The Commission welcomes the decision of the Court of Appeals in declaring unconstitutional the Mandaluyong Ordinance prohibiting riding in tandem. In Garcia vs. Drilon (Garcia vs. Drilon, G.R. 179267, June 25, 2013. 699 SCRA 352), when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children, the Court’s decision relied on four qualifications in upholding the extension of protection solely for women and children. The court looked into the (1) the presence of substantial distinctions which make for real differences; (2) that the classification must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) that it must apply equally to each member of the class. In the case of the Anti-VAWC Law, the Court took into consideration the need to address structural and historical inequality between men and women and that most victims of violence are women.

It is clear in this case, and as concluded by the CA that there was no clear basis of the distinction made in allowing women and not men to back ride in motorcycles in Mandaluyong. It likewise unclear how the adoption of the measure could address the intent of the law – which is to address increasing number of crimes associated with those riding in tandem. The measure is thus aptly declared as oppressive and arbitrary.

The Commission affirms a basic tenet, that all persons are born equal in dignity and rights; all must be treated equally before the law, and when there is no basis for valid classification that allows difference in treatment, no clear need to adopt affirmative actions to address the situation of marginalized and disadvantaged groups, then it is only fitting that measures that create distinctions solely on the basis of sex and no other, should be stricken down. This is especially so when measures impose criminal liabilities and expose individuals to violation if their right to liberty and security.###