Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region
Mandaluyong City, Branch 27

CABALLAR, Norries Jonell L.

Petitioner
--Versus-Case No.071992
City of Mandaluyong, Court of Origin
Respondent
x-------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights,
we'll

be

called

democracy.

-- Roger Nash Baldwin

I CABALLAR, Norries Jonell L. of legal age, a resident of 60 Fordham st.
Greenview Executive Village West Fairview Quezon City., Do hereby assail the
constitutionality of Administrative Order 15 of the Land Transportation Office particularly
the Implementation of paragraph 3, Section 8 of AO No. AHS-2008-15 requiring prior
approval of the LTO and the DTI in modifying original standard design of a motorcycle or
scooter is hereby suspended, together with Section 11d hereof..
ANNEX 1- Administrative Order No. 15, Paragraph 3 of the Land Transportation
Office.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether or not Administrative Order 15, paragraph 3 of the Land
Transportation Office condemns no definite act to distinguish what is being
violated.
2.

Whether or not Administrative Order 15 , paragraph 3 of the Land

Transportation Office results to violation of the Equal Protection of
Laws(Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution. Section 1
reads:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
3. Whether or not Administrative Order 15, Paragraph 3 of the Land
Transportation Office results to violation of the Section 4. No law shall be
passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.(1987 Constitution, Article III Bill of Rights)
1

ARGUMENTS:
1.
This certain provision of the said Administrative order No. 15 of the Land
Transportation Office does not make any clear definition of why such act is being
apprehended and penalized. Hence, through this prohibition can cause other
registered business affiliates in reducing or affecting their source of income in a
more drastic way which is unclear about its real purpose for safety of the public
against after market modification.
2.

It really violates the Equal Protection clause among the equality showing

such discrimination over other types of vehicles resgistered for which the Land
Transportation Office(LTO) accepts without any further ado. Hence, the
camaraderie of such acts would cause a decrease in the labor of those who are
in to selling such modification items for motor vehicles which is also part of our
economy and are also tax payers in the country
Whereas, it violates Article III of the 1987 Constitution, more specifically
the due process clause.
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
CASE:
My Friend Jayson Lim, an owner of a motor repair shop and accessories
Has been duly prejudiced for such order given under the Land Transportation
Office(LTO) which delineates his only source of income as a family bread winner.
Furthermore, such items are approved by manufacturers known for its craft in terms of
motor accessories all over the globe which are impart of making consumers of such
item worthy of the price and quality of such modification which they believed that does
not impair any contrary to safety to the rider and also to the people around such motor
where the motor vehicle is set to be driven.
This clearly reduces or worst comes to worst scenario would diminished away his
only source of income which was religiously paying taxes and a registered office of
Department of Trade and Industry which also gives part to the advancement of the
countrys economic growth. Furthermore, if such act continues to be apprehended by
our local government authorities the more small business who also has such rights and
privileges under the Constitution which they had been following such regulations except
to this that could easily impair and destroy their source of income as framers of the
society.
Wherefore, also other motorist who are in to modifying their registered vehicles
under the Land Transportation Office(LTO) might also be affected since this should not
have a retroactive effect for which the authorities will no longer have the basis of
whether the modification took place before the Administrative Order No. 15 is passed or
2

is it before since all modification are not bound to put dates of when it was been
modified or set to such motor vehicle. Hence, this might cause impairment and unjust
judgement over those motor vehicle owners who had modified their owned vehicles
before the said act was amended.

CONCLUSION
As petitioner I believe that this is a mere violation under the Constitution
as to non-conformity or repugnancy of such act under its ambiguity and unjust act that
would cause prejudice to all those motor vehicle owners which contains after market
modification and business industry of such items as of in violation of the said
Administrative Order No. 15 of the Land Transportation Office.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, I pray that the Honourable Court
would issue an order in resolving the unconstitutionality of Administrative Order No. 15,
Paragraph 3 of the Land Transportation Office.

CABALLAR, Norries Jonell L.

Law School Student
Jose Rizal University