EDITORIAL - Clarifying the unclarifiable

Republic Act 10913, or the Anti-Distracted Driving Act, was supposed to take effect in May. But confusion over its implementing rules and regulations forced a postponement. Now government claims the guidelines have at last been clarified and the new law is set to finally take effect in July. But has everything really been clarified?

The new and supposedly clarified guidelines have yet to be published, so that is being awaited with much interest. But from media interviews with government land transportation officials regarding the new and supposedly clarified guidelines, it can safely be inferred that, indeed, many of the unclear provisions have been rid of ambiguity and clarified. But not all.

In fact the law itself, as written, and not just the implementing rules, has contradictory and ambiguous terminologies and provisions. For example, the new law defines itself as an act prohibiting certain acts by motorists. It then proceeds to define a motorist as one who drives a motor vehicle. But in the law’s enumeration of vehicles covered, even non-motorized vehicles such as animal-drawn carts and carriages are included.

A person driving an animal-drawn cart cannot be a motorist by any definition or stretch of reasoning or imagination because his vehicle has no engine or motor. Not even Republic Act 10913, in all its shoddily-crafted language, can say so. It is an infirmity in definition that leaves this particular law open to future question in court.

There is also another provision dealing with an exemption that remains unclarified despite the supposed clarification. The exemption says a motorist is allowed to make or take an emergency call. There is no problem with the “make.” It is the “take” that is troublesome. How, for crying out loud, can a motorist know an incoming call is an emergency call? He will have to take any and all calls to know, in which case he is almost 100 percent of the time in violation of the law.

Make no mistake, the law is good, or at least its intent is. The problem lies with the quality of the legislation, which is reflective of the quality of the legislative. The best laws are not always those with the best of intents. Often it is those that are clear, easy to understand, and highly enforceable. It is hoped that the next law – -an anti-distracted walking act – which ought to logically follow as a matter of course, will hit it right on the nail.