‘… this whole affair shows the need for the public to fight for their rights, especially when confronted with similar “oppressive measures.”’
THE adage “You cannot fight City Hall” has been disproven by a lawyer who, in anger and exasperation, haled city officials of Mandaluyong to court after he was fined for being a backrider of motorcycle-hailing app Angkas. He paid the fine under protest.
Rejected by the Mandaluyong courts, petitioner lawyer Dino de Leon went to the Court of Appeals to press his case. On Sept. 28, the Court of Appeals declared as unconstitutional the “riding-in-tandem” ordinances of the city of Mandaluyong. The appellate court, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Raymond Reynold Lauigan, prohibited Mandaluyong from implementing City Ordinance No. 550, 595 and 694 for being oppressive, arbitrary, discriminatory, and going “beyond what is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose” of the city.
Mandaluyong City, in its Motorcycle Riding-in-Tandem Ordinance, prohibited males from back-riding on a motorcycle, except if the driver is their first-degree family member or if they are 7 to 10 years old. The objective of the measure is to prevent riding-in-tandem crimes such as killings, snatching, etc.
“Mandaluyong City Ordinance Nos. 550 S-2014, 595 S-2015, and 694 S-2018 are hereby declared unconstitutional. The City of Mandaluyong is prohibited from enforcing and implementing Mandaluyong City Ordinance Nos. 550 S-2014, 595 S-2015, and 694 S-2018,” the CA ruled.
De Leon had assailed the constitutionality of the ordinance, requesting for a restraining order against its implementation, but the Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court dismissed his petition for lack of merit. His motion for reconsideration was also rejected, so he appealed to the higher court.
In its 27-page decision, the CA said there is no legal distinction between a male and female back rider when it comes to addressing or preventing crimes committed by “riding-in-tandem” suspects.
“We find that imposing an encompassing prohibition against male back riders is an oppressive measure that goes beyond what is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose that respondent-appellee City of Mandaluyong aspires (to) which is to suppress lawlessness, disorder, and violence. The prohibition is oppressive because it arbitrarily limits the movement and mode of transportation of male back riders even though there is no direct link or available statistical data presented before the trial court to show that motorcycle riding criminals are males,” the appeals court added.
The CA also declared the ordinances unconstitutional because they also violate the Rule on Equal Protection. Concurring with the decision are Associate Justices Pablito Perez and Ramon Bato.
De Leon said this whole affair shows the need for the public to fight for their rights, especially when confronted with similar “oppressive measures.” On this, we agree.
