Pwede pa ba???

[Mamar]

THERE WAS A COURT DECISION NA BAWAL NA ANG MOTORBIKE SA SLEX, PERO EVERYDAY I PASS BY SLEX, I ALWAYS SAW PRIVATE BIKE RUNNING INSIDE THE SLEX. BAKA MAY RESTRAINING ORDER SA IMPLEMENTATION.

yan nga dahilan kung bakit hanggang ngaun hinde pa kami nakakabili ng bigbike eh!

[Caddy]

yan nga dahilan kung bakit hanggang ngaun hinde pa kami nakakabili ng bigbike eh!

Mamar....I can tell you na puedeng puede as what sir sidewayz said....I'm been using the NLEX with my bike po. As long as 400cc and above ang displacement ng bike po....Kaya wala na pong dahilan para hindi makabili ng bigbike...wag lang po kalimutan magdasal, helmet and riding gear.
Ride safe po and enjoy the fun of riding a bike
Let's RIDE

[Mamar]

CourtNews June 2006

SC upholds tollway ban on motorcycles, non-motorized vehicles

By Genevieve B. Zuñiga

THE SUPREME COURT has declared constitutional Administrative Order 1 (AO 1), issued by the then Department of Public Works and Communications on February 19, 1968, that bans the use of bicycles, tricycles, pedicabs, motorcycles, or any non-motorized vehicle on limited access highways.
In a decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Court found that the rules under AO 1 were neither unreasonable nor oppressive. It explained that AO 1 does not infringe upon petitioner’s right to travel as it merely bars motorcycles, bicycles, tricycles, pedicabs, and any non-motorized vehicles as the mode of travelling along limited access highways.
The Court said, “the right to travel does not mean the right to choose any vehicle in traversing a toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another. Petitioners can traverse the toll way any time they choose using private or public four-wheeled vehicles. Petitioners are not denied the right to move from Point A to Point B along the toll way. Petitioners are free to access the toll way, much as the rest of the public can. The mode by which petitioners wish to travel pertains to the manner of using the toll way, a subject that can be validly limited by regulation.”
On the other hand, the Court declared unconstitutional and in violation of the Limited Access Highway Act (RA 2000) Department Orders 74 and 215 released by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), as well as the Revised Rules and Regulations on Limited Access Facilities of the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB). DOs 74 and 215 dated April 5, 1993, and June 25, 1998, respectively, declared the North and South Luzon (DO 74) and the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressways (DO 215) as limited access facilities. The Court explained that at the time the DPWH issued these orders, it no longer had authority to regulate activities related to transportation. In contrast, AO 1 was issued in 1968, by the then DPWC that had the authority to regulate limited access facilities.
Likewise, the Court upheld the decision of the Makati City Regional Trial Court, Branch 147 declaring DO 123, limiting access to the above expressways to only 400cc motorcycles, as unconstitutional for want of authority of the DPWH to promulgate it. (Mirasol, et al. v. DPWH and Toll Regulatory Board, GR No. 158793, June 8, 2006)


http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/publi.../06/060602.php

[badsekktor]

CourtNews June 2006

SC upholds tollway ban on motorcycles, non-motorized vehicles

By Genevieve B. Zuñiga

THE SUPREME COURT has declared constitutional Administrative Order 1 (AO 1), issued by the then Department of Public Works and Communications on February 19, 1968, that bans the use of bicycles, tricycles, pedicabs, motorcycles, or any non-motorized vehicle on limited access highways.
In a decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Court found that the rules under AO 1 were neither unreasonable nor oppressive. It explained that AO 1 does not infringe upon petitioner’s right to travel as it merely bars motorcycles, bicycles, tricycles, pedicabs, and any non-motorized vehicles as the mode of travelling along limited access highways.
The Court said, “the right to travel does not mean the right to choose any vehicle in traversing a toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another. Petitioners can traverse the toll way any time they choose using private or public four-wheeled vehicles. Petitioners are not denied the right to move from Point A to Point B along the toll way. Petitioners are free to access the toll way, much as the rest of the public can. The mode by which petitioners wish to travel pertains to the manner of using the toll way, a subject that can be validly limited by regulation.”
On the other hand, the Court declared unconstitutional and in violation of the Limited Access Highway Act (RA 2000) Department Orders 74 and 215 released by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), as well as the Revised Rules and Regulations on Limited Access Facilities of the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB). DOs 74 and 215 dated April 5, 1993, and June 25, 1998, respectively, declared the North and South Luzon (DO 74) and the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressways (DO 215) as limited access facilities. The Court explained that at the time the DPWH issued these orders, it no longer had authority to regulate activities related to transportation. In contrast, AO 1 was issued in 1968, by the then DPWC that had the authority to regulate limited access facilities.
Likewise, the Court upheld the decision of the Makati City Regional Trial Court, Branch 147 declaring DO 123, limiting access to the above expressways to only 400cc motorcycles, as unconstitutional for want of authority of the DPWH to promulgate it. (Mirasol, et al. v. DPWH and Toll Regulatory Board, GR No. 158793, June 8, 2006)


http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/publi.../06/060602.php

the question is without the DO's that define what roads are considered as limited access highways Administrative Order 1 has no teeth.....

and by nullifying those DO's that define the expressways as Limited access highways then.....