Mayor Benjamin B. Magalong vetoed Ordinance No. 40, series of 2024 that sought to exempt motor vehicles transporting senior citizens who are residents of the city, either as driver or passengers, to and from a medical clinic, hospital or place of work from the city’s number coding scheme because of challenges to the implementation of the measure, particularly that the provided exemption applies only on very particular circumstances.
In his veto message transmitted to the City Council, the mayor appreciated the initiative of the body in incorporating respect and incentives of the senior citizens who are constituents of the city as they deserve the courtesy in light of their many contributions to the society.
Under the approved ordinance, in order to be exempted from the provisions of the number coding scheme, the motor vehicle must be used by a senior citizen who is a resident of the city.
However, he claimed that the said provision might be discriminatory to other senior citizens who may not be residents of the city but who traverse through the roads on a daily or regular basis for essential and urgent purposes.
Further, he said that the city’s health care facilities cater to patients who are not residents of the city or who live in localities where specialized patient care is not available and that there may also be emergency situation where the nearest adequate health facility is found in the city, thus, the same is applied to places of work since the city is a business and education hub that employs senior citizens who are residents of neighboring localities.
The ordinance provided that the exemptions are applied only when the vehicle is used to transport the senior citizens to and from a medical clinic, hospital or places of work but it is salient on what proof must be presented in order to establish that the senior citizens driving or riding the vehicle is truly en route to a medical appointment or work.
For example, the mayor stipulated that a senior citizen may be self-employed and in such cases, the person may not be able to present an employment identification card.
Moreover, he pointed out that in other cases, clinics cater to walk-in patients who need not to set an appointment, thus, it would redound to the discretion of the enforcer to determine what can be considered as adequate proof that the senior citizen driver or passenger is travelling for medical purposes.
He argued that because of the varying situations, the implementation of the ordinance may be prone to confusion or arbitrary application, thus, there would be a necessity for enforcers must make inquiries to ascertain whether the exemption may be applied to an apprehended vehicle.
He asserted that the inquiry need not be long but any time spent idle along a busy road will cause additional traffic and may present a safety hazard for the vehicle passengers as well as the enforcers.
He urged the body to refer the ordinance to the implementing offices for the conduct of the proper traffic impact study and seek recommendations for its safe and efficient implementation. By Dexter A. See
