Republic of the Philippines

CITY OF CEBU

September 29, 2020

Hon. Mayor Edgar Labella

OFFICE OF THE CITY MAYOR
GF Executive Bldg, Cebu City Hall
Cebu City, 6000

Re: Banning of Electric Scooters on All Major Roads

________________________________________________________________________________

The world was caught off guard when the Novel Corana Virus Covid-19 struck us
in the most devastating way, affecting not just the health of many, but the lives of
many as a whole. The pandemic we are currently facing has caused Cebu City to
experience persisting challenges in defeating COVID-19. Unending quarantines
caused industries to close and public transportation to stop. Many were dis-
placed and lost their jobs and those who were able to keep them, are facing
transportation difficulties. In their dire need for a mobility device, a lot of Ce-
buanos, especially our frontliners and BPO employees, have opted to the use of
electric scooters to ply on the major thoroughfares going to and from their re -
spective workplace.

Most of these e-scooter users are members of Sugbo Skooteros - a well-orga-

nized community composed of around 1, 000 members. Many of them are even
living outside Cebu City and mostly are frontliners, government workers and BPO
employees going to Cebu City only to report for work. In light of the recent state-
ment of the Cebu City Transportation Office (CCTO) on Thursday, September 24,
2020, saying it will ban, effectively immediately, the use of the e-scooters in all
major and city roads, anchoring it’s decision on City Ordinance Ordinance 801 or
the Traffic Code of the City and threatening the public to impound to those will vi-
olate, many of our members and other e-scooter users were saddened and dis-
mayed with this sudden restriction, especially those who are mainly relying on e-
scooters as their means of transporation going to work and running some er-
rands.

We are writing to you on the issue of the validity of Cebu City Ordinance 801. Art.
4, Sec. 7 of the said ordiance states that “coasters, roller skaters, and toy vehi-
cles or similar devices” are prohibited in any roadway, except while crossing a
street. We strongly believe that we do not fall to any of the restricted devices
aforementioned.

It it worthy to note that the such ordinace did not explicitly mention electric scoot-
ers as part of those that are categorically restricted to be used on the roads nor
are e-scooters similar to coasters and roller skates in technical specifications
and appearance that even a naked eye can easily distinguish the apparent differ-
ences between these devices. Elementary is the principle that words should be
construed in their ordinary and usual meaning.

Furthermore, e-scooters can never be categorized as a “toy” since the type of

scooters that are subject to this controversy are scooters which are intended,
not just by its users, but also by its manufacturers, for mobility purposes - a de-
vice massly produced worldwide for transporting one person to another and not
for recreation or leisure. It is a mainly a transportation commodity. It is a well-set-
tled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute will be interpreted in
their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is evident
that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.

Most importantly, e-scooters cannot impliedly or presumably be considered as

falling under the blanket term “similar devices”, as such will greatly prejudice the
many. Such term suffers vagueness and indefiniteness for being generic.

It is a rule of legal herneneutics that where general words follow an enumeration

of persons or things, by words of a particular or specific meaning, such general
words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as apply-
ing only to persons or things of the same general class as those specifically men-
tioned.

Under the rule of construction known as "ejusdem generis", where general words
follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general
words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same gen-
eral nature or class as those enumerated. The rule is based on the obvious rea-
son that if the legislature had intended the general words to be used in their unre-
stricted sense they would have made no mention of the particular classes (The
City of Manila vs. Juan Entote, G.R. No. L-24776 June 28, 1974).

In Mutuc vs. Commission on Elections, the rule of "ejusdem generis" was once
more applied to construe a provision of the Constitutional Convention Act of
1970 (R.A. 6132) which made it unlawful for candidates "to purchase, produce, re-
quest or distribute sample ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens,
lighters, fans (of whatever nature), flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wal-
lets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like, whether of domes-
tic or foreign origin," and the Court held that under the doctrine of "ejusdem
generis" the phrase "and the like" applies to things or gadgets of the kind specifi-
cally enumerated, and that consequently the use of a taped jingle for campaign
purposes is not within the general clause.

As a rule, a statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible

standards that men "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its mean-
ing and differ as to its application." It is repugnant to the Constitution in two re-
spects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the
parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law en-
forcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and become an arbitrary
flexing of the Government muscle (SPARK) vs. Quezon City, represented by
Mayor Bautista, G.R. No. 224302, Aug. 08, 2017).

Sec. 1, Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, otherwise known as the
due process clause, provides that “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.”
Due process requires that the terms of a penal statute must be sufficiently ex-
plicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render
them liable to its penalties (The People of the Philippines vs. Carol M. Dela
Piedra, G.R. No. 121777, January 24, 2001).

Furthermore, the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius can be very
well applied on the matter. The express mention of one thing excludes all others.

Last but not the least, on May 2020, the Department of Transportation, pursuant
to Republic Act No. 11469 or the “Bayanihan to Heal as One Act”, issued guide-
lines pertinent to the operation of land transportation categorizing e-scooters as
a Personal Mobility Device. Hence, not registrable.

We, the members of Sugbo Skooteros, are all willing to undergo e-scooter regis-
tration when needed as we are also for the regulation of the use of e-scooters for
the benefit of all e-scooter users of Cebu City. However, confiscating our only
mode of transportation without even giving us the opportunity to comply some-
thing that has no definite guideliness issued yet as to how to comply, imposses
unnecessary additional burden upon us during these trying times.

WHEREFORE, as the Father of the City of Cebu, we respectfully seek for your con-
sideration in looking into this matter in relation to the implementation of Art. 4,
Sec. 7 of Cebu City Ordinance 801, imposing impoundment of e-scooters effec-
tive immediately. We are hoping for your positive response on the matter.

SUGBO SKOOTEROS

Dr. Eeban Mendoza

President and Founder

Gonzales Comp., Cebu City, 6000