Republic Act No. 10913, also known as the Anti-Distracted Driving Law, was enacted by Congress to prevent drivers of motor vehicles from using their mobile phones while they are driving. Although its objective is the promotion of public safety, its provisions and implementation have created problems instead of solutions. Just a few days after it was enforced, its implementation was suspended upon the urging of many angry motorists, the Roman Catholic Church, and even the House of Representatives itself.
How the enforcement of an existing law can be suspended with the approval of the House but without the consent of the Senate is a constitutional mystery, and will be the topic of another essay.
The objective of Republic Act No. 10913 is to discourage the drivers of motor vehicles from using their mobile phones while they are in transit. That objective assumes that many road mishaps, minor or otherwise, are caused by inattentive drivers who are distracted by the conversation they are engaged in through their mobile phones.
Unfortunately, Republic Act No. 10913 and its implementing rules also assume that because a driver who uses his hand-held mobile phone while he is driving has only one hand on the steering wheel, the danger lies in not having both hands on the steering wheel at all times.
From that sweeping premise, the law and the implementing rules make their first illogical exception—a driver can use a mobile phone or a similar electronic communications device if it is attached to the dashboard and if it can be used without the driver holding it.
That is where the first problem begins.
What is it that really distracts the driver from paying attention to the road? Is it the mobile phone itself, or the conversation the driver engages in while using the mobile phone at the same time when he is driving? Obviously, it’s the conversation, because the conversation requires the driver to pay attention to the person he is talking to and, often, to answer questions, while he is supposed to be paying attention to the road. That’s why the law calls it “distracted driving” and not “driving while using the mobile phone.” Undoubtedly, why the use of a hands-off communications device while one is driving is not considered “distracted driving” under Republic Act No. 10913 or its implementing rules needs to be explained.
The second problem is in the sweeping prohibition that the driver of a motor vehicle is not allowed to use his hand-held mobile phone anywhere and anytime, even when the vehicle he is driving is at a full stop at an intersection or in a traffic jam. This creates a problem because admittedly, there are important calls or messages which the driver must immediately receive or know about—as when a child should be fetched from another place instead of the originally designated pick-up point. The ideal time to take those important text messages is precisely when the vehicle is stationary at an intersection or in a traffic jam. There is simply no way one’s driving can be distracted when the vehicle isn’t moving in the first place.
Sure, the law and the rules provide that the driver may use the hand-held mobile phone in case of an emergency. That exception sounds good, but then what constitutes an emergency outside of a medical illness, an engine breakdown, or a roadway collision is not clear. What if a driver leaves Makati and heads for Quezon City for an important meeting, and while he is in transit the meeting is moved at the last minute to Taguig, or is canceled? Does that count as an emergency? Who is to decide gray areas?
Another area overlooked by the law is the indiscriminate, irritating practice of many mobile telephone companies of sending spam text messages to mobile phones, hand-held or otherwise, on a regular basis. More often than not, the text messages are sent in a continuous cluster, one after the other. Such a sudden surge in text messages is enough to make the driver believe that the text messages are very important or may even be in the nature of an emergency, even when they are otherwise. Is a mistaken belief that the text message was actually an emergency advisory count as an exception? The law is silent in that regard.
Speaking of text messages, if a driver of a motor vehicle is prohibited by law from using his hand-held mobile phone while he is driving, the law should also penalize mobile phone companies that send spam text messages to their clients who may be driving at the time those unwanted text messages are sent. As it is, the driver with a hand-held mobile phone is not only subject to annoying, unsolicited spam text messages; he also courts a traffic ticket if he mistakenly believed that those spam text messages are emergency text messages and he looked at his mobile phone.
The third problem arising from the law and its short-lived implementation is the prohibition against visual impediments, or articles on the dashboard or on the windshield that block the view of the driver. For a while, rosaries dangling from the rear view mirror near the windshield were banned. The ban was recalled when the Roman Catholic Church protested.
This brings up another problem. It appears that while the law is strictly enforced against private vehicles, it does not seem to apply to drivers of public utility vehicles, jeepneys in particular. The windshield of many jeepneys are cluttered with so many embellishments that only a fraction of it allows visual contact between the driver and the road. Why aren’t these jeepney drivers accosted by traffic enforcers? If the law prohibits “distracted driving,” how should the law deal with a jeepney driver who receives fares and gives change while he is driving the jeepney? Since jeepneys are public utility vehicles, shouldn’t a more exacting standard of roadway safety be imposed on jeepney drivers?
Republic Act No. 10913 certainly needs a total overhaul.