City enforces CCTV, helmet ordinance
NO TRO ISSUED
MOTORCYCLE riders passing through the city’s main streets are now subject to the enforcement of the helmet ordinance of Dagupan City.
After meeting resistance initially from the regional office of the Land Transportation Authority and the filing of a civil case against the city government, the Dagupan City government is set to enforce the provisions of the controversial closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras and helmet ordinance.
This means, the police and traffic enforcers can compel motorcycle riders and their back riders who are required to wear helmets, to identify themselves fully at checkpoints by removing their helmets.
City Legal Officer George Mejia, a retired judge, confirmed that the ordinance titled “Ordinance instituting Certain Security Measures for the Protection of the Lives and Property of Dagupeños, which was instituted to deter criminals from committing any crimes against any person in Dagupan,” has legal basis and sees no further legal obstruction for its enforcement.
Earlier, the civil case filed by Atty. Victor Llamas Jr., himself a retired judge, a city resident and a motorcycle rider himself, decided to withdraw his petition for the issuance of temporary restraining order while retaining his petition for declaration of nullity with preliminary injunction and after the court hearing in Branch 42 of the regional trial court here presided by Judge Tolentino Dumlao.
Mejia clarified before the court the intent and interpretation of the sections in the ordinance that Llamas protested against.
Llamas cited section 4 and 5 of the ordinance no. 2013-2014 as “contravening the republic act 10054 or the National Helmet Law.”
The section reads: “All motorcycle riders, including drivers, back riders, who are required to wear standard protective motorcycle helmets while driving in any type of road and highway pursuant to the Section 3 of the republic act 10054 are hereby required to remove their helmets upon entering and while within the city limits of Dagupan City to identify themselves and submit to a reasonable search by authorized Philippine National Police (PNP) personnel.”
“While Section 5 states the amendment of section 4 of ordinance 1922-2008, wherein the motorcycle drivers and their passengers are exempted from wearing helmet during parades and processions. They are likewise mandated to remove the same at authorized checkpoints by law enforcement agencies; provided that motor vehicle riders with speed limit below 15 kilometers per hour are likewise exempt from wearing helmets at the Central business district.”
Mejia pointed out that “the city recognizes that RA 10054 is an act by the congress and only the congress can repel or amend this law, that’s why we are certain that the ordinance does not repel or amend the national law.”
He said the sections referred to in the ordinance do not contravene the national law since in the ordinance specifically mandates the motorcycle riders and back riders to remove their protective helmets upon the request of authorities in checkpoint areas to identify themselves for the general welfare of the public.
“When they (riders) enter the city they should wear their helmets otherwise they will be caught but when the police personnel ask them to remove their helmet to identify themselves, they should follow and remove their helmets voluntarily. If they refuse to do so, then that is where the ordinance comes in”, said Mejia.
This was confirmed by Councilor Jose Netu Tamayo, the author of the ordinance, as he further pointed out in his counter petition that “the particular provision does not contravene with the national law considering that the motorcycle riders are not moving having been flagged down to stop.”
He further clarified that the ordinance merely exempts the motorcycle riders and not prohibit the wearing of protective helmet within the central business district and in parades and processions moving at 15 kph speed.
“Section 5 of ordinance no. 2013-2014 is valid because it is merely a reiteration of the provisions in ordinance no. 1922-2008. The particular provision has been in effect since September 29, 2008. And thus, the legality or illegality thereof finds its merit upon ordinance no. 1922-2008,” Tamayo added.
Llamas desisted from pursuing his petition anent the provision requiring the business establishments with capital not less than P1 million to install CCTV cameras and the banks with automated teller machine (ATM) to employ security guards to secure the booth when the records from the PNP and an endorsement from the senate of the same measure was presented.
“Section 8 of the ordinance no. 2013-2014 is a valid exercise of police power. No less than the senate record show that the PNP acknowledges the usefulness of CCTV cameras in the premises of commercial establishments to deter crime and assist them in their crime investigations and prosecutions. Per record of the Philippine senate, the efficiency rating of the PNP in solving crime has improved with the use of the CCTV cameras (Miriam Defensor- Santiago, senate bill no. 3339)”, said Tamayo.
Henceforth, business establishments are required to install cctv cameras in their premises.
Llamas said he felt relieved after the whole issue was clarified before the courts.
Meanwhile, the LTO regional office could not be reached for comment on the result of the court hearing. Guadiz’s phone was reportedly turned off. (Hilda M. Austria)
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
