF MOTORCYCLES ON HIGHWAYS.
Under this regulation, drivers will be punished with fine "For wearing of flip flops, sandals or slippers or being bare footed while operating motorcycle or scooter on a road or highway"
The regulation does not, however, give any relevant explanation as to why flip-flops, sandals, or slippers or being barefooted is prohibited.
Neither does the regulation explain how wearing flip-flops, sandals, slippers or being bear footed would have any effect on safety on the road.
Meanwhile, the LTO regulation specifically lists down the outfit that are described as "protectived devices" to be worn by motorcycle drivers.
Section I No. 7 states: “Protective devices” shall include helmet, goggles, leather boots and protective clothing such as heavy pants, heavy jackets, leather gloves and rain suit.
There is a principle that what is not prohibited, is allowed.
So, if only flip-flops, slippers, sandals, or being barefooted are prohibited, are rubber shoes allowed?
What about leather shoes? what about step-ins, bakya, high-heels, crocs (to be a little fashionable)? Aren’t these more dangerous when worn driving a motorcycle?
Where is the rational distinction and valid classification?
Honestly, I find this LTO regulation vague.
Its not clear to me. Its clear as mud.
Any law--much less any regulation--that is vague is void (void-for-vagueness principle).
This is because it drives the people groping in the dark and confused as to how to comply with a law or regulation.

LTO Administrative Order AHS 2008-015 is anti-poor, discriminatory

With all due respect to our executive officials in the LTO and the national government, the Administrative Order regulating the operation of motorcycles in the country (AHS 2008-015) is patently unconstitutional, therefore invalid on its face.
It violates the due process, and equal protection clauses of our constitution.
More important, it is discriminatory.
There is a civil code provision which says that administrative regulations (like AHS-2008-015) are valid only when they are not contrary to the constitution.
I am very much alarmed at the formulation of this administrative order for it obviously did not hear many of our poor Filipinos, specially those in the rural country-sides.
It is appears to me that our poor rural folks have again been disregarded in the formulation of executive policies.
I am specifically referring, and taking the cudgels of the operators or drivers of habal-habal, and their passengers, patrons, customers, who rely on habal-habal as their only mode of transport to carry on their daily lives.
Priority should be for our brother Filipinos in the remote towns, who for the large part of this democratic system, have remained voiceless in the formulation of policies and laws.
The LTO administrative regulation totally forgets the words of the late President Magsaysay that “those who have less in life must have more in law”

What is the habal-habal?

For the information of our elitist policy makers in imperial Manila, there is a mode of transport in the vast rural and remote barrios in country called “Habal-habal”.
This mode of transport uses motorcycles, which is now the subject of regulation of AHS-2008-015.
Habal-habal is the principal, if not the only mode of transport availed of by our brother and sisters (yes, they are also Filipinos) in the hinterlands.
Where the buses, jeepneys , and tricycles no longer dare to tread due to the absence of any roads, owing largely to government non-feasance, it is the habal-habal which people rely on for transport.
The habal-habal comes to the rescue in places where government’s basic services of good roads and transport are absent.
The habal-habal is a principal component of the economic progress in the hinterlands.
The habal-habal, aside from transporting passengers, also transport, sacks of rice, basic food commodities like sugar, salt, flour, sari-sari store items, even pigs and poultry stuff.
That is reality out there.

Prejudicial to the poorer Filipinos


Here comes AHS-2008-015 which virtually eliminates the habal-habal, and annihilate them from existence because of heavy fines and penalties in the government regulation.
Imagine the prohibitions:
The LTO administrative regulation punishes those who use slippers, sandals, or are barefooted.
The LTO wants the habal-habal drivers to use “leather boots”.
Many of these drivers are on a hand-to-mouth existence.
Now the government wants them to drive motorcycles using “leather boots”.
Isn't this crazy?

“Protective devices”

The LTO regulation mentions protective gears for motorcycle drivers, namely: helmet, goggles, leather boots and protective clothing such as heavy pants, heavy jackets, leather gloves and rain suit
Now, how does the government expect the country’s, motorcycle drivers, let alone the finanacially marginalized habal-habal operators and drivers to afford these requirements described as "protective devices"?
Did the government ever think of the economic welfare of the habal-habal operators when they crafted this regulation?


No cargo allowed

According to this LTO regulation “The motorcycle or scooter shall not carry cargo other than the saddle bags or luggage carriers specifically designed and approved by the DTI”.
This provision will virtually put the habal-habal industry into extinction.
Have our government policy makers even seen a habal-habal?
A habal-habal is always modified to allow it to carry cargo like sacks of rice, flour, corn, basic staple, etc.
Will the government now disallow habal-habal from carrying these cargo?
What alternative transporter is the government giving to our brothers and sisters in the hinterlands?

Only one passenger allowed

Another provision that will render the habal-habal as an endangered specie is the requirement of only a single passenger.
Again, did the government and the LTO ever consider the reality in the remote barrios where the habal-habal motors have to carry several passengers for a fee?
If only one passenger is allowed, how will the habal-habal industry survive?
How can the people in the hinterlands live in mobility if only one passenger is allowed for habal-habal?
Does the government have any alternative?

Prohibitive penalty for habal-habal

If this LTO regulation is implemented, the habal-habal driver will have to pay the following penalties on the initial apprehension:
(1) failure to wear helmet: P1,500
(2) for carrying more than one passenger P1,000
(3) For modifying their motors P2,000
(4) For wearing slippers (or being barefooted) while driving P500

Thus at the very least, each habal-habal drivers stand to pay P5,000 for the initial offense.

Conclusion

I maintain the position that LTO regulation AHS-2008-015 is unconstitutional and invalid for violating the due process, and equal protection clauses of our constitution.
A significant number of Filipinos, the habal-habal operators/drivers, and the poor customers in the remote barrios have been deprived of their opportunity to be heard of their concerns.
The LTO regulation is highly oppressive against our humble, lowly and poorer bothers and sisters living in the remote parts of our country who solely rely on the habal habal as their only mode of transport.
The LTO regulation does not address the concerns of the poor and the voiceless sectors who are affected.
The equal protection clause proceeds from a belief that all men are created equal.
But this LTO regulation treats a poorer sector --- the habal-habal operators and patrons--- differently.
Many of habal-habal drivers make a living barefooted. Many of them, out of poverty, wear rotten slippers in going to work.
But the government penalizes them, through this LTO regulation.
In other words, the habal-habal drivers are punished for being poor.
The LTO regulation terribly discriminates against the poor.

I think this LTO regulation must be scrapped.

I am contemplating initiating a class suit against this unconstitutional administrative issuance in behalf of not only the habal habal operators and drivers, but the poor, ordinary passengers, whose impoverished conditions in the far-flung barrios would be worsened if the government enforces the regulation against the habal habals, and eventually exterminate them out of existence.


Credits for the pictures:
www.bigjimsphilippinesexperience.com
www.mynewhorizon.net
www.gerelynsweetmemories.blogspot.com

The "Helmet" Administrative Order

The "Helmet" administrative issuance has become controversial among many sectors and in the country.
Let me just clarify that the helmet regualtions are just part of the administrative issuance, which tackles generally the operation of motorcycles.
I am posting the full text of Administrative Order No. AHS 2008-015 titiled "RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE AND OPERATION OF MOTORCYCLES ON HIGHWAYS".
I have to credit the website of XRM Bikers Club Philippines http://xrmbikersclub.forumakers.com from where I got the text.
(I had a hard time retrieving a copy of the said issuance from the LTO website itself).
Here is the text:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS
LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE
East Avenue, Quezon City

E-mail Address: Ilombox@lto.gov.ph – Website: www.lto.gov.ph
15 May 2008

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. AHS-2008-015
Subject: RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE AND OPERATION OF MOTORCYCLES ON HIGHWAYS

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 292 otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 and the United Nations Vienna Convention for Road Traffic of 1968 to which the Philippines is a signatory, and in accordance with Department Order No. 93-693, series of 1992, the following rules and regulations shall govern the use and operation of motorcycles on roads and highways.

Section I. Definition of Terms. As used in these Rules:

1. “Driver” shall mean every and any licensed operator or rider of a motorcycle or scooter.

2. “Electrical accessories” shall mean the horn, brake, headlight and turn signals of a motorcycle or scooter.

3. “Highways” shall mean every public thoroughfare, public boulevard, driveway, avenue, park, alley, callejon, but shall not include roadway upon grounds owned by private persons, colleges, universities, or other similar institutions.

4. “Lane splitting” shall mean using or sharing a lane already occupied by one vehicle by another vehicle such as a motorcycle or scooter in a road or highway.

5. “Motorcycle” shall mean two-wheeled motor vehicle having one or two riding saddles.

6. “Passenger” shall mean the back rider of a motorcycle or scooter.

7. “Protective devices” shall include helmet, goggles, leather boots and protective clothing such as heavy pants, heavy jackets, leather gloves and rain suit.

8. “Standard helmet” shall mean the protective helmet approved by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) with PNS-UNECE 22 marking.

9. “School for motorcycle riders” shall mean any and all motorcycle riding school accredited by the Land Transportation Office.

10. “Saddle bag” shall mean the Department of Trade and Industry approved built-in carrier of luggage in a motorcycle.

11. “Temporary Operator’s Permit” shall mean the citation ticket issued by LTO deputized agents to those who violates these Rules and Regulations.

Section II. Compulsory Registration of Motorcycles and Scooters. All motorcycles and scooters used or operated on any highway of the Philippines must be registered with the Land Transportation Office for the current year, in accordance with R.A. No. 4136, as amended.

Section III. Use of Number Plates. Every motorcycle or scooter shall, at all times, display in conspicuous places, the reflective number plates issued by the Land Transportation Office (LTO).

The number plates shall be kept clean and shall be firmly affixed to the motor vehicle in such a manner as will make it entirely visible and legible.

Section IV. Duty of Driver/Rider to have License. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate any motor vehicle without a valid license to drive a motor vehicle.

The license with Restriction Code No. 1 shall be carried by the driver/rider at all times when operating a motorcycle or scooter, and shall be shown and/or surrendered for cause to and upon demand by any person authorized under R.A. No. 4136 as amended, to confiscate the same.

Section V. Speed Limit. The uniform speed limit for nationwide application as provided under Sec. 35, Article I, Chapter IV of R.A. No. 4136 is hereby incorporated as part of these Rules as follows:

“Section 35. Restriction as to speed. – (a) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed, not greater not less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, the width of the highway, and or any other condition then and there existing, and no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb and properly of any person, not at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.

(b) subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the rate of speed of any motor vehicle shall not exceed the following:

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SPEEDS


Passenger cars Motor trucks and
and motorcycles buses

1. On open country roads,
with no “blind corner” not 80 kms. per 50 kms. per
closely bordered by hour hour
habitations.

2. On “through streets” or 40 kms. per 30 kms. per
boulevards clear of traffic hour hour
with no “blind corners”
when so designated.

3. On city and municipal 30 kms. per 30 kms. per
streets, wit light traffic, hour hour
when not designated
“through streets.”

4. Through crowded streets, 20 kms. per 20 kms. per
approaching intersections hour hour
at “blind corners,” passing
school zones, passing
other vehicles which are
stationary, or for similar
dangerous circumstances.

Section VI. Passenger and Cargo Load. Only one (1) back rider shall be allowed on a motorcycle or scooter who must be provided with a seat and footrest.
The motorcycle or scooter shall not carry cargo other than the saddle bags or luggage carriers specifically designed and approved by the DTI.

Section VII. Wearing of Standard Helmet. It shall be the duty of the motorcycle or scooter driver/rider to ensure that he/she and the back rider wear standard helmets.

Section VIII. Motorcycle and Scooter Accessories. Motorcycles or scooters shall be equipped with required accessories such as headlight, tail light, signal light, brake light, side mirror and horn.

The driver/rider shall, anytime of the day, switch on the headlight of the motorcycle or scooter while it is being operated on the highway. He shall dim the headlight or lower the beam whenever the motorcycle or scooter is being operated on well-lighted streets within the limits of cities, municipalities, and thickly populated barrios or districts, or whenever it meets another vehicle along a highway.

Any modification of the original standard design of a motorcycle or scooter shall first be subject to the approval of LTO and the DTI.

Section IX. Miscellaneous Traffic Rules.

a) No driver/rider shall operate a motorcycle or scooter while under the influence of liquor or narcotic drug.

b) The driver/rider shall not use a cellular phone or other gadgets while operating a motorcycle or scooter.

c) A driver/rider shall observe the rule and on one lane per one vehicle only. Lane splitting is prohibited along a road or a highway. Motorcycles or scooters shall not be operated on sidewalks.

Section X. Accreditation of Motorcycle Riding School. Any person may establish a motorcycle riding school according to law, provided accreditation is secured from the LTO.

The LTO may waive the practical driving test for a student permit holder applying for driver’s license with Restriction Code No. 1 who has completed a rider’s course from a LTO accredited motorcycle riding school, provided the certificate of completion and graded results of the riding test of said applicant are submitted to the LTO.

Section XI. Penal and other Provisions. The following fines/penalties shall be imposed against those who violated these Rules and Regulations.

a) For failure of driver/rider and/or back rider to wear prescribed helmet, a fine of One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P1,500.00) with accessory penalty of driver/rider attending a seminar or traffic safety management to be conducted by the LTO.

b) For carrying more passengers other than the back rider or cargo other than the saddle bags and luggage carriers, fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).

c) For defective accessories such as headlight, tail light, signal light, brake light, side mirror and horn, a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).

d) For modifying any part of the original designs of a motorcycle or scooter without approval of the LTO and the DTI, a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00).

e) For wearing of flip flops, sandals or slippers or being bare footed while operating motorcycle or scooter on a road or highway, a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) for the first offense, Seven Hundred Pesos (P700.00) for the second offense and a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and revocation of drivers license for the third offense.

Section XII. Repealing Clause. All previous orders and issuances inconsistent herewith are revoked and superseded.

Section XIII. Separability. If any provision of these Rules and Regulation of the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of these Rules and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances not be affected thereby.

Section XIV. Effectivity. These Rules shall take effect after fifteen (15) days upon publication in a newspaper or national general circulation and a copy hereof furnished the UP Law Center.