Riding in Tandem

         The talk of the town lately is the wisdom behind the policy of prohibiting riding-in-tandem or riding motorcycles with a backrider.  This talk was triggered by the alarming rise of assassinations and crimes committed by riding-in-tandems not only in terms of their numbers and regularity but also the boldness and gall by which they are being carried out.

          It seems that criminals today are bolder and less afraid of the law and the authorities as well as the grave consequences of their crimes.

          Solutions were suggested such as requiring motorcycle riders to wear a vest prominently showing their plate number, and creating motorcycle-riding police units disguised in civilian clothing.  But none is more controversial than completely banning riding-in-tandems broached by Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada.

Critics say that such measure violates equal protection as it discriminates against the poor.  Also, it constitutes unlawful intrusion into the right to property.

Is such a measure valid and constitutional?

       The answer necessarily involves a discussion of the all-encompassing police power of the state.

       The police power of the state is simply the power to promote the general welfare and public interest. (Morfe vs. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968)

The requirements for a valid exercise of police power are: (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its exercise and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. (Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, Jr.; G.R. No. 156052, 13 February 2008)

Simply put, it must have a valid and lawful object or purpose and valid and lawful means.

        Question: will the riding-in-tandem law or policy satisfy the valid object or purpose requirement.  Answer, yes.  Certainly, the object is valid and laudable as it seeks to prevent or minimize assassinations and crimes.

         Question: will it pass the valid means test?  Is it reasonable?

         Therein lies the difficulty.  Like every legal question involving police power, the difficulty is not in the question of valid object or purpose but valid means.  It involves the delicate act of balancing conflicting rights and interests and weighing which will promote the greater good.

         In this case, the interests that have to be considered are public safety and security and peace and order vis-à-vis rights to property and to use the same.  The riding-in-tandem measure will limit the use of the motorcycles.  No longer can the owners ride their motorcycles with passengers.  They have to ride them alone. 

         Isn’t this intrusion into the right to use property?  But use of motorcycles or motor vehicles in general is not a right but a mere privilege which can be regulated or even curtailed by the state.  That is why not everyone can drive a vehicle.  You have to secure a license first.

 In the US case of State ex. Rel. Sullivan (63 P. 2d 653, 108 ALR 1156, 1159.), the court ruled therein that the State has the extensive right to regulate the use of motor vehicles because of their dangerous nature, thus:

The legislative power to regulate travel over the highways and thoroughfares of the state for the general welfare is extensive.  It may be exercised in any reasonable manner to conserve the safety of travelers and pedestrians.  Since motor vehicles are instruments of potential danger, their registration and the licensing of their operators have been required almost from their first appearance.  The right to operate them in public places is not a natural and unrestrained right, but a privilege subject to reasonable regulation, under the police power, in the interest of the public safety and welfare.

The same doctrine was held in Commonwealth vs. Funk (323 Pa. 390, 186 A. 65, 108 ALR 1161), to wit:

Automobiles are vehicles of great speed and power.  The use of them constitutes an element of danger to persons and property upon the highways.  Carefully operated, an automobile is still a dangerous instrumentality, but, when operated by careless or incompetent persons, it becomes an engine of destruction.  The Legislature, in the exercise of the police power of the commonwealth, not only may, but must, prescribe how and by whom motor vehicles shall be operated on the highways.  One of the primary purposes of a system of general regulation of the subject matter, as here by the Vehicle Code, is to insure the competency of the operator of motor vehicles.  Such a general law is manifestly directed to the promotion of public safety and is well within the police power.

Is this US doctrine applicable to the Philippines?  Apparently.

In MMDA vs. Garin (G.R. No. 130230,  April 15, 2005), the Supreme Court quoted the above cases.  

        What these cases tell us is that the State has the power to regulate the use of motor vehicles but such regulation or curtailment must be reasonable which brings us back to the question: is the riding-in-tandem law or policy reasonable such that it will achieve its object of prohibiting or reducing assassinations and crimes?

        I submit that it will.

        I’m no expert in psychology but I think and common sense dictates that criminals resort to riding-in-tandem because it offers the most effective means of accomplishing the crime and the easiest escape. 

        Effective because the riding-in-tandem are able to divide and focus on their respective roles: the driver on tailing the target and maneuvering their escape while the backrider on pulling the trigger.  Also, their targets are usually driving or walking along pedestrians and thus, are caught unaware and defenseless.

        After they accomplished the crime, the riding-in-tandem can easily weave in and out of traffic and disappear through the labyrinth streets and eskenitas of metro manila.

        Prohibiting riding-in-tandems removes all these advantages and ease.

        True, the measure will not completely prevent assassinations and crimes through the use of motorcycles as it will still be possible to commit the crime alone without a backrider.  However, such will be very difficult as the assassin alone has to do everything from tracking and tailing the target, to aiming and pulling the trigger to escaping. All these should be done very fast and at the same time.  His effectiveness and chances of accomplishing the deed and escaping thereafter are drastically reduced if not outrightly eliminated.

        Thus, the measure will impose great difficulties in the commission of assassinations and crimes and will hence, discourage criminals.

        But will this be a reasonable limitation on the use of motorcycles.  I think so.  Take note that the owner can still use his motorcycle.  In this sense, it is merely a limitation of use.  The measure will not totally ban the use of motorcycles but will merely limit its use.

        What about the argument that it discriminates against the poor.  I don’t think so.  The measure will be applied not only against the poor but all persons owning and using a motorcycle, rich and poor.

        Perhaps to address this argument and to make the measure less broad, it should be limited not to all motorcycles but only to those that are fast and with powerful engines.  If I was part of a riding-in-tandem, I wouldn’t use weak motorcycles since I will not be able to outrun the authorities.  I will use a powerful and fast motorcycle.

        Anyone who wants to use a motorcycle for family use or with a backrider should buy and use only motorcycles that are slow and with weak engines.  Thus, aside from the measure reducing crime, it will likewise reduce accidents.   

        But why should motorcycles be treated differently from cars?  Well, because they are obviously different.  Unlike cars, motorcycles are flexible and can be used to weave in and out of traffic and are thus the preferred use of criminals.

        In the end, it is a choice between life and property.

        I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. – Voltaire.