No ex post facto law shall be enacted... NOT!!!

Let me go back to the why... The law states that if your helmet does not have the appropriate marking, then anybody who USES will be fined... Therefore, this came about during the creation of the law... Not during it's implementation as it was the law that tasked DTI that the helmet carry the PS or ICC mark for compliance...

The DTI's job is to enforce the law onto the importers, dealers and sellers... However, because of the time they were given, the law did not take into account the helmet life span...

Let me explain... If the law stated that by a certain date (August 1 kunware) all helmets should be of standard, then everything being used should be of standard... If not, either you replace your helmet or you risk apprehension... The law was approved in 2010, the IRR was released Jan 2012... Jan to August is roughly 6 - 7 months... What if, I bought my helmet the day before the release of the IRR? Does it disqualify my helmet automatically because it had no markings on it? When was the requirement for markings specified? This part alone already violates Bill of Rights, Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Ex post facto literally means “from something done afterward...” Note four categories of ex post facto laws: 1) laws that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, and punishes such action, 2) Laws that aggravate a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed, 3) laws that change the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law attached to the crime when it was committed, and 4) laws that alter the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

So, if I bought my helmet the day before the helmet law was set in motion with the IRR, I should be exempt from the law itself... Otherwise, the ex post facto law is violated...

What should have happened is this:

• Helmet Law IRR released
• DTI eradicates all stores of non standard or sub standard helmets that does not pass regulations
• DTI sets in motion, a screening process for importers to apply for the ICC sticker, ensuring that all stores only sell helmets bearing the ICC mark
• DTI, DOTC and LTO, during the time of eradication of substandard helmets and ensuring that all helmets in the market are within standard and bears the marking (ICC) should conduct information and education drive campaigns for public dissemination
• As soon as the homologation of helmets purchased prior to the start of the initial implementation (after the IRR and the start of eradication of substandard helmets) has ended (homologation is the life span indicated for helmets which is 5 years), then regulation should commence on street level

Then on street level, the standard marking that the helmet has should be the check and balance and not the ICC sticker... Standard markings can be anything from SNELL, DOT, ECE, TIS, JIS and other internationally known standards...

Now, since the adopted standard is specific to ECE, the other standards, even those higher, becomes at fault because the standard is "SPECIFIC" rather than "ECE 22.05, it's accepted equivalents or higher standards..." To make the law more consumer and economic friendly, they should have unspecified the standard since standards such as TIS and DOT is being allowed as we speak...

Therefore, the specifics of the term "USES" made it a prerequisite on the end user as well... And the only way to rid the law of its violation of the ex post facto law in the Bill of Rights is to allow everybody the chance to get their helmets compliant to that prerequisite of having the PS or ICC marking...

So again, the law is the root cause of the problem... DTI tried to do damage control... Just like how the move of the federation and Sen. Bong Revilla to stop DTI from issuing stickers is branded the same... DAMAGE CONTROL...

Now that we have specified where the law has technically failed, the only way to save it, is to have the said provisions amended, allow the newly purchased helmets prior to the effective date of the law run it's homologation course of 5 years before stopping every rider and checking if his helmet does pass the regulations or standard...

Irregardless, the Helmet Act should have started from the importation up to the store level only... And just kept the use of helmets to the use of "MOTORCYCLE HELMETS" to get every rider and their passenger to wear MOTORCYCLE HELMETS before a standard is even regulated on street level... BACK TO BASICS 101... WEAR YOUR MOTORCYCLE HELMET DAMMIT!!!

And if the quality check, importation check and store level check is done properly, there wouldn't be any need to take this down to the street level except for not wearing a motorcycle helmet while riding since there is no more sub standard, or non standard helmet available for purchase in the market... And even if there is, we simply look if it has an ICC mark before we buy it...

After you buy it, it shouldn't matter if you remove the sticker as it shouldn't be the basis of street level apprehension for helmets... And that protects the end user from extortion attempts on street level or what we candidly call as "kotong..."

DAMN! SAKIT SA BANGS!!!