But then again there are those who would not take this sitting down. Go on pops, tell 'em their fly's open.
Here's a juicy bit from Jobert Bolanos a.k.a. click-me over at MCP. It's worth the read:Motorcycle group to fight LTO's AO 2008-015
An association of motorcycle enthusiasts in the city is preparing to seek remedy from the court should the Land Transportation Office (LTO) will impose Administrative Order 2008-015 prescribing the rules and regulations for the use and operation of motorcycles on highways comes September 1, 2008.
City Councilor Antonio Pesina said the Ultimate Motorcycle Association sought his assistance to contest the implementation of the order particularly on the section which prohibits "modification of the original standard design of a motorcycle or scooter.
Section VII, Paragraph 3 of the AO states that "any modification of the original standard design of a motorcycle or scooter shall first be subject to the approval of LTO and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)." Modified motorcycles not approved by the DTI would be fined P2,000.
Pesina said the particular section is "unconstitutional." It deprives the owner to enjoy his motorcycle. Also, Pesina said, the fines imposed in the said AO are too much. The group would be compelled to seek relief from the court if the LTO pushes through with its implementation next week, he said.
Pesina stressed that the modification of the motorcycle will not affect the safety of the driver and the passenger. They should focus more on the safety if the same order was indeed meant to protect the driver and passenger. The gray areas in the AO must be cleared before its implementation on September 1, said Pesina.
There are owners who want to modify their motorcycle units depending on their needs. He said there are owners who want to replace their side mirrors to give better view as they traverse the streets. The replacement of side mirrors will not pose danger to the lives of the drivers and passengers. It will even be a part of their safety measures, he said.
Meanwhile, the group maintains that there is no question with the LTO's directive to used to use protective gears when riding motorcycles. However, there should be clear cut instruction regarding the wearing of helmets and there must be consideration on the imposition on the use of other protective clothing as stated in the AO.
As provided in the AO those caught without helmets would be fined P1,500; motorcycles with excessive passengers and cargo would be fined P1,000. Those with defective accessories would be fined P1,000. While, Motorcycle riders not wearing protective devices would be fined P500 for the first offense, P700 for the second offense and P1,000 plus revocation of drivers license for the third offense.
Pesina observed that the drivers understand that importance of using protective devices to protect themselves.
Earlier, LTO regional director Gerard Camiña said they will be implementing AO 2008-015 starting September 1 despite strong protests from motorcycle owners.
Camiña emphasized that the AO 2008-015 is for the safety of motorcycle riders. He said they are merely implementing the order which came from the LTO central office.
Camiña said the AO was supposed to have been implemented last June yet but they moved it to September in order to give time for massive information dissemination.
*lifted from The News Today
Another defense against the LTO AO that can be raised at adjudication is that it exceeds the mandate of the DOTC and LTO.
Under Executive Order No. 125-A (http://www.lawphil.net/executive/exe...25_a_1987.html), the DOTC/LTO has no lawmaking power with respect to laws governing land transportation:
"(o) Establish and prescribe the corresponding rules and regulations for the enforcement of laws governing land transportation, air transportation and postal services, including the penalties for violations thereof, and for the deputation of appropriate law enforcement agencies in pursuance thereof;"
The DOTC/LTO's role is clearly limited to issuing implementing rules and regulations to existing transportation laws (e.g., RA 4136). Specific provisions in the LTO AO clearly introduce rules that do not exist as national laws. Just some examples:
(1) Section VI - This is entirely new law!
(2) Section VIII - Headlight always on is again entirely new law.
(3) Section IX.b and c - New law.
(4) Section VIII - No modification rule is new law.
(5) Section 1.h - New law.
In bringing up the matter at adjudication, I would simply call the attention of the hearing officer to the limitations spelled out in EO 125-A with respect to the DOTC/LTO's lawmaking power.
Brief the riders to expect that the apprehending officers will not show up in the first and second hearings. I understand that the hearing rules dictate the the apprehending officers are given up to three notices to attend the hearings. Not responding to the first two notices is part of their delaying and intimidation tactic. They hope that the motorist will be too discouraged to pursue the case by the second or third hearing and no longer attend. Should the riders make it to the third hearing, expect that the hearing officer will delay making a decision if they know that the riders are in the right. Under the rules, they have thirty days from final hearing to render their decision. Again, the riders should not be discouraged by this "delay" as there are legal ways to work the system to their favor. For example, the riders are always free to claim their licenses (if they do not have the TVR's license validity extended by LTO-LETAS) at anytime by paying the fines under protest; this means the hearing officers are still required to come out with a decision on their case, and if not, the hearing officers can be held liable under the rules and other laws (e.g., the newly issued Anti-Red Tape Law).
The riders should always remember that the system survives and thrives on the ignorance and impatience of the citizenry with respect to understanding the rules that operate it. If the riders choose to arm themselves with knowledge and exercise patience, the system (especially a corrupt one) will collapse on itself. With hundreds, if not thousands, of riders filing for adjudication, it will likely cost the Government more to hear all the cases than it could earn even if all the cases were eventually decided in favor of the Government.
