Republic of the Philippines

Region 1
Candon National High School
Senior High School
Candon City, Ilocos Sur

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NO-HELMET

NO-TRAVEL POLICY IN CANDON

A Qualitative Research
Presented to
The Candon National High School
Senior High School Department
City of Candon, Ilocos Sur

In Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the subject
Practical Research 1
(Qualitative Research)

by:
Gregy Joe Batin
Lleona Rose Valencia
Donabel Binasbas
Jumelyn Joyce Revilla

Feljone G. Ragma Ed. D

(Adviser/Co-author)

October 2017
 Republic of the Philippines
Region 1
Candon National High School
Senior High School
Candon City, Ilocos Sur

INDORSEMENT

This is to certify that the researchers who conceptualized the study

“Implementation of the No-Helmet No-Travel Policy in Candon” are
ready for Oral Examination.

Feljone G. Ragma, Ed.D.

Adviser

Republic of the Philippines

Region 1
Candon National High School
Senior High School
Candon City, Ilocos Sur

APPROVAL

This is to certify that the abovementioned study has

SUCCESSFULLY PASSED the Oral Examination on October 17, 2017

before the following, whose signatures are accordingly affixed.

FILOMENO VALDEZ MARK CHESTER DELA ROSA

Panel Member Panel Member

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In appreciation to the support given to this quantitative research

study entitled: Implementation of the No-Helmet No-Travel Policy in

Candon City, the researchers would like to give sincere thanks to the

people behind the triumph of this academic pursuit.

In particular, the researchers would like to express their sincere

heartfelt gratitude to the following people:

Dr. Feljone G. Ragma, the research adviser, co-author of the said

research, as well as the chairperson of the defense panel for guiding the

researchers and nurturing them with support, knowledge and immense

care. His unending efforts led to the completion of this study.

Mr. Felomino Valdez, member of the defense panel, for his

circumstantial criticisms, thorough evaluation, and massive assistance

for the finalization of the study.

And lastly, this research will never be completed without the

respondents. The researchers would like to thank them for sharing their

knowledge and time.

iii
 DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to our teacher in Research 2, Dr. Feljone

G. Ragma, who shared his profound knowledge in conducting a well-

made research study, for helping us to comprehend the things that were

complex, unfamiliar and complicated, and also in guiding us in every

part of the research.

He is more than an educator, he was a friend and a guardian that

is always there at times where everything seemed difficult. He became an

inspiration to each one of us for he is a man of hard-work,

determination, passion, wit, and endless charm. He has his own and

unique way his pixie dusts knowledge and learnings. He engraved in our

hearts and minds that every second, every minute, and every hour

counts, and is relevant in all walks of life. We are privileged and blessed

to be his students. So, we, express our sincerest thanks and deepest

gratitude to our respected research teacher because this study that will

benefit a lot of people, would not be possible without him.

iv
 ABSTRACT

Title: Implementation of the No-Helmet No-Travel Policy

in Candon City.

Researchers: Gregy Joe Batin

Lleona Rose Valencia
Donabel Binasbas
Jumelyn Joyce Gacillan

Adviser: Feljone G. Ragma, Ed. D

Abstract: This quantitative research that utilized the descriptive method is

designed to measure the level of implementation of the No-Helmet No-
Travel Policy in Candon City, and to provide an overview on what parts of
the implementation still needs an enhancement.
The survey-questionnaire method was applied to the students and
faculty/staff of Candon National High School who rides a motorcycle.
The questionnaires were distributed to a quota of 100 respondents.
Moreover, the researchers utilized the mean to treat the data. The
researchers figured out that the No-Helmet No-Travel Policy is highly
implemented in Candon City, implying that all the domains in the
enactment of the Helmet Act are implemented in the same level of intensity
which signifies a high implementation.
The research study recommended that the local authorities should
continue their commendable efforts and strategic supervision in imposing
the said policy in Candon, as well as the compliance and participation of
the citizens to the Helmet Act, specifically the motorists. In that way, this
policy will be more improved in securing the riders and their passengers
from life threatening accidents and road crashes.

Keywords: Riders, Helmet, Declaration of Policy, Mandatory Use of

Motorcycle Helmets, Exemption, Provision of Motorcycle Helmet,
Implementation, Penalties, and Nationwide public information campaign.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Number

TITLE PAGE………………………………………………………….……….. i
ENDORSEMENT……………………………………………………….…….. ii
APPROVAL SHEET…………………………………………………………... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………… iii
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………….. iv
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………….………………………. vi
TABLES…………………………………………………………………………. viii
CHAPTER
I Introduction…………………………………….…………… 1
Background of the Study…………………………..……… 1
Framework…………………………………………………….. 8
Statement of the Problem……………………………… 15
Assumption……...……………………………………….. 16
Importance of the Study...…………………………….. 17
Scope and Delimitation………………………………… 17
Definition of Terms………………………………………. 18
Review of Related Literature and Studies………….. 20
II Method and Procedures…..………………………………. 40
Research Design…….………………………………….... 40
Sources of Data….……………………………………….. 41
. Instrumentation and Data Collection……………….. 41
Tools for Data Analysis…………..…………………….. 42
Data Categorization…………………….……………….. 42

vi
 Ethical Consideration…………………………..………. 43
III Results and Discussion……………………………………. 44
Level of Implementation………...………………………….. 44
Declaration of Policy…………………………….......... 49
Mandatory Use of Motorcycle Helmets………………. 50
Exemption……….…………………………………..…….. 51
Provision of Motorcycle Helmets………………….…… 51
Implementation…………………………..………………. 52
Penalties…………………………………………..……….. 53
Nationwide Public Information Campaign………….. 55
Strengths and Weaknesses in the Level of 55
Implementation…………………………………………………
Comparison among the Seven 57
Domains…………………….……………………………………
IV Conclusions and Recommendations………………….. 60
Findings………………………………………………………… 60
Conclusion…………………………………………………….. 60
Recommendations……………………………………………. 61
Bibliography 63
Appendices……………………………………………………………………..
A
B
C
D

vii
Table Page
1 Level of Implementation of the No-Helmet No-Travel 45
Policy in Candon…………………………………………………..
2 Strengths and Weaknesses in the Level of 56
Implementation…………………………………………………….
3 Comparison among the Seven Domains…………………….. 58
TABLE

viii
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The affairs and problems of the government are also the affairs and

problems of its people. Government is responsible for the projects and

platforms that are designed to ensure accountability, responsiveness,

inclusiveness and broad-based participation of people concerned.

In governance, all of societies are involved in managing public

affairs. It takes two to serve its purpose. As what the Emergence

Response/ Rescue Program Command Centre stated on 2014,

governance sets the normative standard for improvement and

development. It also fosters participation, ensures transparency,

demands accountability, promotes efficiency, and upholds the rule of law

(Palma, 2014). The participation and involvement of the people in the

society is needed as much as the spearheading actions by the

government. It all depends on the ability of the administration and the

people to take responsibility because the governance of the people, by the

people, for the people will only be broken if the people fail to make it

work.

Good governance can be seen through programs, platforms, laws,

regulations and ordinances proposed and implemented by officials.

ix
Governance indicators capture three key dimensions; Government

Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality and Political Stability. But these

programs will only be successful and worthy if majority of the people will

recognize and use them. The same thing happens with laws and

ordinances. An ordinance can only be effective if there is constant

monitoring by the assigned personnel, because if so, the people, left with

no other choice, will have to follow the rules of law. All in all, governance

covers the implementation of different projects from infrastructures to

road works, up to security and safety of the people.

Government’s highest law shall be the safety of the people. Laws

and ordinances are submitted and approved to cater safety, peace, order,

and improvement to societies. And he who obeys the law will be

considered a noble citizen.

In fact, there have been many ordinances and laws filed to ensure

precautions and prevention of accidents. One of which is the Helmet Act

which is enforced not only in the Philippines but also around the globe,

only with different versions and forms. Currently, each individual state

determines its own helmet law.

And in terms of safety, protecting the head is the highest priority

and helmet is the most essential piece of protection that people can wear,

yet two wheelers account for the most number of road accidents. Though

x
careless and rash driving is the cause of most of the accidents, head

injury is one of the single largest reasons for the majority of road

accidents (Manorama, 2017). When struck, the helmet compress which

decreases the fatality of the impact by dispersing and absorbing force.

According to a meta-analysis done by MacLeod, DiGiacomo, and Tinkoff,

helmet use in motorcycle riders reduces overall death rates, the

incidence of lethal head injury, and the number of non-lethal head

injuries after they reviewed 45 articles.

In the international scenario, a study is being conducted by The

National Safety Authority (NHTSA) and private institutions examining the

crash statistics from several states demonstrating a direct correlation

between lack of helmet laws and increased incidence of traumatic brain

injury (TBI) and death. It is also indicated by the NHTSA that in the

states were national helmet laws are entirely or partially appealed, the

rates of helmet use drops significantly (Satkoske, 2013).

In addition, according to an article in the daily journalist, over the

last decades, 50 states around United States have much gone back and

forth in terms of deciding upon whether they want mandatory helmet

laws in place. Only 19 states in the United States along with the District

of Columbia have universal mandatory helmet laws in place. This

requires that every motorcycle rider wear a helmet every time they get on

xi
their bikes. The majority of the rest of the states have laws that require

riders below a certain age, such as 17 to 20, to wear a helmet whenever

they ride their motorcycles (Jortega, 2017).

Moreover, based on the study of Daniels (2014), he found out that

after the implementation of the California statewide motorcycle helmet

law, fatalities decreased by 37 percent. Furthermore, helmets reduce the

risk of head injury in motorcycle riders by 69 percent. In 2010 alone, an

estimated 1550 motorcycle related fatalities were prevented by helmet

use and 706 more lives could have been saved if all motorcyclists had

worn helmets.

Meanwhile, in the Philippines, many provinces also enacted the

helmet act. This is an act mandating all motorcycle to use helmets while

driving and providing penalties to the violators. It was approved in March

2010 signed by Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declaring that motorcycle

riders shall at all times wear standard protective motorcycle helmets

while driving including their back riders, whether short or long

distances, in any road and highway. It is also stated that standard

protective motorcycle helmets are appropriate types of helmets for

motorcycle riders that comply with the specifications issued by the DTI.

Land Transportation Office Regional Director Raul Aguillos warned

the LTO deputized enforcers of traffic laws that when they are making

xii
arrests for violation of the prescribed use of helmets, they must not

invoke R.A. 1005. Instead, they must invoke R.A. 4136, an act to compile

the laws relative to LTO and traffic rules to create a land transportation

commission and for other purposes.

Philippine National Police and other traffic enforcers who are not

deputized by the LTO can only make apprehensions based on local traffic

ordinances but they do not have the authority to invoke a national law.

They cannot confiscate a driver’s license nor issues a temporary

operator’s permit too. Only a citation ticket can be issued for violation of

a local ordinance, he added.

Through the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS), the Department

of Trade and Industry (DTI) shall conduct a mandatory testing of all

manufactured and imported motorcycle helmets in the country. All

manufacturers and importers of standard protective motorcycle helmets

are required to secure a PS license or ICC prior to the sale and

distribution of their products. The BPS shall issue periodically a list of

motorcycle helmet manufacturers and importers and the brands which

passed the standards of the BPS to be published in a newspaper to

publicize.

xiii
 There are consequences to those who do not comply on the

ordinance, such as paying fines, or worst is the confiscation of driver’s

license. In the first offense, the violator will be paying an amount of P

1,500.00, on the second offense P 3,000.00, on the third offense P

5,000.00, and on the fourth and succeeding offenses the violator shall

pay P 10,000.00 followed by the confiscation of his driver’s license.

Thousands of motorcycle riders throughout the country reported to

the offices of Department of Trade and Industry to get a small sticker for

their helmets called as the ICC sticker. ICC is actually a requirement

imposed on distributors, importers, producers, and consumers. ICC

stands for “Import Commodity Clearance”, a document normally issued by

the DTI’s Bureau of Product Standards to manufacturers and importers

certifying that their products meet the standard specifications and tests

for quality and safety (David, 2012).

Majority of the residents in Dumaguete City still view the Republic

Act of 2009 as impractical even four years after the law was implemented

in the city. The helmet was passed in 2010 but its Implementing Rules

and Regulations took effect only in January 2012. Dumaguete, known as

the "Motorcycle Capital of the Philippines," has been mandated to

implement it since 2012, but the Land Transportation Office (LTO) head

Marliza Elesterio herself admitted that they have difficulty implementing

xiv
such, as the local government units and several sectors are against it

(Geronimo, 2016).

The Cebu Provincial Board has called on Cebu’s 51 towns and

component cities to strictly implement Republic Act 10054, also known

as the helmet law. “There is a need for local government units to make

sure that the said law is strictly followed as we have the responsibility to

assure the general welfare of our constituents,” reads the resolution

penned by Ex-Officio Board Member Earl Tidy Oyas. They require

motorists to wear either a half-faced helmet with clear visor or a full-

faced helmet with clear visor to ensure the protection of the riders

In the local scenario, the helmet act is enforced in the City of

Candon on May 03, 2011. They assigned the police body, traffic

enforcers, and the barangay tanods to enact the ordinance in the

municipality. In the city, for the first offense the violator pays P 500.00,

for the second offense P 1,000.00, and for the third offense P 1,500.00 as

reported in the article of the Tawid News Team on the year 2011.

According to Candon City Police Supt. Marlo Castillo, they

penalized 164 motorists on the first day for not complying with the

ordinance. A total of P 82,000.00 was collected on that day. And on the

following day, 66 motorists were penalized for the same violation.

xv
Unfortunately, there were 200 motorists who violated the policy for not

wearing standard protective motorcycle helmets on the first two days of

the implementation of the “No-Helmet-No-Travel Policy” in the city.

Castillo also said that they have placed checkpoints in barangay San

Juan, roads leading to Darapidap Beach, and the road heading to

Salcedo. Castillo stated that in the first two days of the city ordinance,

they have accumulated P 100,000 from the violators.

In general, it can be seen that the Helmet Act is a universal

mandate. It does not only fall on the rural and urban areas around the

Philippines. Thus, it gives the notion that motorcycle crashes is a global

problem. It makes different countries all around the world common in

some way. It was stated earlier that places abroad was able to reduce

accident rates over the years with the help of the said act, and if they

did, the researchers believe that the Philippines can, too.

Framework

The framework of the research study is based on the different

theories and concepts regarding governance, obedience to the authority,

and accident causations.

International agencies such as United Nations Development

Program (UNDP), the World Bank (WB), the Organisation for Economic

xvi
Co-operation and Development (OECD), Development Assistance

Committee (DAC) and others define governance as the exercise of

authority or power in order to manage a country’s economic, political and

administrative affairs. The 2009 Global Monitoring Report sees

governance as power relationships, formal and informal processes of

formulating policies and allocating resources, processes of decision-

making and mechanisms for holding governments accountable. In

addition, the Asian Development Bank (2005) states that governance

revolves around the institutional environment in which citizens interact

among themselves and with the government agencies/officials. It runs

parallel to The Systems Theory of Good Governance, according to Bang

and Esmark (2009), it says that good governance serves as an

instrument of governance that nurtures and strategically utilizes the self-

governing potential of civil society under the strategic supervision of

public authorities. It also suggests individual freedom, empowerment,

participation, transparency, and accountability.

The Systems Theory of Good Governance has something to do with

the research study because it reveals if the national and local authorities

utilize strategic supervision in the implementation of The Motorcycle

Helmet Act in the country along with how the authorities formulate

xvii
policies and to determine whether the qualities of good governance is

present in the enactment of the ordinance or not.

Basically, governance is about power, relationships and

accountability: who has influence, who decides, and how decision-

makers are held accountable (Institute on Governance, 2003). Moreover,

the concept of governance includes how an organization, including how a

nation is run, along with the processes, systems, and controls that are

used to safeguard and grow assets (UNDP, 1997). These concepts find

support in the studies conducted by Stoker et al. (1998); Provan (2000);

and Goggin, et al. (1990). These concepts about governance are

applicable to the research study for it serves as an eye opener, showing if

the decision-makers are held accountable of the consequences in

enacting different policies and ordinances. Also, it aims to figure out

what are the procedures and processes in implementing a law, or a

mandate.

Regarding the concept of government, De Leon (2008) suggests

that a government refers to the agencies through which the will of the

state is formulated, expressed, and carried out. In addition, it exists for

the benefit of the people governed. Also, the state cannot exist without

the government; but it is possible to have a government without a state

(Zulueta, 2003). The concepts are related to the research study because

xviii
the government manages the affairs of the state. Moreover, government is

responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies and

ordinances that benefits the people. It says there that the state is

dependent to the government, and it is primarily because the people, as

members of the state, gain comfort and help in living through acquiring

the services offered by the latter.

On the other hand, governance is a two-way process. It does not

only cover the politicians, and other law enforcers, but also the people of

the society that are benefited with the different services. The government

only requires them cooperation and support for the different programs,

and of course obedience to the rules and regulations. According to Weber

(1958), he defined authority as the chance of commands being obeyed by

a specifiable group of people. Legitimate authority is that which is

recognized as legitimate and justified by both the ruler and the ruled .

Moreover, when it comes to theory about obedience to the authority, one

of the most famous studies was carried out by Milgram in 1963. Also,

Milgram elaborated one theory explaining his results, and it is called the

Agentic State Theory which states that, “the essence of obedience

consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the

instrument for carrying out another person's wishes.” In other words,

people allow others to direct their actions, and then pass off the

xix
responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders.

People act as agents for another person’s will. Ordinary people are likely

to follow orders given by an authority figure. Obedience to authority is

ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up. People tend to obey

orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right

or legally based.

Moreover, Milgram suggested that two things must be in place in

order for a person to enter the Agentic state. The person giving the orders

is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is,

they are seen as legitimate. The person being ordered about is able to

believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.

Agency theory says that people will obey an authority when they believe

that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their

actions. This is supported by some aspects of Milgram’s evidence. The

Agentic State Theory is applicable for the research study because it

indicates the consequences if a person obeys or disobeys the authority.

This is clearly in parallel to the research study in a way that it talks

about the situations where people follow someone on top of them.

Nowadays, the people who followed in the usage of helmet have different

reasons. Some are scared about the punishments if caught not following,

xx
and some are scared for their lives. Nonetheless, obedience, although

cause by different factors, is still obedience in the law.

Although there are road rules imposed by the government and

cooperation from the people, accidents cannot be avoided fully. Accidents

are undesired circumstances resulting in injuries, fatalities, loss of

production, or damage to properties and assets. Thus, there have been

many theories and concepts to address the arising number of accidents.

In terms of Accident Causation Theories, they were able to come up with

two. The first theory is named as The Single Event Theory. This theory is

based on the assumption that an accident consists of a single event that

has a cause. Find the cause, and you have explained the phenomenon.

According to Benner (1979), the task is easy: find the cause, correct it

and one can prevent accidents.

The Single Event Theory is connected to the research study

because before one can go through the next level of this research, it is a

must to know the reasons behind uplifting such ordinance. It was known

that the City of Candon was alarmed with the rising number of

motorcycle accidents and they eventually found out that many of the

victims died, primarily because of the head injuries from vehicle crashes,

and it could have been prevented by wearing a protective gear, a helmet.

Of course, accidents happen because of various reasons, but end up with

xxi
the same outcomes; minor injuries, fractures, and worst, a fatal damage.

Helmets do not really help in avoiding accidents, but it gives out a

platform for safety.

The second theory under Accident Causation is called The Domino

Theory which was coined by Heinrich (1936). His premise was that if a

set of unsafe conditions or hazards set up a row of vulnerable dominos,

an unsafe act would start them toppling. According to him, 88% of all

accidents are caused by unsafe acts of people, 10% by unsafe actions

and 2% by “acts of God”. Moreover, he proposed the “five-factor accident

sequence” wherein each factor would actuate the next step of toppling

dominoes lined up in a row. The sequence of accident factors are as

follows: (a) ancestry and social environment, (b) worker fault, (c) unsafe

act together with mechanical and physical hazard, (d) accident, (e)

damage and injury. Heinrich suggested that removal of one of the factors

would prevent the accident, interrupt the sequence of toppling, and avoid

resultant injury.

The Domino Theory is appropriate for the research study because

it talks about the probable reasons on the occurrence of accidents. It

gives us an overview about the factors behind crashes. Since our study is

about The Motorcycle Helmet Act and the idea of conducting such arose

when the news reported about the growing number of motorcycle-related

xxii
deaths, this theory gives a back-up idea that crashes really happen

mostly because of the recklessness, and irresponsibility of the riders.

There are still other factors, things that people cannot control, but only if

there is a removal of one of the factors, specifically the unsafe acts of

drivers, accidents and resultant injuries can be prevented. That is where

the interruptions of the sequence of toppling begin.

In general, the different theories and concepts are structured in a

way that good governance comes first, and obedience to the law and

accident causation theories follow. If good governance is observed in a

certain place, it mirrors that the people trusts the institution and

therefore they follow and abide to the mandates they enforce. So if the

people see that there is transparency, and effectiveness in the No-

Helmet-No-Travel ordinance, the people will partake and eventually

follow all the rules it covers. If there is acquiescence to the same

ordinance, the theory under accident causation will be disturbed, and

the toppling of dominoes will happen, and avert accidents that are about

to happen.

Statement of the problem

xxiii
 This study mainly focuses on the implementation of The No-

Helmet-No-Travel ordinance in the City of Candon among Candon

National High School Students.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1) What is the level of implementation of the No-Helmet-No-Travel

ordinance in Candon along the following:

a. Declaration of Policy;

b. Mandatory Use of Motorcycle Helmets;

c. Exemptions;

d. Provision of Motorcycle Helmets;

e. Implementation;

f. Penalties and;

g. Nationwide Public Information Campaign?

2) What are the strengths and weaknesses along the level of

implementation of the No-Helmet-No-Travel ordinance?

3) Is there a significant difference in the implementation when

grouped according to domains?

Assumptions

xxiv
 1) The level of implementation of the No-Helmet-No-Travel

ordinance in Candon City among CNHS students is moderate.

2) The strengths of the ordinance upon the enactment are notable

on the dimensions of the declaration of policy, exemption, provision, and

nationwide information campaign, while its weaknesses revolve around

the dimensions of exemptions and penalties.

Scope and Delimitation

The primary subjects of the study are the students, and

faculty/staff from Candon National High School who rides motorcycle

from June 2017 onwards.

Importance of the Study

The research study will greatly benefit the following:

The students, and faculty/staff of Candon National High School,

the respondents of this study, will be benefitted because with this

research, they will acquire awareness on how the ordinance effectively

reduce the number of cases on road-related deaths, most especially that

recently, students have been the victim of road accidents. Thus, they will

be convinced on wearing protective motorcycle helmets.

xxv
 In the same way, the study will give the City Government of

Candon an idea, showing if the people follow the ordinances and policies

they uphold.

It will also provide the Land Transportation Office (LTO) an

overview if the No Helmet-No-Travel ordinance is really imposed. In

relation, it will allow them to assess what they should do to improve the

implementation of the ordinance.

Since the Philippine National Police (PNP) is a partner of the

government in the enactment of the ordinance, it will provide them an

additional knowledge on the number of law-breakers or violators, as well

as the notion on how to enforce the ordinance well.

The traffic enforcers will also be benefited in the research study, in

a way that they are given the chance to know their roles and lapses in

the implementation of the ordinance. If so, determining the faults will

make their jobs easier.

The researchers are also one of the benefactors of the study

because they will be able to acquire knowledge on how effective the

ordinance is, by basing their assessment on the data and facts that they

have gathered. And because of this, the researchers may prevent road-

related accidents in complying with the ordinance.

xxvi
 Lastly, this study will surely benefit the future researchers that will

investigate on the road-related problems and phenomenon by giving

them prior knowledge just by reading this research.

Definition of Terms

Declaration of Policy. It is the official announcement of R.A. 10054 at

Candon, which aims to promote safety and security in the city, by

mandating every motorcycle riders to wear standard protective

motorcycle helmets in driving within the areas of Candon.

Exemption. This is an immunity given only to tricycle drivers from

complying with the mandatory wearing of protective helmets.

Provision of Motorcycle Helmets. It states that every helmet used or

sold in Candon, must have met the standards set of Bureau of Product

Standards.

Helmet. It is a standard protective head-gear that should be worn at all

times by motorcycle riders including their back riders while they are

driving.

xxvii
Implementation. It refers to the enactment of The No Helmet, No Travel

Ordinance in Candon City.

Nationwide Public Information Campaign. It refers to the six months

nationwide information, education and communication (IEC) campaign of

the LTO in coordination with the Philippine Information Agency (PIA), the

DePED, and other private organizations for the attainment of the

objectives of the Helmet Act.

Ordinance. It pertains to the act mandating that all motorists/drivers

shall wear standard protective helmets while driving.

Penalties. These are the probable consequences to those who are caught

of not wearing the standard protective helmets, such as paying fines, or

worst is the confiscation of driver’s license.

Strengths. These refer to the effectiveness and significance of the

ordinance in Candon. These pertain to the reduction of road-related

deaths in the city.

Use of Motorcycle Helmets. It refers to the act stating that all protective

helmets that should be utilized by motorists must bear the Philippine

Standard (PS) mark or the Import Commodity Clearance (ICC) sticker of

the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS).

xxviii
Weaknesses. These refer to the ineffectiveness and insignificance of the

ordinance in Candon. These pertain to the unreduced number of road-

related deaths in the city.

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Level of Implementation
According to Michigan Government on 2017, helmets decrease the

severity of injury, the likelihood of death, and the overall cost of medical

care. They're designed to cushion and protect riders' heads from the

impact of a crash. Just like safety belts in cars, helmets can't provide

total protection against head injury or death, but they do reduce the

incidence of both. Studies show helmets are about 29 percent effective in

preventing motorcyclist deaths.

A rider who does not wear a helmet is 40 percent more likely to

suffer a fatal head injury and 15 percent more likely to incur a nonfatal

head injury than a helmeted motorcyclist, the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates. Helmets are even more

effective in preventing brain injuries. NHTSA estimates helmets are 67

percent effective in preventing this injury type

Claims have been made that helmets increase the risk of neck

injuries and reduce peripheral vision and hearing, but there's no credible

xxix
evidence to support these arguments. A study by J.P. Goldstein is often

cited by helmet opponents as evidence that helmets cause neck injuries,

allegedly by adding to head mass in a crash. More than a dozen studies

have refuted Goldstein's findings. A study reported in the Annals of

Emergency Medicine in 2007 analyzed 1,153 motorcycle crashes in four

mid-western states and determined that "helmets reduce head injuries

without an increased occurrence of spinal injuries in motorcycle

trauma."

Regarding claims that helmets obstruct vision, studies show full-

coverage helmets provide only minor restrictions in horizontal peripheral

vision less than 3 percent from that of an unhelmeted rider. A 1995

study by James McKnight analyzed the effects of motorcycle helmet use

on seeing and hearing. The study found that wearing helmets "restricts

neither the ability to hear horn signals nor the likelihood of visually

detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane prior to initiating a lane change."

To compensate for any restrictions in lateral vision, riders

increased their head rotation prior to a lane change. Subjects in the

hearing study showed no differences in hearing thresholds under three

helmet conditions: no helmet, partial coverage, and full coverage. The

noise generated by a motorcycle is such that any reduction in hearing

capability that may result from wearing a helmet is inconsequential.

xxx
Sound loud enough to be heard above the engine can be heard within a

helmet, a NHTSA study concluded.

Historically, in the United States, before 1967, only three states

had motorcycle helmet use laws. The federal government in 1967 began

requiring states to enact motorcycle helmet use laws in order to qualify

for certain federal safety program and highway construction funds.

Thirty-seven states enacted helmet use laws between 1967 and

1969. By 1975, all but three states mandated helmets for all

motorcyclists.

  As the Department of Transportation in 1976 moved to assess

financial penalties on states without helmet laws, Congress responded to

state pressure by revoking the department's authority to assess penalties

for noncompliance. Between 1976 and 1978, 19 states weakened their

helmet use laws to apply only to young riders, usually under age 18.

Seven states repealed helmet use requirements for all motorcyclists.

 Then, in the 1980s and early 1990s, several states reinstated laws

applying to all riders. Congress in the 1991 Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act created incentives for states to enact

xxxi
helmet use and safety belt use laws. States with both laws were eligible

for special safety grants, but states without them by October 1993 had

up to 3 percent of their federal highway allotment redirected to highway

safety programs.

Four years after establishing the incentives, Congress again

reversed itself. In the fall of 1995, Congress lifted federal sanctions

against states without helmet use laws, paving the way for state

legislatures to repeal helmet laws. As of January 1, 1996, 25 states and

the District of Columbia have helmet laws covering all riders, and 22

states have laws covering some riders, usually those under 18. Colorado,

Illinois, and Iowa don't have helmet laws.

In the states that either reinstated or enacted a motorcycle helmet

law in the past decade, helmet use has dramatically increased, and

motorcyclist deaths and injuries have decreased:

California's use law covering all riders took effect January 1, 1992.

Helmet use jumped from about 50 percent prior to the law to 99 percent

afterward. During the same period, the number of motorcycle fatalities

decreased 38 percent, from 523 in 1991 to 327 in 1992.

xxxii
 Nebraska reinstated a helmet law January 1, 1989 after repealing

an earlier law in 1977. As a result, the state saw a 20 percent reduction

in motorcyclist head injuries.

Texas from 1968 to 1977 had a universal helmet use law estimated

to have saved 650 lives, but the law was amended in 1977 to apply only

to riders younger than 18.

The weakened law coincided with a 35 percent increase in

motorcyclist fatalities. Texas reinstated its helmet law for all

motorcyclists in September 1989. The month before the law took effect,

the helmet use rate was 41 percent. The rate jumped to 90 percent

during the first month of the law and had risen to 98 percent by June

1990. Serious injury crashes per registered cycle decreased 11 percent.

Helmet use laws may also lead to a decline in motorcycle thefts,

possibly because some potential thieves don't have helmets, and not

wearing a helmet would attract police notice.

After Texas enacted its universal helmet law, motorcycle thefts in

19 Texas cities decreased 44 percent from 1988 to 2002, according to the

Texas Department of Public Safety. Motorcycle thefts dropped

dramatically in three European countries after the introduction of laws

that fined motorcyclists for failure to wear helmets. In London,

motorcycle thefts fell 24 percent after Great Britain enacted a helmet law

xxxiii
in 1973. The Netherlands saw a 36 percent drop in thefts in 1975 when

its law was enacted. And in former West Germany, where on-the-spot

fines were introduced in 1980, motorcycle thefts plummeted 60 percent.

Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of

their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. Results of NHTSA's

Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System study released in April 1995

show average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcycle

crash victims were 25 percent higher than for helmeted riders- $15,447

compared with $12,374. After California introduced a helmet use law in

1992, studies show health care costs associated with head-injured

motorcyclists declined.

Average charges for head-injured motorcyclists admitted to

hospitals in San Diego County fell 32 percent from 1991 to 1992, from

$53,875 to $36,744, and average charges for all injured motorcyclists fell

17 percent. For head-injured patients treated and released from

emergency rooms, the drop was even more substantial - 43 percent.

The total charges for head-injured motorcyclists seen in San Diego

County trauma centers fell from $9.8 million in 1991 to $5.5 million in

1992 and $5.4 million in 1993. A study of the effects of Nebraska's

reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical

xxxiv
charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent after the law was

implemented.

Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, Massachusetts, and

Texas indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one

percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to

January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.

In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985

was paid by public funds.

In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat

orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists in 1980-83. Forty-six

percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital in

1982-83 were uninsured. At Brackenridge Hospital in Austin, Texas, 41

percent of injured motorcyclists who were unhelmeted had no insurance,

compared with 27 percent of injured helmeted riders treated between

February 1985 and January 1986.

In the United States, only 19 states, along with the District of

Columbia, have universal mandatory helmet laws in place. These require

that every motorcycle rider wear a helmet every time they get on their

bikes. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2017)

xxxv
 The majority of the rest of the states have laws that require riders

below a certain age, such as 17 or 20, to wear a helmet whenever they

ride their motorcycles. (Pathway, 2015) And there are three states (Iowa,

Illinois, and New Hampshire), where there’s no law at all regarding the

use of helmets while you ride. All countries throughout the European

Union have enacted a law that requires helmet use for all individuals

who ride motorcycles.

Therefore Pathway (2017) concluded, anywhere in the EU, there’s

simply no escaping this law and absolutely one must have the

appropriate protective headgear on whenever one head out on the road,

whether someone goes for a relaxing backcountry ride or some heading

to work in the city. All of the helmets that are worn on roads throughout

the United Kingdom must also meet specific requirements.

In the study of Bachani (2017) Head-related trauma is a significant

cause of injury and death in road traffic injuries and contributed to 88%

of deaths involving motorized two-wheeler crashes in low- and middle-

income countries (LMICs). Large-scale ecological studies have shown that

increases in helmet use when brought on by legislation or enforcement

changes are accompanied by decreases in mortality and morbidity,

xxxvi
suggesting that helmets represent a viable method of reducing head

injuries from two-wheeled motorized vehicle crashes. 

In a global evaluation, Abbas (2015) found that helmet non-use

was the most significant factor affecting a motorcyclists death rate in a

RTI and that helmets reduce the risk of death in a crash. A 2009

Cochrane systematic review concluded that motorcycle helmets reduced

the risk of death and injury in motorcycle riders who crash. Helmet

wearing among those surviving motorcycle crashes was also found to

lower hospitalization costs compared to those without helmets in the

United States.

In addition, a study in Taiwan reported motorcyclists without

helmets were four and ten times as likely to have head and brain

injuries, respectively, in a crash. Further, the use of substandard

helmets and correct fastening of helmets are additional secondary issues

that are particularly relevant in LMICs.

In Vietnam, two-wheeled motorcycle users are left vulnerable to

head injuries and fatalities resulting from RTIs. Given the proven

effectiveness of helmet use in reducing mortality, morbidity, and costs, it

is crucial to assess and improve the use of helmets across Vietnam.

(Passmore, 2010)

xxxvii
 One effort to improve the use of helmets globally is through the

Global Road Safety Programme (GRSP) funded by Bloomberg

Philanthropies. Implemented from 2010 to 2015, the project targeted key

risk factors for road safety in nine countries with the highest burden of

road traffic injuries. In Vietnam, the GRSP focused on interventions for

helmet use and drink-driving in Ninh Binh and Ha Nam provinces.

Primary data collection in the two study areas, Ha Nam and Ninh

Binh provinces, included observational helmet wearing studies and

roadside knowledge, attitude, and perceptions (KAP) surveys on helmet

use.

Observational studies were used to determine the prevalence of

helmet use through systematically observing road users at randomly

selected study district locations. The methodology is highlighted in a

prior publication. Fourteen rounds of data collection were completed from

June 2011 to December 2014. The locations of helmet observations were

predetermined through a systematic process and held constant for every

round of observations. Study teams comprised two data collectors, and

each round had one weekday and one weekend day. During an

observation day, collectors captured data during 120-minute intervals to

account for variations in traffic volume and composition throughout the

day.

xxxviii
 Data were only recorded for vehicles traveling in one direction to

avoid double counting and ensure quality data collection. Data were

recorded on correct helmet use and substandard helmet use with

stratification by age (adult/child), gender, time of day, and time of week.

Children were defined as individuals perceived to be under 17 years of

age, inclusive. The outcome of interest is correct helmet use and was

assessed as such if drivers (or passengers) wore a helmet with protective

elements, which was not a substandard helmet and was properly

fastened.

Despite the reported magnitude of road traffic injuries, various

sources suggest official figures may underestimate the number of

deaths by more than 30%. As of January 2009, 27 million vehicles

were registered in Viet Nam of which 95% are motorized two-

wheelers, a figure that increased by an average 7680 new motorcycles

each day in 2008.

The effectiveness of motorcycle helmets in preventing head

injuries are well documented. Successful examples include China

(Province of Taiwan) and Thailand where reductions in head injuries

of 33% and 41% respectively were reported after the introduction and

enforcement of mandatory helmet laws.

xxxix
 Despite the long history of motorcycle helmet laws in Viet Nam,

low penalties and limited enforcement coverage made them largely

ineffective, resulting in approximately 30% compliance. Collaborative

advocacy from many sectors came to fruition on 29 June 2007 when

the Prime Minister, Nguyen Tan Dung passed into law a strategy that

represented a dramatic strengthening of helmet wearing

requirements. Coming into effect on 15 December 2007, Viet Nam's

new helmet law required all riders and passengers to wear helmets on

all roads without exceptions.

While revised standards provided a well needed boost to the

public acceptability of helmets, the quality of helmets has the

potential to limit the effectiveness of legislation. A survey in April

2008 by the Viet Nam Standard and Consumer Association found

that up to 80% of motorcycle helmets on the market did not meet

national standards. In November 2008, the Ministry of Science and

Technology introduced revised standards (QCVN2) that strengthened

quality assurance requirements to limit market infiltration of

substandard products.

The new law substantially increased penalties for non-wearing

from 20 000–40 000 Viet Nam Dong (VND) (approximately US$ 1–2)

under the 2007 legislation to 100 000–200 000 VND (US$ 6–12) per

offence, which represents more than 30% of the average monthly

xl
income per capita. Data from the traffic police indicate that in 2008

more than 680 000 infringements were issued against riders and

passengers for not wearing a helmet. Revenue from road traffic

infringements are collected by the State Treasury. (Passmore, 2010)

The national helmet law was developed and implemented by

the NTSC on behalf of the Vietnamese Government. The NTSC work

included obtaining the clearance on the details of the helmet law,

collaborating and consulting with provincial networks to ensure

nationwide implementation and for reporting on implementation

progress and any barriers to the Prime Minister.

Meanwhile in the Philippines most residents in Dumaguete still

view the Republic Act 10054 or the Mandatory Helmet Act of 2009 as

impractical and ineffective even four years after the law was implemented

in the city. The helmet law was passed in 2010 but its Implementing

Rules and Regulations took effect only in January 2012. Dumaguete,

known as the "Motorcycle Capital of the Philippines," has been mandated

to implement it since 2012, but the Land Transportation Office (LTO)

head Marliza Elesterio herself admitted that they have difficulty

implementing such, as the local government units and several sectors

are against it. (Geronimo, 2016)

xli
 Regine Bacalso, one of those who opposed the helmet law, said the

measure is impractical, since the roads in Dumaguete are narrow and

short compared to other urbanized areas like Manila and Cebu. She said

the national highway, which is only a two-lane highway, is not even

congested.

In Cebu, Motorcyle-related accidents and fatalities have increased

in the province. The meaningless fatality could have been prevented if

the said law is strictly implemented. The importance of wearing standard

protective helmet should be highlighted. Motorists should wear it even in

short distances said Oyas. Records of Cebu City Traffic Office showed

that a minimum of six accidents happen every day. Some notable traffic

accidents have been recorded both occurring in the city and in the

province of Cebu. (Quintas, 2017) The World Health Organization’s road

safety report showed that 1.25 million people have died globally due to

road accidents, with motorcyclists comprising 23 percent of deaths.

Without action, WHO said road traffic crashes are predicted to rise to

become the seventh leading cause of death by 2030. WHO said wearing a

motorcycle helmet correctly can reduce the risk of death by almost 40

percent and the risk of severe injury by over 70 percent. 

The director of the Land Transportation Office-Region-1 said as of

press time 250 violators of the Motorcycle Helmet Acts of 2009 were

xlii
nabbed and fined after the city government implemented an ordinance

on the non-wearing of helmet in Dagupan. (Ortigoza, 2015)

In addition, David (2012) stated that over the past week,

thousands of motorcycle riders throughout the country descended on the

offices of the Department of Trade and Industry seeking a small sticker

for their helmets. Like recruits for a ragtag army waiting to have their

weapons inspected before marching to war, they waited for harried DTI

personnel to paste an ICC sticker on their helmets attesting to their

worthiness.

Strengths and Weaknesses

 Each year about 1.2 million people die as a result of road

traffic crashes, and millions more are injured or disabled. Most of the

deaths are preventable. In many low-income and middle-income

countries, users of two-wheelers - particularly motorcyclists - make

up more than 50% of those injured or killed on the roads. Head

injuries are the main cause of death and disability among motorcycle

users, and the costs of head injuries are high because they frequently

require specialized medical care or long-term rehabilitation.

xliii
 Wearing a helmet is the single most effective way of reducing

head injuries and fatalities resulting from motorcycle and bicycle

crashes. Wearing a helmet has been shown to decrease the risk and

severity of injuries among motorcyclists by about 70%, the likelihood

of death by almost 40%, and to substantially reduce the costs of

health care associated with such crashes.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is intensifying efforts to

support governments, particularly those in low-income and middle-

income countries, to increase helmet use through a new

publication, Helmets: a road safety manual for decision-makers and

practitioners. (Sminkey, 2006)

The manual is a follow-up to the World report on road traffic

injury prevention, published in 2004 by WHO and the World Bank,

which provided evidence that establishing and enforcing mandatory

helmet use is an effective intervention for reducing injuries and

fatalities among two-wheeler users.

The manual has been produced under the auspices of the UN

road safety collaboration, in collaboration with the Global Road Safety

Partnership, the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, and

the World Bank, as one of a series of documents that aim to provide

xliv
practical advice on implementing the recommendations of the World

Report.

The importance of increasing helmet use follows dramatic

growth in motorization around the world, largely from increasing use

of motorized two-wheelers, particularly in Asian countries. In China,

for example, motorcycle ownership over the last ten years has

increased rapidly. In 2004 it was estimated that more than 67 million

motorcycles were registered in the country, and approximately 25% of

all road traffic deaths were among motorcyclists and their passengers.

Countries will recoup their investment in these programs many

times over through savings to their health care systems, as well as

savings to other sectors.

Many countries have succeeded in raising rates of helmet use

through adopting laws that make helmet use compulsory, enforcing

these laws, and raising public awareness about the laws, as well as

the benefits of helmet use. This new helmet manual draws on such

examples.

In Thailand, for instance, 80% of the 20 million registered

motorized vehicles are motorcycles. In 1992, when helmet use was

not mandatory, 90% of deaths resulting from traffic injuries were

xlv
among motorcycle users, almost all due to head injuries. Legislation

passed in the north-eastern province of Khon Kaen to make helmet

use mandatory, supported by enforcement and publicity programmes,

led to a 40% reduction in head injuries among motorcyclists and a

24% drop in motorcyclist deaths within the two years.

Copenhagen is known far and wide as the "City of Cyclists". This is

due to its longstanding and lively cycling tradition. Cycling is a socially

acceptable means of transport and it is not uncommon to see Danish

ministers or mayors cycle to work. Bicycle traffic in Copenhagen has

grown in recent years. Currently, one out of three Copenhageners cycle

to work.

The thing to notice in this video is how few bicyclists are wearing

helmets. This is the norm: bicyclists in countries with large numbers of

transportation bicyclists (Denmark, Holland, Japan) do not wear bicycle

helmets. At the same time, the bicyclist mortality rate in these countries

is 6 – 11 times lower than it is in the US.

According to Austin (2013) Helmet laws are often touted as a

"cheap way" to improve bicyclist safety; however, there is no substitute

for spending money on roadway repairs and bicycle lanes, and the best

way to avoid a head injury is to not fall on your head in the first place.

xlvi
Education, safe facilities, defensive biking, and educated motorists

prevent head injuries, not bicycle helmets. Helmet Laws are divisive and

hurt community spirit.

Transportation bicyclists feel insulted by mandatory helmet laws

(MHLs) because such laws suggest that bicyclists are incapable of

managing their own personal safety. Furthermore, in a car-oriented city,

bicyclists are already a beleaguered minority, and MHLs represent a

heavy-handed swipe at them. Far from having the effect of "people getting

used to wearing helmets" as helmet law proponents have suggested, the

96-97 Austin MHL was controversial and bitterly divisive for the entire

10 months it was in place. In 1997, underdog city council candidates Bill

Spelman and Willy Lewis were elected on the campaign promise that they

would repeal the helmet law. Of the minority of bicyclists who supported

the helmet law in 1996, most are now either opposed or neutral after

witnessing the negative impact it had on the community.

A lot of people get into transportation bicycling by making short

neighborhood trips to the grocery store or coffee shop. A helmet law can

serve as a barrier to these kinds of short rides on quiet neighborhood

streets. Rather than risk being stopped by the police, and not wanting to

bother with a helmet, potential bicyclists will elect to drive instead,

consequently never making the transition to substantive transportation

xlvii
bicycling. Nationally, increased bicycle helmet use is correlated with an

increase in head injuries.

Claims that "helmets reduce the incidence of serious head injuries

by as much as 85%" are almost all based on a series of studies that

gathered data from Seattle-area emergency rooms in the late 1980’s and

early 1990’s. Even the authors of these studies admit that these studies

suffer from serious methodological flaws.

For example, the same data can be used to show that "helmets

reduce the incidence of leg injuries by as much as 72%. Most studies like

these showing a positive impact of helmet use are hopelessly

compromised by confounding variables, such as the fact that helmeted

riders tend to be more cautious by nature than riders who refuse to wear

a helmet. When writing about the effect of MHLs, many authors fail to

take into account reductions in the number of bicyclists and other safety

measures implemented at the same time (lower speed limits, etc.). When

these factors are taken into account, the safety impact of MHLs is, at

best, negligible.

A far more reasonable way to measure the effectiveness of helmet

use is simply to look at the raw numbers on a large scale. By this

measure, helmets fair rather poorly. According to an article published

in The New York Times July 29, 2001, from 1991 to 2000 — at the same

time that voluntary helmet use in the United States went from 18% to

xlviii
50% — the number of bicyclist head injuries increased by 10%. However,

during this period bicycle use actually declined by 21%, so that the

effective increase in head injuries was 51% — a strong linear correlation

between increased helmet use and increased head injuries.

Even under the assumption that helmets are extremely effective,

coercion is not the way to encourage helmet use. Helmets must be

properly fit and correctly worn in order to have any chance of being

effective at reducing the severity of injury.

According to the study of Thompson (2009), individuals whose

helmets were reported to fit poorly had a 1.96-fold increased risk of head

injury compared with those whose helmets fit well. Improperly worn

helmets result in all the hazards outlined above with none of the

protective benefits. An individual who wears a helmet simply to avoid

getting a ticket is not going to suffer the discomfort of a properly worn

helmet. The best and only effective/appropriate way to encourage helmet

use is through education.

xlix
 CHAPTER II
METHOD AND PROCEDURES

This chapter contains the research design, sources of data, data

analysis, tools for data analysis and ethical considerations that will be

utilized in the conduct of this study.

Research Design

The researchers will make use of the descriptive method as they

believe that it is the perfect method to define the No-Helmet-No-Travel

Policy and find out how to deal with the phenomenon of the research

study.

l
 According to Stangor (2011), descriptive research is designed to

create a snapshot of the current thoughts, feelings, or behavior of

individuals. Simply, it provides a complete picture of what is occurring

at a given time. The design is relevant to the study since it is meant to

describe how the implementation of the Helmet Act works and is

administered in Candon City. Furthermore, the researchers will be able

to know the insights of the people concerned regarding the effectivity and

efficiency of the said policy, and whether it is properly imposed or not.

In the same way, the researchers will use the Quantitative

approach in the study. Babbie, Cengage, and Daniel (2010) said that

Quantitative research emphasizes objective measurements and the

statistical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls,

questionnaires, and surveys. It focuses on gathering data on numerical

forms, and generalizing it across groups of people to explain a particular

phenomenon.

Sources of Data

Locale and Population of the Study. The population of the study is

composed of the students, and faculty/staff of Candon National High

School who are driving on motorcycles. To gather the necessary

information from the target respondents, the researchers will roam

around the premises of Candon National High School during recess,

li
lunch time, and any other free time. In total, there will be at least 30

respondents.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

A survey type of questionnaire is designed to measure the level of

implementation of the No-Helmet-No-Travel policy. The questions on the

questionnaire are based on the Implementing Rules and Regulations

(IRR) of the Helmet Act of 2009 also known as Republic Act No. 10054.

Moreover, the survey questionnaires will be distributed by the

researchers themselves. They will hand on the papers and wait for the

respondents to finish answering it. In that way, they can retrieve it easily

and save time.

Validity and Reliability of the Data Gathering Tool

The questionnaire or the research tool will not be subjected to

validity and reliability because the Implementing Rules and Regulation of

the Helmet Act was used as a basis to formulate the questions.

Tools for Data Analysis

The problems connected to the implementation of the Helmet Act

will be utilizing the mean. Kalla (2009) defined Statistical mean as

something that gives important information about the data set at hand,

and as a single number, can provide a lot of insights into the experiment

lii
and nature of the data. The mean will determine whether the ordinance

is highly implemented or disregarded. With the results, an area is

considered strength when it will receive a rating of very highly satisfied or

highly satisfied; otherwise the area will be considered as weakness.

Data Categorization

Responses on the level of validity and level of reliability pertaining

to the questionnaires about the degree of implementation of the No-

Helmet-No-Travel Policy in Candon among Candon National High School

students will be scored and categorized using the following point scale,

Statistical Range Descriptive Equivalent Classification

4.51-5 Very Highly Strength

Implemented

3.51-4.5 Highly Implemented Strength

2.51-3.5 Moderately Weakness

Implemented

1.51-2.5 Poorly Implemented Weakness

1-1.5 Not Implemented Weakness

range value and descriptive equivalent:

liii
Ethical Consideration
In order to substantiate ethical conduct in the process of this

study, the researchers will certainly observe the following:

The names of the respondents from Candon National High School

will not be mentioned in any part of this research.

They respondents will also not be harmed physically and

emotionally, and in the same way, they will not be forced to sign up as a

respondent.

And correct document sourcing will be strictly observed to avoid

copyright infringement and promote copyright laws.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section of the study presents the data collected in table form.

Level of Implementation

The first problem considered on this study deals with the level of

implementation of the No-Helmet No-Travel Ordinance in Candon City,

Ilocos Sur.

Table 1 shows the Level of Implementation of the city ordinance. As

seen in the table, the overall mean is 3.71 which can be identified as

liv
High Implementation. This means that the city ordinance is strongly

observed. This also indicates that the citizens strictly follow the rules and

regulations set by the city.

This finding is supported by the article of Pathway (2017). She said

that helmet law anywhere in the European Union is firmly implemented

since there is no way escaping this because riders wear the most

appropriate headgear whenever they are out on the road.

In the same way, this finding also opposed the study of (Passmore,

2010) in Vietnam, wherein the enforcement was largely ineffective. And

although Prime Minister revised the law which hinted a strengthening in

the helmet wearing activities, it started to fall easily due to its several

loopholes that reduced its effectivity.

Table 1. Level of Implementation of the No-Helmet No-Travel Ordinance

Indicators Mean Description

A. Declaration of Policy
The State…

1. secures and safeguards its citizenry,

particularly the operators or drivers of
motorcycles and their passengers, from 3.89 Highly Implemented
the ruinous and extremely injurious
effects of fatal or life-threatening
accidents and crashes.
2. pursues a more proactive and
preventive approach to secure the
safety of motorists, their passengers Highly Implemented
and pedestrians at all times through 3.68
the mandatory enforcement of the use
of standard protective motorcycle

lv
 helmet.

Mean 3.79 Highly Implemented

B. Mandatory Use of Motorcycle Mean Description

Helmets
1. All motorcycle riders, including drivers
and back riders, at all times wear
standard protective motorcycle helmets 3.4 Moderately
while driving, whether long or short Implemented
drives, in any type of road and highway.

2. Standard protective motorcycle helmets

are appropriate types of helmets for Moderately
motorcycle riders that comply with the 3.5 Implemented
specifications issued by the
Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI).

3. The Department of Trade and Industry

(DTI) issues guidelines, which should
include the specifications regarding Highly Implemented
standard protective motorcycle helmets. 3.7

Mean 3.53 Highly Implemented

C. Exemption Mean Description

1. Drivers of tricycles are exempted from Highly Implemented

complying with the mandatory wearing 3.93
of motorcycle helmets as provided in
this Act.
Mean 3.93 Highly Implemented
D. Provision of Motorcycle Helmets Mean Description

1. A new motorcycle helmet which bears

the Philippine Standard (PS) mark or
Import Commodity Clearance (ICC) of
the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) Highly Implemented
and complies with the standards set by 3.79
the BPS are made available by every
seller and/or dealer every time a new
motorcycle unit is purchased and
which the purchaser may buy at his
option.
Mean 3.79 Highly Implemented

lvi
 E. Implementation Mean Description

1. The Department of Transportation and

Communications (DOTC), with its
attached agency, the Land Highly Implemented
Transportation Office (LTO), is 3.67
mandated by this Act to issue
guidelines necessary to implement the
provisions of this Act.

2. The DTI, through the BPS, is mandated Highly Implemented

to utilize the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) 3.73
Protocols with regard to the standards
that will be applicable to the approval
or disapproval of motorcycle helmets
that will be sold in the Philippines.

3. The DTI, through the BPS, conducts a Highly Implemented

mandatory testing of all manufactured
and imported motorcycle helmets in the 3.52
Philippines.

4. All manufacturers and importers of Highly Implemented

standard protective motorcycle helmets
are required to secure a PS license or
ICC prior to the sale and distribution of 3.6
their products.
5. The BPS issues periodically a list of Highly Implemented
motorcycle helmet manufacturers and
importers and the brands which pass
the standards of the BPS to be 3.61
published in a newspaper of general
circulation or in its website.

6. Those standard protective motorcycle Highly Implemented

helmets bearing the PS or ICC mark are
sold in the market. 3.62

Mean 3.63 Highly Implemented

F. Penalties Mean Description

1. Any person caught not wearing the Highly Implemented

lvii
 standard protective motorcycle helmet
in violation of this Act shall be
punished with a fine of One thousand
five hundred pesos (Php1,500.00) for
the first offense; Three thousand pesos
(Php3,000.00) for the second offense; 3.85
Five thousand pesos (Php5,000.00) for
the third offense; and Ten thousand
pesos (Php10,000.00) plus confiscation
of the driver's license for the fourth and
succeeding offenses.

2. Any seller and/or dealer who violates Highly Implemented

Section 5 of this Act shall be punished
with a fine of not less than Ten
thousand pesos (Php10,000.00) but not 3.52
more than Twenty thousand pesos
(Php20,000.00).

3. Any person who uses, sells and Highly Implemented

distributes substandard motorcycle
helmets or those which do not bear the
PS mark or the ICC certificate shall be
punished with a fine of not less than
Three thousand pesos (Php3,000.00) 3.52
for the first offense; and Five thousand
pesos (Php5,000.00) for the second
offense, without prejudice to other
penalties imposed in Republic Act No.
7394 or the "Consumer Act of the
Philippines".
4. Tampering, alteration, forgery and Highly Implemented
imitation of the PS mark and the ICC
certificates in the helmets shall be
punished with a fine of not less than
Ten thousand pesos (Php10,000.00) 3.61
but not more than Twenty thousand
pesos (Php20,000.00), without
prejudice to other penalties imposed in
Republic Act No. 7394 or the
"Consumer Act of the Philippines".

Mean 3.63 Highly Implemented

G. Nationwide Public Information Mean Description
Campaign

lviii
 1. The LTO, in coordination with the 3.64 Highly Implemented
Philippine Information Agency (PIA), the
Department of Education (DepED) and
private agencies and organizations,
shall undertake a nationwide
information, education and
communication (IEC) campaign for a
period of six (6) months
Mean 3.64 Highly Implemented

Grand Total 3.71 Highly Implemented

This finding is also in contrast in the report of (Geronimo, 2016),

wherein she stated on her news article that the helmet law is not strictly

implemented in Dumaguete City, the motorcycle capital in the country,

because the local government had difficulties in implementing such due

to the fact that several sectors were against it.

Declaration of Policy

As we can see from Table 1, in terms of the Declaration of Policy,

the calculated mean is 3.79, indicating a high implementation. It reveals

that the ordinance mandating the use of proactive head gears or helmets

surely does secure the safety of motorcycle riders, motorists and their

passengers from fatal and life-threatening accidents. Thus, the goal of

this domain is achieved. Although, there is still a need for all the

indicators to be improved since the respondents are not completely

lix
satisfied. All in all, the declaration of the policy made a huge mark on

making the motorcycle riders safe at all cost.

The two indicators under this subdomain are both rated as highly

implemented. Between the two indicators, to secure and safeguard its

citizenry received the highest mean score which is 3.89. It implies that

this indicator is obviously the most followed under the declaration of

policy. It also suggests that this policy secures the riders and their

passengers from the ruinous and extremely injurious effects or life

threatening accidents and crashes. On the contrary, to pursue a more

proactive and preventive approach got a lower mean score which is 3.68,

but it also bespeaks that this indicator is strictly followed and equally

sustained.

This is being corroborated to the study of the Michigan

Government in 2017, that helmets decrease the severity of injury and the

likelihood of death because they are designed to protect the heads of the

riders from the impact of a crash.

Mandatory use of Motorcycle Helmets

In regards with the Mandatory use of Motorcycle Helmets, the

computed mean is 3.53 which is considered as a high implementation. It

implies that riders wear standard, and appropriate types of helmets

which met the requirements set by DTI, while cruising the road for either

lx
short or long drives. Howbeit, the city still necessitate enhancement

because the assessment of the respondents has not reached the

maximum standard of implementation. With these, it can be concluded

that that although the DTI issued guidelines in an exemplary manner,

there are still those riders who do not wear the most appropriate helmets

or do not wear helmets at all.

Among the three indicators of this subdomain, the DTI’s issuance

of guidelines regarding standard protective motorcycle helmets had the

highest mean score of 3.7 which is equivalent to high implementation. It

means that this indicator is observed more often. While the wearing of

standard protective motorcycle helmets of all motorcycle riders, including

their backriders had the lowest mean score of 3.4, signifying a moderate

implementation. It indicates that this dimension of the policy is somehow

observed.

Corroboratively, this is similar to the report of Insurance Institute

for Highway Safety in 2017, it said that in the District of Columbia, every

motorcycle rider wears a helmet every time they get on their bikes.

This is also in parallel to the findings of Pathway (2015), wherein

she said that all the helmets that are worn on roads throughout the

United Kingdom must also meet specific requirements.

Exemption

lxi
 As visualized in the same table, the Exemption can be generally

described as highly implemented with a statistical mean of 3.93. This

simply proves that tricycle drivers are not required and hassled to wear

helmets and they are not covered by this ordinance.

This is corroborative to the study of Bachani (2017), stating that

only two-wheeled vehicle riders are obligated to wear helmets.

Provision of Motorcycle Helmets

As it can be viewed in Table 1, under the Provision of Motorcycle

Helmets, the computed average is 3.79 which manifests that this

subdomain is labeled as highly implemented. This shows that motorists

have and wear helmets bearing PS and ICC stickers and marks. This also

means that riders purchased helmets which were approved and issued

by the BPS. Hence, the first real step for the ordinance is effectively done

because riders comply in wearing helmets with PS mark and ICC sticker.

The results are closely similar to the study of the Politikang Pinoy

(2012), where all manufacturers and importers of standard protective

motorcycle helmets are required to secure a PS license or ICC prior to the

sale and distribution of their products. 

Implementation

lxii
 As can be gleamed from Table 1, the mean for Implementation is

3.63 which marks a high implementation. This points out that the people

and sectors involved in implementing the scope of this act are

participating and doing their designated parts. This also means that this

act is effectively working since the enforcers and the spearheads of this

are on the move. This policy basically talks about the wearing of helmets,

but not just ordinary helmets. The head gears by motorcycle riders

should meet certain standards first. Furthermore, the findings above

indicates that the processing and production of helmets is properly

administered, that is why the helmets that are being distributed among

riders are the most appropriate for drives.

This subdomain is consisted of six indicators, and among the six,

the DTI’s utilization of UNECE Protocols with regards to the standards

for approval and disapproval of motorcycle helmets garnered the highest

mean score of 3.73 which infers a high implementation. This implies that

the UNECE Protocols are applied in the appraisal of motorcycle helmets

that are sold around the city. On the other hand, the DTI’s mandatory

testing of all manufactured and imported motorcycle helmets got the

lowest mean score of 3.52. This shows that the time and attention

allotted for the helmet inspection is not sufficient. Nonetheless, even if it

lxiii
is labeled as highly implemented, the DTI still needs a polishing in

connection to this matter.

This finding corroborates to the statement of David (2012), he said

that thousands of motorcycle riders fled to the DTI for the ICC stickers

for their helmets. He also said that other sectors like LTO and DOTC,

collaborated to ensure the nationwide implementation of the said act.

Penalties

As can be spotted on the same table, the mean for Penalties is 3.63

beaming for a high implementation. This means that any act of

disobedience to the ordinance is not tolerated. This can also portray that

enforcers of the law are giving the rightful fines or punishments to the

offenses made by people who does not follow the ordinance. By being

marked as highly implemented, it denotes that the law-enforcers carry

out their tasks in penalizing the violators.

Under penalties, the punishment given to a rider caught of not

wearing standard protective motorcycle helmet is the most followed by

the local authorities. The calculated mean is 3.85, showing a high level of

implementation. It signifies that the law-enforcers give a corresponding

chastisement for the offenses of the riders who violates the ordinance.

Meanwhile, there are two indicators that received the lowest mean score

of 3.52 in this subdomain; the punishment given to the seller/dealer who

lxiv
violates the Section 5 of the helmet law, and the other one is the penalty

given to people who sells substandard motorcycle helmet, including

helmets that do not bear PS mark and ICC sticker. It denotes that the

law-enforcers sometimes fail to notice those people who are selling and

shipping inappropriate motorcycle helmets, and they are not that keen in

recognizing helmets that do not have a PS mark or ICC sticker. Although

the two indicators got the lowest mean score, both are still considered as

highly implemented.

This finding runs parallel to the study of Passmore (2010), having

increasing penalties for non-wearing Vietnamese riders, reaching $6 to

12 per offense. In the year 2008, more than 680,000 cases were issued

against riders and passengers for not wearing helmet.

The findings are also supported by article by Ortigoza (2015), that

in Dagupan, as soon as they enforced the law, they fined the 250

violators who were nabbed for not wearing helmet.

Nationwide Public Information Campaign

As can be scanned in the same table, the mean for the Nationwide

Public Information Campaign is 3.64 which pertains to a high

implementation. This pinpoints that DepEd, other sectors and private

agencies takes part in publicizing the provisions of this ordinance. This

lxv
also means that their campaign about educating riders passengers about

the important usage of helmet reaches a lot of people across the country.

This is corroborative to the statement of Sminkey (2006), saying

that the World Health Organization (WHO) is intensifying efforts to

support governments, and to increase helmet use through publicizing it

through articles a new publication called “Helmets: a road safety manual

for decision-makers and practitioners.”

Strengths and Weaknesses in the Level of Implementation

The second problem addressed in this study is the Strengths and

Weaknesses in the Level of Implementation of the Helmet Act.

It can be seen in Table 2 that the mean of the seven domains are

as follows: 3.79, 3.53, 3.93, 3.79, 3.63,3.63, 3.64 and all them are

indicated to be highly implemented. Thus, making each domain a

strength, a sign of heightening the level of implementation of the

ordinance. The good remarks on the seven domains adds up to the

effectiveness of the act, achieving its primary goal, to protect the citizens

from crashes.

This is supported by the article of Insurance Institute for Highway

Safety, they stated that the number of motorcycle fatalities in California

decreased 38 percent, from 523 cases to 327 during the period they

lxvi
implemented the act. While in Nebraska, when they reinstated the act,

the state saw a 20 percent reduction in motorcyclist head injuries.

The finding, in the same way, is in contrast with one of the

statements of the same article. Although the act saved 650 lives in Texas,

they amended the law, limiting it to be applicable only for riders below

18. The weakened law coincided with a 35 percent increase in

motorcyclist fatalities, making it ineffective.

Table 2. Strengths and Weaknesses on the Implementation of the Act

Indicators of Implementation Mean Description Classification

Declaration of Policy 3.79 Highly Strength
The State… Implemented
Mandatory Use of Motorcycle 3.53 Highly Strength
Helmets Implemented
Exemption 3.93 Highly Strength
Implemented
Provision of Motorcycle 3.79 Highly Strength
Helmets Implemented
Implementation 3.63 Highly Strength
Implemented
Penalties 3.63 Highly Strength
Implemented
Nationwide Public Information 3.64 Highly Strength
Campaign Implemented

Comparison among the Seven Domains

lxvii
 The third problem in the study is the comparison of

implementation when grouped according to domains.

Table 3 shows that the p-value is greater than 0.05 level of

significance, indicating that the decision is to accept the Ho or Null

Hypothesis. Moreover, it implies that there is no significant difference in

the implementation of the seven domains in the Helmet Act such as;

declaration of policy, mandatory use of motorcycle helmets, exemption,

provision of motorcycle helmet, implementation, penalties, and

nationwide public information campaign. Basically, this shows that all

the domains are implemented in the same level of intensity. There is

consistency with the people because they abide with the fist domain up

to the last. Since all the domains are highly implemented, then, it means

that the policy, as a whole, is strongly obeyed and followed by the

citizens.

This is corroborative to the study of David (2012) wherein he said

that the principal objective of the Helmet Act is to make the wearing of

motorcycle helmets mandatory for all motorcycle riders along its other

requirements.

In contrast, Passmore (2010) reported that in Vietnam, two-

wheeled motorcycle users are left vulnerable to head injuries and

fatalities resulting from RTIs. With those happenings, they gave it a

lxviii
chance to assess and improve their Helmet act, most specifically with the

use of helmets across Vietnam. This is supported with the effort of the

Global Road Safety Programme (GRSP) funded by Bloomberg

Philanthropies. It aims to improve the use of helmets globally. From 2010

to 2015, the project targeted key risk factors for road safety in nine

countries with the highest burden of road traffic injuries.

Table 3. Comparison among the Seven Domains

Compared domains mean F- p- Decision Remarks

stat value
Declaration of Policy There is
The State… 3.785 2.0 0.1519 Accept no
Mandatory Use of HO significant
Motorcycle Helmets 3.533333 difference
Exemption 3.93
Provision of
Motorcycle Helmets 3.79
Implementation 3.625
Penalties 3.625
Nationwide Public
Information Campaign 3.64

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

This quantitative research study, which utilized the descriptive

approach, focused on the level of implementation of the No-Helmet No-

Travel Policy in Candon City.

lxix
 The questionnaire method was used to gather relevant data from a

quota of 100 respondents. The mean was used to treat the data collected.

Findings

The following are the salient findings of the study:

1. The level of implementation of the No-Helmet No-Travel

Policy in Candon City is high.

2. The strengths of the ordinance upon the enactment are

notable in all dimension of the said Act and any weakness is not seen.

3. There is no significant difference in the implementation of

every domain in the NHNT Policy in Candon.

Conclusions

The researchers therefore had the following conclusions:

1. The local authorities of Candon are performing well in

enforcing the NHNT Policy.

2. The people comply with the mandatory use of standard

protective motorcycle helmets.

3. There is a constant monitoring of the assigned personnel of

the NHNT Policy in Candon.

4. Every helmet that are utilized or sold in the market bears an

ICC sticker or PS mark and passed the standards set by the Bureau of

Product Standards (BPO).

lxx
 5. The NHNT Policy secures safety to the riders with their back

riders.

6. Tricycle drivers are excused from the helmet requirement.

7. Any person caught not wearing standard protective

motorcycle helmet in violation of the NHNT Policy pay fines depending on

the number of his offenses.

8. The Land Transportation Office (LTO) in coordination with

the Philippine Information Agency (PIA), DepEd, private agencies and

organizations undertakes a nationwide information campaign for the

attainment of the objectives of the No-Helmet No-Travel Policy.

9. LTO regularly issues guidelines to implement the provisions

of this Helmet Act.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the

researchers recommend the following:

1. The local authorities should maintain their good performance in

the enactment of the Helmet Act. The ordinance should not be associated

with any form of bias.

2. There should be a more thorough testing and inspection of

motorcycle helmets of each and every rider across the city. This should

be done through the leadership of the Bureau of Product Safety in

partnership with the Land Transportation Office.

lxxi
 3. The City Government of Candon should continue utilizing

strategic supervisions to ensure the safety and security of its

constituents.

4. The motorcycle riders, and passengers should continue to abide

with the provisions of the Helmet Act to uphold its effectivity and

importance.

5. The future respondents who will study about the Helmet Act as

well, should touch the aspect where the connection between the use of

helmet and prevention of severe injuries.

lxxii
Bibliography
Begg, J. (2014). One NHTSA. Retrieved from Costs of Injuries Resulting from Motorcycle
Crashes: https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/
appa.html
Benner, L. (2009, August 8). The Investigation Process Research Resource Site . Retrieved from
ACCIDENT THEORIES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH:
http://www.iprr.org/papers/aaam.html
Chalapati, R., Nguyen, P., & Hoa, D. (2012, July 27). Link Springer. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2458-12-561
David, R. (2012, July 28). Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from
http://opinion.inquirer.net/33529/the-helmet-law
Friedman, D. (2014). David Friedman. Retrieved from
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Order_without_the_state/Order_Without_the
_State.htm
Fuglie, R. P. (2000, July 14 ). Retrieved from http://ifarmbinhi.com/portfolio-item/malunggay-
moringa-oleifera/
Geronimo, E. (2016, May 15). Sun Star. Retrieved from
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/dumaguete/local-news/2016/05/23/helmet-law-not-strictly-
implemented-dumaguete-475218
Insurance for Highway Safety. (2008, April). Retrieved from
http://smarter-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IIHS_Helmet_Q_A-1.pdf
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2017, August).
Jalayer, M., & Zhou, H. (2017, April). Taylor and Francis Online. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/12265934.2017.1311801?
journalCode=rjus20
Khannah, P. (2016, October 26). Taylor and Francis Online. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02680513.2016.1246246?
journalCode=copl20
McCleod, S. (2007). Simply Psychology. Retrieved from The Milgram Experiment:
https://simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Michigan Government. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-
1878_1711-13677--,00.html

lxxiii
Ortigoza, M. (2015, March 29). Word Press. Retrieved from Northern Watch :
https://northwatch.wordpress.com/2015/03/29/250-violators-of-helmet-law-arrested-in-
dagupan/
Passmore, J. (2010, October). World Health Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/10/09-071662/en/
Pathway, I. (2015). Daily Journal. Retrieved from
http://thedailyjournalist.com/the-reviewer/motorcycle-helmet-laws-around-the-world/
Quintas, K. (2017, February 28). The Philippine Star. Retrieved from The Freeman:
http://www.philstar.com:8080/cebu-news/2017/02/28/1676560/capitol-be-strict-helmet-
law
Sminkey, L. (2006, August 25). World Health Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr44/en/
World Health Organization. (2013). Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com/document/348366146/A-road-safety-technical-package-via-
World-Health-Organization

lxxiv
 Curriculum Vitae
Name: Lleona Rose Ramirez Valencia
Address: Paras, Candon City, Ilocos Sur
Cellphone Number: 09264136526
E-mail Adress: lleonavalencia22@gmail.com

I. Personal Information

Nickname: Yona
Birthday: December 22, 1999 Age: 17
Birthplace: Calaoan, Candon City, Ilocos Sur Nationality:
Filipino
Religion: Protestante, Born Again Christian Civil Status: Single
Father’s Name: Jowen Valencia
Mother’s Name: Rosie Valencia

II. Educational Background

Senior High School Candon National High School S.Y. 2016-2017

Junior High School Candon National High School S.Y. 2015-2016
Elementary Saint Joseph Institute, Inc. S.Y. 2011-2012

III. Honors and Awards Received

HONORS AWARDS
Academic Awardee (Elementary)
Junior High School Completer
With High Honors (Grade 11)

lxxv
 Curriculum Vitae
Name: Donabel D.Binasbas
Address: Bidbiday, Galimuyod, Ilocos Sur
Cellphone Number: 09559022494

I. Personal Information

Nickname: Dona
Birthday: June 08, 1999 Age: 18
Birthplace: Galimuyod, Ilocos Sur Nationality:
Filipino
Religion: Born Again Christian Civil Status: Single
Father’s Name: Manly S. Binasbas
Mother’s Name: Anabel D. Binasbas

II. Educational Background

Senior High School Candon National High School S.Y. 2017-2018

Junior High School Sto. Tomas National High School S.Y. 2015-2016
Elementary Bidbiday Elementary School S.Y. 2011-2012

III. Honors and Awards Received

HONORS AWARDS
With honors
(Elementary)

lxxvi
 Curriculum Vitae
Name: Jumelyn Joyce Revilla
Address: Caterman, Candon City, Ilocos Sur
Cellphone Number: 09973829560

I. Personal Information

Nickname: Jume
Birthday: July 31, 2000 Age: 17
Birthplace: Caterman, Candon City, Ilocos Sur Nationality:
Filipino
Religion: Baptist Civil Status: Single
Father’s Name: Leopoldo R. Gacilan
Mother’s Name: Elvira R. Gacilan

II. Educational Background

Senior High School Candon National High School S.Y. 2017-2018

Junior High School Candon National High Schooll S.Y. 2015-2016
Elementary Caterman Elementary School S.Y. 2011-2012

III. Honors and Awards Received

HONORS AWARDS
None

lxxvii
 Curriculum Vitae
Name: Gregy Joe G. Batin
Address: Salvador 1st, Candon City, Ilocos Sur
Cellphone Number: 09474821270

I. Personal Information

Nickname: Gregy
Birthday: June 11, 2000 Age: 17
Birthplace: Candon City, Ilocos Sur Nationality:
Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic Civil Status: Single
Father’s Name: Gaudencio Jerry Batin
Mother’s Name: Joesy Batin

II. Educational Background

Senior High School Candon National High School S.Y. 2016-2017

Junior High School Candon National High School S.Y. 2015-2016
Elementary Salvador 1st Elementary School S.Y. 2011-2012

III. Honors and Awards Received

HONORS AWARDS
Honorable Mention
(Elementary)
Salutatorian (Junior High School)
With Honors (Senior High School)

lxxviii
lxxix