Vehicle inspection policy ‘may be illegal’

By Joseph B.A. Marzan

 

The Land Transportation Office-Region 6 (LTO-6) failed to “satisfy” the Iloilo City Council’s Committee on Transportation during its hearing on the implementation of its motor vehicle inspection policy on February 10, 2021.

This was the second hearing held on the matter after LTO-6 officials failed to show up in the hearing last February 5.

Public and private transport groups also attended the hearing, which sought to clarify the “confusing” and “unclear” parts of LTO Memorandum Circular No. 2018-2158.

The circular authorized the operation of Private Motor Vehicle Inspection Centers (PMVICs) in November 2018, but its implementation was delayed due to LTO’s lack of readiness and the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020.

Councilor Romel Duron, committee chairperson, previously raised concerns on the timing and impact of the PMVIC policy.

Also present during the hearing were the committee’s vice-chairperson Councilor Ely Estante and member Councilors Rudolph Ganzon and Mandrie Malabor.

The LTO-6 was represented by its acting operations chief, Atty. Allan Sacramento, who had been designated by LTO-6 Regional Director Eric Lenard Tabaldo as the regional office’s spokesperson.

Sacramento kicked off the hearing by reiterating the apology for their non-appearance in the February 5 hearing.

“We apologize for not [being] able to attend the scheduled public hearing last Friday because of some miscommunication on the part of the agency, but it was not our intention not to attend the public hearing as scheduled,” Sacramento said.

Sacramento explained the background of the circular as well as its precursor, Department Order No. 2018-019 issued by their parent agency, the Department of Transportation (DOTr) in 2018.

Under the circular, two PMVICs are initially authorized to serve Iloilo City – one at the Coastal Road in Jaro district and another along Diversion Road in Mandurriao District.

Phase 2 of the PMVIC implementation, according to Sacramento, will allow three more PMVICs for light motor vehicles, and an additional PMVIC for heavy motor vehicles, in the city alone.

He also reiterated the purpose of the privatization of the Motor Vehicle Inspection System (MVIS), which was to enhance the existing inspection systems and address vehicular accidents by ensuring vehicle quality.

He also shared that he was able to observe the only LTO-authorized PMVIC in the region in Roxas City, which he said could inspect 100 to 150 vehicles.

He however, failed to answer Duron’s question regarding the number of registered vehicles in the city. Duron said the number was about 145,000, based on the interview with another LTO official.

Duron told Daily Guardian via phone interview that Sacramento was not able to properly explain the legal bases of the DOTr order and the LTO’s MC No. 2018-2158, as well as the LTO’s basis to set the fees for the inspection and reinspection.

MC No. 2018-2158 stated that it was based on Section 16 of Republic Act No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), which granted the agency the power to inspect motor vehicles.

Section 17 of the circular, meanwhile, provided for the fees to be collected per inspection.

Motor vehicles with Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of less than 4,500 kilograms would pay P1,800 for the inspection, and may incur an additional P900 for re-inspection if they fail.

Motorcycles and tricycles, meanwhile, would pay P600 for inspection and P300 on re-inspection if they fail.

Duron likened Sacramento’s manner of answering to the Senate committee hearing of Senator Grace Poe on Tuesday where national LTO officials also admitted to their non-readiness of implementing the PMVIC policy.

He suggested that there was “illegality” in the circular, since Republic Act No. 4136 did not explicitly authorize the LTO to delegate to private entities its power to inspect public and private vehicles.

“We reiterated asking them to defer the implementation of this, because they seemed unprepared, similar to what had happened in the Senate. Like what Senator [Franklin] Drilon said, their authority to inspect was delegated to a private entity and at the same time, to collect, so there is a question of illegality in their issuance of [MC No. 2018-2158]. They could not also explain the basis for the P1,800 fees, and the re-inspection fees,” Duron said in a phone interview.

A lawyer by profession, Duron gave his assessment that the power created by the LTO MC No. 2018-2158 was “poorly sourced”, and that it was an “undue delegation” of an “already-delegated authority” to the LTO by the Congress.

He provided the example of the city council, having also delegated the authority to pass ordinances, which was granted by RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991). He pointed out that they cannot pass on that power to legislate to another entity.

He also pointed out that the legality of the PMVICs were different to the existing private emissions testing centers, which are authorized by Rep. Act No. 8749 (Clean Air Act of 1999).

“The committee thought they had poor sources of law, for the PMVIC to conduct vehicular inspections, because it is only via a memorandum circular, and allowing private entities to do this. This is different from the emissions centers, because that was implemented by the Clean Air Act, which was a law. For [the PMVICs], they based this on Section 16 of R.A. 4136. The LTO was given the power to conduct inspections, which is already a delegated authority which they cannot delegate. What has been delegated cannot be further delegated unless the law allows further delegation,” he said.

Duron also called out the lack of public consultation by the LTO on a matter which “was deemed significant to the public.”

This lack of public information on the MVIS and the PMVICs is the reason for the backlash by both public and private sectors.

“With respect to national government programs, like this one, which they intend to implement here, there needs to be public consultation. We asked them if they have conducted public consultation, which they also cannot answer. That is why there is a lack of information about this, and they should not be implementing this, especially at this untimely era of a pandemic,” he added.

Duron said that the Committee on Transportation will recommend to the full Sangguniang Panglungsod a resolution asking the LTO to further defer the implementation of LTO MC No. 2018-2158, until they can explain their legal basis for the MC, as well as the basis for the fees.

He added that the resolution, once adopted by the Sanggunian, will also be sent to the DOTr and the Senate.