No Garage Parking, No Car Law?

**Juan Martinez** · December 19th, 2015 02:05 PM

i just finished reading house bill no. 5098 a.k.a. "proof of parking space act," including the explanatory note given by its author rep. sherwin gatchalian of valenzuela.

i also finished backreading the comments here. i invite you to read the entire bill. it only contains 11 sections.

i would like to post it here but i just don't how to post a pdf file. but for those who are minded to, you can access it at Official Website of Valenzuela City Congressman Sherwin Gatchalian.

in so many words, all that it requires is, for buyers of cars to submit an affidavit notarized before a notary public (btw, only lawyers can be a notary public under the rules. the old rule allowing bar flunkers to be notaries public was already abrogated) that he has a parking space for that car.

i believe that the salutary objective of this measure is all-too evident as shown in its policy declaration clause. the bill did not prevent people from buying as many cars as he can afford so long as they have spaces where they can park them. parenthetically, reading our thread here about how many cars we can park in our garage, that requirement seems to be not a problem at all. one even has a garage that can accommodate 30 cars. simply put, this bill is LIKE saying, we are not preventing you to ****, you can **** anywhere, but, for chrissake, do it inside a toilet.

according to mr. gatchalian, citing a DTI data, over 22,400 new cars are being sold every month. (not to mention surplus car that are sold every month.) he said that this measure, which is already being practiced in Japan and India, will prevent Metro Manila from turning into a big parking space. according to a JICA study, we are losing 2.4B a day because of this gridlock.

**Juan Martinez** · December 19th, 2015 02:10 PM

explanatory note-

**dr. d** · December 19th, 2015 02:54 PM

the proposed no garage-no car policy, is just shifting the blame from one entity to another, more nebulous, entity.
at madaling dayain yan... imagine a single parking space, "claimed" by a dozen cars as their designated parking space".. how does the issueing agency check?
if the law is not enforce-able, then just scrap it and save ourselves some shame..
let's just agree to have illegally parked vehicles towed away. that way, i-isa lang at very visible pa, ang puedeng sisihin..

**Juan Martinez** · December 19th, 2015 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by dr. d

the proposed no garage-no car policy, is just shifting the blame from one entity to another, more nebulous, entity.
at madaling dayain yan... imagine a single parking space, "claimed" by a dozen cars as their designated parking space".. how does the issueing agency check?
if the law is not enforce-able, then just scrap it and save ourselves some shame..
let's just agree to have illegally parked vehicles towed away. that way, i-isa lang at very visible pa, ang puedeng sisihin..

there will be an IRR to be drafted. unless and until this measure is passed, the IRR will never see the light of the day.

I don't find it nebulous. it is crystal clear-- car buyer, you execute an affidavit that you have a parking space.

now, if you execute an affifavit that you have but in actuality you don't, that's the damn PERJURY.

now, you have an ammunition against your neighbor who did not have a garage but use his driveway as his parking space.

the last time I checked our criminal justice system has five pillars:
1) COMMUNITY
2) court
3) prosecution
4) law enforcement
5) correction

in other words, as part of the community, it behooves upon all of us, if this bill will become into a law, to have its salutary objective ACHIEVE.

YES, ALL OF US. so we can't merely say: oh! the law implementors are assholes!

**StockEngine** · December 19th, 2015 04:00 PM

Sana maging law...

Neighbor who is just renting, parks 5 cars across the house + parallel-adjacent sa house and sometimes in front of the house.

The long time residents dont mind coz its a peaceful neighborhood.

**dcph172** · December 19th, 2015 04:41 PM

^ sa xavierville ba yan?:P

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**dishcom** · December 19th, 2015 04:51 PM

Walang silbi yang law na yan. Hangat na eexperience ng pinoy ang hirap sa pag gamit ng public transpo.. Mangangarap ng mangangarap ang pinoy ng sariling sasakyan at hindi lang isang auto. Malamang dalawa dahil sa number coding.

**dr. d** · December 19th, 2015 05:14 PM

so who will check whether the requirements were truly met or not? i mean, documents are easy to manufacture. for all we know, the garage operator might not even know that his name appears in over a dozen affidavits of parking space...
who will find out that the one parking slot is actually being "claimed" by a dozen car plate numbers?
who made the "mistake" of approval of registration, based on spurious documents?

"perjury" is a nice word. but it has to be discovered first, then proven.

what i mean by nebulous, is "who is responsible?". are we going to stop with the car owner that submitted spurious documentation? what about the co-conspirators? i can almost smell "corruption". how easy is it to find out that the claim is false? how easy is it to charge them with dereliction of duty? how easy is it to jail and/or fire them?

in my opinion, it is easier to tow away illegally parked vehicles. est ipsa loquitur (right spelling, i pray).
no complicated IRRs needed... you know... the ones lawyers might pretzelize in accordance to their and their clients' needs.. (my apologies to the lawyers).

**kimbon** · December 19th, 2015 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by dr. d

so who will check whether the requirements were truly met or not? i mean, documents are easy to manufacture. for all we know, the garage operator might not even know that his name appears in over a dozen affidavits of parking space...
who will find out that the one parking slot is actually being "claimed" by a dozen car plate numbers?
who made the "mistake" of approval of registration, based on spurious documents?

"perjury" is a nice word. but it has to be discovered first, then proven.

kung DOTC ang mag-inspect ng garage suntok sa bwan yan, car dealer naman laging approve without thinking? why? more car sales.
OT- when I applied for business permit in Taguig, nobody inspected our office for brgy. clearance, sanitary permit, city hall business permit etc.. sabi ni brgy. chairman, basta itong office address existing to ah. may tiwala naman ako sayo eh...

**Juan Martinez** · December 19th, 2015 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by dr. d

so who will check whether the requirements were truly met or not? i mean, documents are easy to manufacture. for all we know, the garage operator might not even know that his name appears in over a dozen affidavits of parking space...
who will find out that the one parking slot is actually being "claimed" by a dozen car plate numbers?
who made the "mistake" of approval of registration, based on spurious documents?

"perjury" is a nice word. but it has to be discovered first, then proven.

what i mean by nebulous, is "who is responsible?". are we going to stop with the car owner that submitted spurious documentation? what about the co-conspirators? i can almost smell "corruption". how easy is it to find out that the claim is false? how easy is it to charge them with dereliction of duty? how easy is it to jail and/or fire them?

in my opinion, it is easier to tow away illegally parked vehicles. est ipsa loquitur (right spelling, i pray).
no complicated IRRs needed... you know... the ones lawyers might pretzelize in accordance to their and their clients' needs.. (my apologies to the lawyers).

no car will be registered unless the owner or buyer will present an affidavit that he has a parking. that's all. now, there's this guy who lied under oath that he has but actually he hasn't. that's a crime already. and the government official who caused the registration of the said vehicle is also liable administratively if turned out that the affidavit is false.

anyway, let us all read the bill rather than speculate to its merits or demerits. it took me awhile to find it because the text wasn't published by the lower house. and from there, I am very much open to talk about it.