AN ordinance in Dagupan City that requires motorcycle riders to remove their helmets upon entering and while within the city limits of Dagupan in order to be identified and submit to a reasonable search by the police was declared null and void by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Dagupan City.

Declared as null and void by Judge Junius F. Dalaten, acting presiding judge of RTC Branch 42, was Ordinance No. 2013-2014, titled “Instituting Certain Measures for the Protection of the Lives and Property of Dagupenos and Providing Penalties Therefor for Non Observance”.

The decision stemmed from the civil case for declaration of nullity with preliminary injunction and Issuance of a temporary restraining order filed by Atty. Victor T. Llamas, Jr. as plaintiff against Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dagupan City, Mayor Belen T. Fernandez and the Public Order and Safety Office, as defendants.

Judge Dalaten ruled that Section 4 of the assailed ordinance that require motorcycle riders to remove their helmets runs counter to a statute, particularly Republic Act no. 1005, otherwise known as the “Helmet Law” requiring them to wear helmet”.

Land Transportation Office Regional Director Teofilo Guadiz III earlier cited Section 3 of RA 10054 (Mandatory Use of Motorcycle Helmets) which states: All motorcycle riders, including drivers and back riders, shall at all times wear standard protective motorcycle helmets while driving, whether long or short drives, in any type of road and highway”.

In their defense, Mayor Fernandez and the POSO through their counsel averred that motorcycle riders and back riders who are required to wear protective helmets are told to remove their helmets when flagged down by authorized PNP personnel at authorized check points, and required to identify themselves to a reasonable search by authorized PNP personnel on a voluntary basis.

The court said that considering the syntax of Section 3, and whether or not there is a checkpoint, still the motorcycle riders and passengers are duty bound to remove their helmets which is a direct contravention to RA No. 10054 or the Helmet Law.

“Clearly, their (defendants’) interpretation to the ordinance lead them to arrive to their conclusion that they are not violating the Helmet Law resorted to the game of semantics,” the Court said.

In his reply, Atty. Llamas told the court that the councilors passed Ordinance No. 2013-2014 to vent their ire on all innocent motorcycle riders after Councilor Jose Netu Tamayo’s wife was robbed by motorcycle riders riding in tandem after withdrawing money from an ATM in a certain bank in the city.

To this, Court admonished city legislators. “Let everyone be informed that enactment of local ordinances cannot rest solely on whims and caprices of the local legislative assembly sitting in its august chambers, not to vent an ire or to give way to an unbridled anger but it must conform to the test of constitutionality and the test of consistency with existing laws,” he ruled. (Leonardo Micua)

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments