COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED “CLEAN RIDERS ORDINANCE OF 2019”

After reading the proposed “CLEAN RIDERS ORDINANCE OF 2019”, I already noticed some
provision that might raise questions regarding some of the possible violations of the 1987 Constitution,
the paramount law of the land, from which all laws, ordinances, executive orders, administrative orders,
and proclamations should conform.

Section 8 of the said proposed imposes fines, from P5,000, P10,000 and up to P15,000,
depending on the number of times the said offence has been violated. In this, oppositors might question
the heftiness of the fine being higher than the fine imposed in other traffic infractions. While the said
proposed ordinance did not category say that it prohibits the travelling motorist from other cities
around and outside our city, the said ordinance shall affect them as well. To avoid the said fines they will
be forced traverse a different route that may cause undue and added hassle to them.

With said observation, the proposed ordinance might violate Section1, Article III of the
Constitution, which states that, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.

x x x. If the law itself unreasonably deprives a person of his life, liberty, or property, he
is denied the protection of due process. If the enjoyment of his rights is conditioned on an
unreasonable requirement, due process is likewise violated. Whatsoever be the source of such
rights, be it the Constitution itself or merely a statute, its unjustified withholding would also be a
violation of due process. Any government act that militates against the ordinary norms of justice
or fair play is considered an infraction of the great guaranty of due process; and this is true
whether the denial involves violation merely of the procedure prescribed by the law or affects
the very validity of the law itself.( Supreme Court)

The proposed ordinance may be taken by motor cycle riders as unreasonable requirement that
is imposed upon them, above and beyond the requirements already imposed by the national
government through the Land Transportation Office, which serve the same purpose, which is to
ascertain the identity of the owner of the motorcycle.

Also, the said proposed ordinance did not show any proof that the mandatory additional
requirement could eliminate crime or ensure the safety and security of the city. The only possible
positive thing about the proposed ordinance is the amount of funds it can collect, which is also not
germane to its purpose, which is ensure the safety and security of the city.