If you know the penalty, you won’t violate this law
By Emmanuel C. Roldan
Driving and drinking alcohol do not mix. It is deadly when they do. But it may not only be deadly but financially catastrophic to the “victim” with the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) 10568, An Act Penalizing Persons Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Dangerous Drugs, and Similar Substances, and for Other Purposes or most popularly known as the Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013.
A driver caught violating the provisions of this law may either say goodbye to driving or shell out a fortune to keep him or her out of the hook. Penalties ranged from P20,000 up to a whooping P500,000 plus a prison term and suspension or automatic revocation of driver’s license, notwithstanding other criminal offenses under the Revised Penal Code and R.A. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
According to Mang Quintin, 63, a public utility vehicle (PUV) driver plying the Sasa-Bankerohan route the penalty would wreck havoc on the livelihood of ordinary drivers and small operators. “Seguradong kulob ang kaldero namo kay di mi kabayad sa penalty og di na mi maka-drive pag-usab” (I’m sure our cooking pots will be empty because we cannot pay the penalty and we can never drive again), lamented Mang Quintin. He said the intent of the law may be good but the punishment is too harsh especially if driving is their only source of livelihood. “Wala-on unta nang probisyon sa pag-wagtang sa among pribilihiyo nga magmaneho kay medyo makaya pa” (I hope they will with lighten it by scrapping the provision on license revocation), he continued.
Late Implementation
R.A.10568 was signed into law by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III on May 27, 2013 purposely to ensure road safety through the observance of the citizenry of responsible and ethical driving standards. But it has taken center stage only recently after a certain Atty. Ventura then driving his black Honda City was flagged down for “reckless driving” by operatives of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in the National Capital Region. Procurement of the needed equipment such as the breath analyzer kit and training of deputized law enforcers could be some of the reasons for the delay in the implementation of the law.
According to Section 6 of the said Act, “a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that a person is driving under the influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or other substances by apparent indications and manifestations, including overspeeding, weaving, lane straddling, sudden stops, swerving, poor coordination or the evident smell of alcohol in a person’s breath or signs of use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances, shall conduct field sobriety tests.
Atty. Ventura when accosted was caught on national TV performing the so-called “field sobriety tests” which we only see on Western movies and TV shows like the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand and later on using the breath analyzer.
Section 6 further says “If the driver fails in the sobriety tests, it shall be the duty of the law enforcement officer to implement the mandatory determination of the driver’s blood alcohol concentration level through the use of a breath analyzer or similar measuring instrument to determine intoxication.
The law against drunk-driving test puts the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit at 0.05. Drivers of PUVs should show a BAC 0.0 or no trace of alcohol at all, to pass the “breathalyzer” test. On the other hand, Atty. Ventura’s reading was 0.121 or over 100 percent above the BAC limit. He was the first person to be accosted for drunk driving using the breath analyzer kit in the country which officially started on March 14, 2015.
Not only alcohol is the culprit
But alcohol is only part of the problem. The said law also penalizes those who are found to have used illegal drugs and other similar substances while driving. Section 3, paragraph (d) of the same act defines ‘dangerous drugs and other similar substances’ as to “drugs listed in the schedules annexed to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and in the schedules annexed to the 1971 Single Convention of Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in its attachment which is an integral part of Republic Act No. 9165, and those that the Board may reclassify, add to or remove from the list of dangerous drugs.”
Again under Section 6 a suspect driver will undergo a drug confirmatory test. It says “If the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person is driving under the influence of dangerous drugs and/or other similar substances, it shall be the duty of the law enforcement officer to bring the driver to the nearest police station to be subjected to a drug screening test and, if necessary, a drug confirmatory test as mandated under Republic Act No. 9165.”
But the story is different if the driver is involved in a vehicular accident that causes harm and injury because he is required to undergo mandatory tests. Section 7 says “A driver of a motor vehicle involved in a vehicular accident resulting in the loss of human life or physical injuries shall be subjected to chemical tests, including a drug screening test and, if necessary, a drug confirmatory test as mandated under R.A. 9165 to determine the presence and/or concentration of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or similar substances in the bloodstream or body”.
In order to effectively do it, the LTO shall conduct a random terminal inspections and quick random drug tests of public utility drivers nationwide as stated in Section 15 of this act.
Automatic revocation of license
Revocation of driver’s license may be done under three circumstances. One is when the suspected driver refuses to undergo the mandatory field sobriety test and other mandatory tests. The law enforcers shall confiscate and automatically revoke the license of the driver under Section 8 of this act. The second circumstance is when a driver with a nonprofessional driver’s license is convicted twice under this law; and third, when a driver with a professional driver’s license is convicted even for the first time.
Section 12, paragraph (d) of R.A. 10568 says, “The nonprofessional driver’s license of any person found to have violated Section 5 of this Act shall also be confiscated and suspended for a period of twelve (12) months for the first conviction and perpetually revoked for the second conviction. The professional driver’s license of any person found to have violated Section 5 of this Act shall also be confiscated and perpetually revoked for the first conviction. The perpetual revocation of a driver’s license shall disqualify the person from being granted any kind of driver’s license thereafter.”
Imprisonment and fine of P300K to P500K
Although most drivers’ groups have remained generally silent, many fellow drivers share the opinion of Mang Quintin about the penalties under this act. Drivers may be liable for violating three national laws such as: the act itself, R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Act, and for other criminal offenses under the Revised Penal Code. Section 12 of the act lists other penalties as follows:
“a) If the violation of Section 5 did not result in physical injuries or homicide, the penalty of three (3) months imprisonment, and a fine ranging from Twenty thousand pesos (Php20,000.00) to Eighty thousand pesos (Php80,000.00) shall be imposed;
(b) If the violation of Section 5 resulted in physical injuries, the penalty provided in Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code or the penalty provided in the next preceding subparagraph, whichever is higher, and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (Php200,000.00) shall be imposed;
(c) If the violation of Section 5 resulted in homicide, the penalty provided in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (Php300,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) shall be imposed.
The prosecution for any violation of this act shall be without prejudice to criminal prosecution for violation of the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 9165 and other special laws and existing local ordinances, whenever applicable.”
A ray of hope may be shining for Mang Quintin and those who are complaining of the harsh penalties of the act because it provides a provision for a review of penalties. Section 16 states that “The LTO shall, after five (5) years from the effectivity of this act and every five (5) years thereafter, review the applicability and enforcement of all foregoing pecuniary penalties and shall initiate amendment and/or upgrade the same as may be necessary, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the DOTC.
Operators are not off the hook
The act also introduced a refinement in prosecuting violators of the law as operators and/or owners of the offending vehicle may be also held directly liable. This is a kind of provision that is not always present in most national and local laws of the country.
Section 13 of the act states, “The owner and/or operator of the vehicle driven by the offender shall be directly and principally held liable together with the offender for the fine and the award against the offender for civil damages unless he or she is able to convincingly prove that he or she has exercised extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervision of his or her drivers in general and the offending driver in particular. This section shall principally apply to the owners and/or operators of public utility vehicles and commercial vehicles such as delivery vans, cargo trucks, container trucks, school and company buses, hotel transports, cars or vans for rent, taxi cabs, and the like.”
Under this provision, the operator of delivery vans, school buses, container trucks and others as mentioned in Section 13 may be off the hook only if he or she can convincingly prove to the law enforcement office that extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervision of drivers is done. This is indeed a gray area of the law to prove what evidence of action constitutes “extraordinary diligence” on the part of the operator? Does it mean that the operator in a span of time has to show the records of regular physical and mental check-ups, drug tests, driving seminars and training of his or her drivers?
Business support on drivers’ education and information campaign
Massive education and information drive among concerned sector and the public is a key to effective implementation of any law, much so of this landmark Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013. This is important because it entails adequate behavioral change on the part of driving individuals and prudence to law enforcement personnel.
According to educator and business leader Joji Ilagan-Bian in an interview with local and national media that massive drivers’ education and information campaign must be done at this point and until the full implementation of the law because of the seriousness of the problem of alcohol-and-drug related road accidents in the country and the gravity of the penalties under this act. She said there must be a balance between enforcing the law and constantly educating and informing the drivers, especially the low-income PUV drivers because they are the ones to be hit hard of the law.
Bian said, “This is an area where the public-and-public partnership should work together in helping the most vulnerable sector—in this case the ordinary drivers, to understand the law and to avoid losing their main source of income.” She continued that in the end, it is the economy, and peace and order situation of the city are at stake. “What will happen to the families of drivers like Mang Quintin whose licenses are revoked? They will surely flock to the City Mayor’s Office to find work,” she added.
Second leading cause of death after assault
Driving in the influence of drugs and alcohol tops the causes of road accidents in the country. Road accidents is one of the leading causes of death in the Philippines as more and more Filipino have the capacity to own and drive motor vehicle according to the data from the Philippine Police Highway Patrol Group (PNP-HPG). With a measly amount of P2,000 down payment, a person can own a motorcycle unit of his or her choice at a very easy installment plan.
According to Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, “road traffic injuries rank fourth among all causes of mortality and are the second leading cause of injury-related deaths after assault in the Philippines. In 2010, the estimated road traffic death rate was 9.1/100,000, and in 2006, there were 1,185 reported deaths and 5,870 injury reports. Three hundred seventy-one deaths were reported in Metro Manila, 51 percent of which were pedestrian deaths. In 2003, 24.6 percent of males and 8.3 percent of females who used alcohol in the Philippines had at least 60 grams (six standard drinks) or more of pure alcohol at least once a week”.
The PNP-HPG says “despite government warnings and road accidents, drunken people still get behind the wheel”. There is no denying that alcohol, and certainly other prohibited drugs, slows reflexes, weakens reasoning, and affects one’s motor skills.
Danger of abuse
But the danger of being out-of-job and economic peril is only a top of the iceberg. Mang Quintin and other PUV drivers say the law may also be another “milking cow” of “Kotong” police and law enforcement gangs. Their fears are not without basis. According to the 2014 Anti-Red Tape Act Report Card Survey (ARTA-RCS) conducted by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), out of the 39 failed offices that they survey, LTO topped the list with 21 failed offices. The ARTA-RCS is a tool to measure client satisfaction and get feedback on government frontline services in accordance with R.A. 9485.
