Is LTO’s ‘no plate, no travel’ rule unconstitutional?
METRO MANILA Development Authority Chair Francis Tolentino grabbed headlines last Maundy Thursday when he criticized the Land Transportation Office’s “no plate, no travel” policy as “unconstitutional” (and “un-Christian,” as it was implemented right before Easter weekend). The LTO allegedly prevented innocent citizens from using cars by requiring them to have car plates the LTO never released.
The term “unconstitutional” gravely accuses the LTO of human rights violations. Tolentino told the Inquirer, “It is stated in the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” “Due process” traditionally refers to a right to be heard pursuant to an appropriate procedure. Before a utility rate is increased, a hearing open to the public is required. Before a suspect is sentenced, he must receive a fair trial under strict constitutional safeguards.
Tolentino could not mean this, however, because the law requiring cars to be registered has long been passed. In other words, the appropriate procedure was long completed.
Modern “due process,” however, goes beyond procedure. It posits that there must additionally be inherent limits to how government may restrict life, liberty or property. Under the traditional sense, government might pass absurd rules so long as procedures were followed, such as an arbitrary rule prohibiting one from driving a car unless one is wearing a black shirt. Under the modern sense, however, there is a limit to what rules a government can impose and these cannot be justified merely by following the right procedure to impose these. Thus, the LTO cannot prevent citizens from using their cars if the LTO imposes an impossible registration requirement, because it would be confiscatory.
I previously wrote about modern due process (called “substantive due process”) in the context of Mandaluyong City’s motorcycle riding-tandem ban (“Riding tandem as legal right,” 10/14/14). Because one’s right to use property includes being able to take a passenger on one’s motorcycle, it is confiscatory to impose a broad riding tandem ban. To cite another example, recall how Progun criticized new gun licensing requirements as impossible to comply with, effectively banning guns. Progun president Ernesto Tabujara argued that licenses were processed only in Camp Crame in Quezon City, making it difficult for gun owners outside Metro Manila to apply, and additional ballistic tests were required in Camp Crame but no permits to transport guns there were issued.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this right against arbitrary and confiscatory rules. Most prominently, a series of cases documented former Manila mayor Alfredo Lim’s fight against motels. For example, the Court struck down a Manila ordinance prohibiting motels from charging “short time” rates, as motel owners have inherent discretion in how to run their businesses.
Unfortunately, Tolentino’s invocation of unconstitutionality did not add any urgency, and I remain frustrated with how Filipinos refuse to think in terms of rights. Angry reactions to the LTO policy revolved around complaints of eternal delays and bad timing. No one echoed that the government cannot have the power to restrain the use of legitimate property such as cars, and especially not during Easter weekend when thousands return to their provinces.
Similarly, vacationing overseas Filipino workers revived complaints against endless queues for useless Philippine Overseas Employment Administration clearances, without which they cannot return abroad to work. They cite inconvenience and inutility, but not unconstitutionality because the government cannot have such broad power to restrict OFWs’ right to travel (“Second-class citizens,” 1/1/12). Our capacity for debating intrusive policies is so lamentably infantile because we shy from the vocabulary of rights.
The LTO chief, lawyer Alfonso “Aljun” Tan, did call me over the weekend to reiterate the LTO’s press releases. LTO Circular No. AVT-2015-1927, dated March 20 and entitled “No registration-No travel,” did provide that beginning April 1, cars without plates but with an official receipt and certificate of registration would still be fined P5,000 for failure to attach the plates. Aljun’s premise, however, is that the LTO has solved the longstanding delays such that no OR/CR should be released unaccompanied by plates. In support, Transportation Secretary Jun Abaya released on March 31 the list of all plates that had been issued to Metro Manila car dealers (available at www.gov.ph).
Aljun reiterated that a new car owner needs four documents: LTO certificate of stock reported (CSR, tracing the car’s import or manufacture), police clearance (that the car was not stolen), sales invoice and insurance certificate. He acknowledges that there are possible delays, such as an importer selling a car before obtaining a CSR because of delays in confirming payment with customs, dealers not obtaining police clearances ahead of sales, and dealers outsourcing registration to agents and encountering delays in these agents’ turnover of plates. However, these delays are no longer the LTO’s; and the agency worked to reduce the CSR issuance to 1-3 days. He challenges prospective buyers to check if a car’s CSR and
police clearance are ready upon sale, and, if apprehended to contest this and report their cars’ plates as still with the dealer or the LTO.
Although the LTO underestimated the confusion caused by its Holy Week announcements and might be cavalier in asking motorists to just contest violations, perhaps the cry of human rights crisis was made too hastily this time.
* * *
React on Twitter (@oscarfbtan) and facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.
