CHAPTER ONE

contravene

I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Motorcycles have been long used by Filipinos for different reasons.

Some use them for faster transportation, some use them because it is much

cheaper than cars. They are essentially known as an efficient, cost-saving and

easy means of transportation not only in the urban and rural areas.

Unfortunately, because of the significant features of motorcycles, they

became an effective and favorite instrument of criminals in committing petty

to heinous crimes thus contravening the law. The motorcycle’s capacity and

speed makes it possible and easier for the criminals to escape such crimes. It

can also go through narrow roads and heavy traffic. One of the most famous

crimes that involve motorcycles is the “riding-in-tandem” crime. For the past

years, crimes related to “riding-in-tandem” have been constantly increasing.

Some crimes that are committed through this modus operandi are theft and

murder.

These circumstances led the City of Mandaluyong to deliberate that

about the urgent need to eradicate, if not, decrease the crimes committed by

means of motorcycles. With that said, Mandaluyong city enacted Ordinance

No. 550 or the ordinance regulating the riding-in-tandem in Mandaluyong

1
City. This ordinance covers all motorcycle riders plying all roads, streets and

alleys within the territorial jurisdiction of Mandaluyong City, whether

licensed or non-licensed, resident or non-resident, whether the motorcycle is

registered or not, and regardless of ownership, purpose, and use of the

motorcycle. Also, it only allows backriders that are females, a spouse or a

relative within the first degree of consanguinity of the motorcycle driver and

a child between 7 to 10 years of age.1 All male backriders who are not within

the first degree of consanguinity of the driver is declared prohibited.2 To

enforce the said ordinance, barangay officials and Philippine National Police

which are assigned in the city of Mandaluyong are deputized to conduct

inspections and visibility points, both day and night. To prove that one is

allowed and conformed to the aforesaid requirement as a backrider, the

backrider must present his competent proof of identity showing his

relationship to the driver and subsequently, the driver shall also present his

unexpired driver’s license. 3

Penalties for the violation of the ordinance shall be one thousand

(P1,000) to three thousand pesos (P3,000) depending on how many times the

1
Mandaluyong City Ordinance No. 550, Aug. 11, 2014.
2
Id.
3
Id.

2
driver and backrider violated the ordinance. On the 3rd offense, the motorcycle

can be penalized by a fine of three thousand pesos (P3,000) or an

imprisonment of three (3) months, or both, at the discretion of the court.

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The ordinance no. 550 or the riding in tandem ban of

Mandaluyong city violates some provisions in the Philippine

constitution. In conformance with this, the following shall be

established:

I. Local Government Units cannot enact laws that violate an

individual’s free use of their property.

II. An ordinance should not disrupt the equal protection clause

and due process clause under Section 1, Article 3.

III. DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following terms are based on the Ordinance No. 550 of

Mandaluyong City.

A. Motorcycle is a motorized vehicle with two (2) wheels, as

distinguished from tricycles which have three (3) wheels.4

4
Id.

3
 B. Back rider refers to any person seated at the back of the

motorcycle driver or a passenger of such driver.5

C. Motorcycle riding-in-tandem refers to the combination of both

driver and back rider riding a motor cycle.6

D. Modus Operandi is a term used by law enforcement authorities

to describe the particular manner in which a crime is committed.7

E. First degree of consanguinity refers to the relation of persons

who ascended or descend from the same ancestor, such as the

relation between parent and child (first degree); refers to relation

between parent (father or mother) and child (son or daughter);8

F. Police Power is the power inherent to the state to prescribe,

within the limits of the constitution, reasonable regulations

necessary to preserve the public order, health, safety, and

morals.9

G. Equal Protection requires that all persons shall be treated alike

under like circumstances and conditions, both in privileges

conferred and in the liabilities imposed.10

5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
M.D. Santiago, Constitutional Law, p. 1, vol. 2, (2nd ed., 2002).
10
J. Nolledo, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, p.30, (2009).

4
 H. Due Process is an opportunity to be heard or a fair and

reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side.11

IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The proponent shall gather some existing jurisprudence dealing

with ordinances that are contrary to the Constitution. The cases that

shall be studied should be focused on violations against Section 1 of

Article 3 of the Philippine Constitution, specifically, the deprivation

of property, equal protection clause, and due process clause.

V. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Ordinances affects the people under the jurisdiction of the city

council which enacted them. However, since the ordinance in the

study is about motorcycles which is a means of transportation and

since, Mandaluyong City obviously have a close proximity to other

cities, those people not under the jurisdiction of Mandaluyong will

also be affected. Those people from cities that does not regulate

riding in tandem can be caught in Mandaluyong for violating their

ordinance. Thus, this study will (1) prove the violations of the said

11
M.D. Santiago, Constitution Annotated, p. 33, (1999).

5
 ordinance to the rights of the people (2) establish alternative ways

to eradicate crimes in relation to riding in tandem.

On the first significance, the thesis will focus on showing the

violations of Ordinance No. 550 of Mandaluyong City or the Riding

in tandem ban to the rights of people under the Philippine

Constitution. On the second, the thesis aims to find or establish

alternatives to eradicate crimes like theft or murder that arise from

the riding in tandem modus operandi.

VI. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

This study is confined to the examination of the constitutionality

of Ordinance No. 550 of Mandaluyong City. To furthermore

specify, the concepts that will be discussed with regard to the

ordinance are the individual’s free use of their property, equal

protection clause, and due process clause which are all under the

1987 Philippine Constitution.

6
CHAPTER TWO

VII. BODY

A. Article III, Section I of the 1987 Constitution

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of

the laws”12

1. Individual’s free use of property

Police power concerns government enactments which

precisely interfere with personal liberty or property in order to

promote the general welfare or the common good.13

In an existing jurisprudence, US v. Toribio14, the conflict

between the police power and the right to people’s free use of

their property was explained. In the said case, the Supreme Court

ruled:

To justify the State in thus interposing its authority in

behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the

public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular

12
Const. Art III, Sec. 1.
13
M. D Santiago, supra at 188.
14
U.S v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910).

7
 class, require such interference; and, second, that the means are

reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose,

and not duly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may

not, under the guise of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily

interfere with private business, or impose unnecessary

restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, its

determination as to what a proper exercise of its police powers

is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the

courts.”

The Supreme Court ruled in contradiction with Toribio saying

that, “it is not a taking of the property for public use, within the

meaning of the constitution, but is a just and legitimate exercise of

the power of the legislature to regulate and restrain such particular

use of the property as would be inconsistent with or injurious to the

rights of the publics. All property is acquired and held under the

tacit condition that it shall not be so used as to injure the equal

rights of others or greatly impair the public rights and interests of

the community.” To justify the state in the exercise of its sovereign

police power, two requisites should be followed: (1) the interest of

the general public requires it and (2) the means are reasonably

8
 necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly

oppressive upon individuals.15

Municipal governments exercise the police power under

general welfare clause: pursuant thereto they are clothed with

authority to “enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as

may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities

conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary and proper

to provide for the health, safety, comfort and convenience, maintain

peace and order, improve public morals, promote the prosperity and

general welfare of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and

insure the protection of property therein.”16

The conflict between the municipal government’s exercise of

police power through enacting an ordinance and the right of the

individuals to their property is evident in the case of White Light

Corporation vs. City of Manila. The court reiterated that:17

“Individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent

that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public

interest or public welfare. The State is a leviathan that must be

15
See note 14, supra.
16
M. D Santiago, supra at 48.
17
White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, GR. 122846, January 20, 2009.

9
 restrained from needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens.

However, well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an

arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the

establishments as well as their patrons.”18

Therefore, the Supreme Court declared that the Ordinance No.

7774 is unconstitutional on the grounds that “the ordinance

needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners

as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient

justification. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting

out a room more than twice a day with immorality without

accommodating innocuous intentions.”19 It is possible for the

government to avoid the constitutional conflict by employing more

judicious, less drastic means to promote morality.

2. Equal Protection Clause

As jurisprudence elucidates, “equal protection requires that

all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both

as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.” In other words,

18
Id.
19
Id.

10
 similar subjects should be treated equally so that it would not give

undue favor to others while discriminating some. This means that

all persons or class of persons in like circumstances should enjoy the

same protection of law.20 The equal protection clause permits

classification but such classifications must pass the test of

reasonableness to be considered valid. There are four (4) requisites

in the said test: (1) The classification rests on substantial

distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not

limited to existing decisions only; and (4) it applies equally to all

members of the same class.21

In Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission the court further

explained “equal protection” and made clear that it also meant equal
treatment of similarly situated individuals22:

“Equal protection requires that all persons or things

similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies
and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar
manner. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure
every person within a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and
arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express

20
City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005.
21
Bartolome vs. SSS and Scanmar, G.R. No. 192531, November 12, 2014.
22
Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, 637 SCRA 78 (2010).

11
 terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the state’s
duly constituted authorities.”23

There must be equality among equals as determined according to

a valid classification. Equal protection clause permits classification.

Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of

reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests

on substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law;

(3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally

to all members of the same class.24 The classification will be regarded

as invalid if all the members of the class are not similarly treated, both

as to rights conferred and obligations imposed.25

The equal protection clause has two aspects: the right to equal

treatment, and the right to treatment as an equal. The former means that

every person shall have the same access as every other person to certain

interests while the latter means that the government should treat each

individual with equal regard as a person. The study will focus more on

the right to treatment as an equal because Ordinance No. 550 is

discriminatory to males. Right to treatment as an equal explains that if

23
Id.
24
M.D. Santiago, supra at 413.
25
Id.

12
 a political judgment seems likely to reflect a preference based on

prejudice, the result would be invalidation.26 Gender-based

governmental discrimination produces unjust stereotyping.27

An example of gender stereotype case is Vertido vs.

Philippines28, in failing to end discriminatory gender stereotyping, the

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against

Women (CEDAW) Committee found the state of the Philippines

responsible for failing to fulfill its obligations under Article 2 and

Article 5 (a) of CEDAW.

Article 2 of CEDAW29:

“To embody the principle of the equality of men and women

in their national constitutions or other appropriate

legislation if not yet incorporated therein and ensure,

through law and other appropriate means, the practical

realization of this principle.”

Article 5 (a) of CEDAW30:

26
M.D. Santiago, supra at 405.
27
Id.
28
U.N. CEDAW 46th Sess., (2010)
29
U.N. CEDAW Art. 2
30
Id. Art. 5

13
 “To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of

men and women, with the view of achieving the elimination of

prejudices and customary and all other practice which are

based on the idea of inferiority or the superiority of either sexes

or on stereotyped roles for men and women.”

3. Due Process Clause

There are two kinds of due process: the procedural due process

and the substantive due process. In the procedural, the person must first

be given notice and the opportunity to be heard while in the substantive,

requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of

the person to life, liberty or property. In short, it is to determine whether

it has a valid governmental objective like for the interest of the public

as against mere particular class.31 Therefore, this study will focus more

on the substantive due process.

Substantive due process means that no arbitrary reason shall be

allowed to deprive a person of his life, liberty, and property. The law

should be reasonable, in that it should be within the scope of legislative

31
‘Constitutional Law II- Due Process’ Available at
lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitutional-law-chapter-ii-due-process, May 10, 2011.

14
 authority, and it should be applied consonant with the purpose of the

law.32

In an existing jurisprudence, City of Manila v. Laguio, the

Supreme Court assessed the constitutionality of ordinances33:

“The police power granted to local government units must

always be exercised with utmost observance of the rights of the

people to due process and equal protection of the law. Such

power cannot be exercised whimsically, arbitrarily or

despotically, as its exercise is subject to a qualification,

limitation or restriction demanded by the respect and regard due

to the prescription of the fundamental law, particularly those

forming part of the Bill of Rights. Individual rights, it bears

emphasis, may be adversely affected only to the extent that may

fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or

public welfare.”34

In the said case, Ordinance No. 7783 of the City of Manila was

declared null and void. The said ordinance prohibits establishments or

32
M.D. Santiago, supra at 296.
33
City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005.
34
City of Manila v. Laguio, supra note 32.

15
 operation of businesses providing certain forms of amusement

entertainment, services and facilities in the Malate District which was

the so-called red-light district which is the haven ill-reputed women.

The petitioner avers that the ordinance is invalid as it also affects

establishments or businesses which are not noxious nor intended for

noxious purposes. Therefore, the ordinance was declared void because

according to the court, it violates the equal protection clause.35 The

businesses affected by the said ordinance should not be closed down

just because there is a high probability that sexual or illicit acts can

happen in such establishments.

In another case, Tatel vs. The Municipality of Virac36, the

Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, was declared valid because the

objections made by Tatel to the validity of the ordinance was

substantiated. Its purpose is well within the objectives of a sound

government. The authority if the Municipal council emanates from the

general welfare clause under Administrative Code, which reads37:

35
Id.
36
Tatel v. City of Virac, G.R. No. 40243, March 11, 1992.
37
Id.

16
 “The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and

make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be

necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and

duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary

and proper to provide for the health and safety, promotr the

prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and

convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and

for the protection of property therein.”

In the said cases, the court emphasized that for an ordinance to

be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local

government unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure

prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive

requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;

(2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or

discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be

unreasonable. 38

38 Id.

17
 VIII. DISCUSSION

The Riding in Tandem Ban Ordinance violates the Philippine

Constitution
Although the said riding in tandem ordinance may produce some

positive effects, it should still conform with the constitution. Hence, relying

on the existing jurisprudence, City of Manila v. Laguio, specific violations are

discussed:

1. Prejudicial

There are certainly instances where riding-in-tandem is used as a

tactic to perform criminal acts but not all persons use riding-in-tandem

for that purpose. Some use this mode of transportation for easier travel

to work or school. Most people who use motorcycles are those ordinary

people with average incomes. Employees of the government,

especially, police officers use this mode of transportation. Thus, the

riding in tandem ban ordinance gives such people no choice but to take

other means of transportation even though motorcycles which are faster

and more convenient are available for them to use. Also, since

Mandaluyong City is in between some cities, it would prejudice not

only the people in Mandaluyong but also the people who enters the city.

Those people who rode the motorcycle in cities where riding in tandem

18
 is valid could be caught in Mandaluyong City. It would be a great hassle

for those people who will just pass by that City to go to school or their

workplace.

2. Gender Discrimination

This ordinance bans only backriders who are male which are not

related to the driver in first consanguinity. There were no further

discussions in the ordinance on why only males are prohibited to be

backriders and on why only first consanguinity male relatives should

be allowed. Does it make a difference if male cousins, uncles or other

males farther that first consanguinity rode as a backrider to the driver?

On the other hand, female riders are allowed to ride together.

Obviously, Mandaluyong City did not think of the possibility that

females can also do crimes related to riding-in-tandem.

CHAPTER THREE

IX. CONCLUSION

In the discussion made above, a conclusion can be articulated

that the Riding in Tandem Ban violates the individual’s free use of

19
 their property, the equal protection clause, and the substantive due

process clause. It can also be concluded that the said ordinance is

prejudicial and discriminatory for it affects mostly the ordinary or

average Filipinos especially males.

In the Philippines, males are seen to be more related to crimes

than females, which although is true, should not be the reason to

make ordinances or laws that will be unfair to males since, females

can also perform crimes. For example, if males cannot perform

criminal acts, they can always hire females to do it for them. As long

as the need of a person weighs more than their morality, regardless

of the gender, they would still commit crimes.

X. RECOMMENDATION

From the formulated conclusion, it can be recommended that the

Ordinance should be declared null and void for being contradictory

to the Constitution. Instead of making this ordinance, the city of

Mandaluyong should think of other ways to eradicate crimes that

will not prejudice nor discriminate people. Increasing police

visibility would be one alternative especially on unholy hours so that

they could easily respond to crimes like the said riding-in-tandem.

20
Another solution would be to increase the number of surveillance

cameras in the streets and it should always be monitored so that if

any crime that is seen in the surveillance monitor could be

immediately reported to the authorities.

21
Bibliography

Bartolome vs. SSS and Scanmar, G.R. No. 192531 (Supreme Court
November 12, 2014).

Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, 637 SCRA 78 (2010).

City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127 (Supreme Court April 12, 2005).

Constitutional Law II- Due Process. (2011, May 10). Retrieved from
lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/constitutional-law-
chapter-ii-due-process

Nolledo, J. (2009). The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

Santiago, M. (2002). Constitutional Law: Bill of Rights (Vol. 2). Quezon

City: Central Professional Books, Inc.
Santiago, M. D. (1999). Constitution Annotated. Central Professional Books,
Inc.

Tatel v. City of Virac, G.R. No. 40243 (Supreme Court March 11, 1992).

U.S v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910).

White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, G.R. 122846 (Supreme Court
January 20, 2009).

22