CA affirms legality of hiked LTO fines

The Court of Appeals has affirmed the constitutionality of an order by the Land Transportation Office (LTO) increasing the penalties for violators of traffic rules.

In a 17-page decision, the appeals court’s 10th division through Associate Justice Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles, dismissed the petition filed by 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) that sought a reversal of the Mandaluyong Court’s decision.

In 2013, the Mandaluyong Court denied the group’s petition for injunction seeking to stop the implementation of LTO Department Order No. 2008-39 entitled “Revised Schedule of LTO Fines and Penalties for Traffic and Administrative Violations.”

LTO Department order 2008-39 that took effect last March 2009 imposes a penalty of P5,000 on drunk drivers and P10,000 on drivers under the influence of drugs.

It also imposes fines of P1,500 for driving without a license; P400 for driving with an expired license; P2,000 for possessing a fake driver’s license; P3,000 for conviction for a crime perpetrated with the use of a motor vehicle; and P6,000 for driving a public utility vehicle out of line.

In their petition, 1-UTAK said the order usurps Congress’ power to tax.

The group added that the rates impose are “unreasonable, confiscatory and deprives the livelihood of public utility vehicle drivers and operators considering that the income of public utility drivers and operators ranged from P100 to P500 per day.”

On June 2, 2014, Department Order No. 2008-39 was superseded by Joint Administrative Order No. 2014-01 issued by the LTO and Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).

The joint issuance revised the schedule fines and penalties for violations of laws governing land transportation services and the procedures for apprehension and resolution of cases.

Still, the appeals court deemed it necessary to settle the validity of Department Order No. 2008-39 since there are still pending cases before the Supreme Court (SC) assailing the constitutionality of the joint order which, if granted, will likely revert the rates of penalties prescribed under the LTO order.

The appeals court said the order cannot be considered an exercise of taxing power but a valid exercise of the state’s police power by regulating, through increased fines and penalties, the conduct of drivers and owners concerning their vehicles to protect the well-being of passengers.

“There exists no absolute right to drive. On the contrary, it is a privilege heavily regulated,” the CA pointed out.

“Department Order No. 2008-39 indeed imposes administrative fees, charges, fines and penalties. These raise revenues, just as levied taxes would. But such are merely incidental and hardly the primary purpose for which they were imposed. Department Order No. 2008-39 enforces administrative fees, charges, fines and penalties principally as regulatory measures and deterrents,” the appeals court added.

It also did not consider the group’s claim that the fines are “oppressive, arbitrary and capricious.”

“They are calculated to serve as deterrents against improper conduct on the road ranging from the reprehensible, the undisciplined, and to the outright reckless and dangerous,” the CA said.

The CA added that the fines cannot be considered as deprivation of the right of the drivers and operators of their right for their livelihood since they can still take home their entire daily earnings provided that they adhere to traffic rules.

“They have not been deprived of any right at all, nor their earnings decreased. They are merely being required, just like the rest of the public, to observe propriety and utmost caution on the roads,” the decision read.

It also noted that the increase in the penalties is already due because the last adjustment was made more than 15 years ago.

Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Mariflor Punzalan Castillo and Florito Macalino. /rga