Free Legal Advice Philippines

Disclaimer: This web site is designed for general information only and does not create attorney-client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for legal advice regarding their individual legal issues.

Log in

I forgot my password

You are not connected. Please login or register

Police Make-Up Their Own Laws To Terrorize Innocent

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

E.S. Arante

Arresto Menor
I have drafted this letter to Clark Freeport council that raises several legal issues, and would be interested in feedback.  Thanks.

Dear Clark Development Commission (CDC) council,

On behalf of my client, E.S. Arante, I do hereby serve notice to the CDC that Franco A.L. Madlangbayan, who listed his title as, “VP for (Public Safety) Operations,” exceeded his authority and committed critical errors in his effort to create a bicycle helmet rule and / or policy for the Clark Freeport Zone, through his issuance of a memorandum, dated April 1, 2013, entitled, “Implementation and Enforcement of Traffic Rules and Regulations for Motor Vehicles, Motorcycles and Bicycles in the Clark Freeport Zone.”

Mr. Madlangbayan exceeded his authority by creating a rule and /or policy that does not relate to or pertain to any law.  Public safety officials are limited in their authority in that they may only create rules and policies for the administration, implementation, and enforcement, of laws. Mr. Madlangbayan committed a critical error in his effort to regulate the bicycle, which, like walking, is an unregulated form of transportation in the Republic of the Philippines. Furthermore, it appears as though Mr. Madlangbayan did not seek the advice of CDC council in advance of implementing this rule.

Rules or policy or orders that have no basis in law are invalid and unenforceable.  My client is aggrieved in that my client was apprehended, harassed, and intimidated by several armed CDC guards who exceeded their authority by ordering, threatening and coercing my client to comply with a non-existent law.

CDC guards violated the constitutionally protected rights of my client according to the provisions of Article III Section One, “Equal protection under the law.” The legislative intent of the Equal Protection clause is to protect citizens from having their rights infringed upon by political subdivisions of the nation.

CDC guards also violated the constitutionally protected rights of my client according to the provisions of Article III, Section Six, which guarantees that “The right to travel shall not be impaired, except by law.”

The purpose of law-enforcement officers is to enforce laws.  Law enforcement officers do not have the authority to terrorize, law-abiding citizens of the Republic of the Philippines. Please be advised that one of the legal definitions of terrorism is:  “Actions intended to intimidate or coerce civilians.”

Evidence suggests that this policy was created by a political appointee who has since resigned. Further evidence suggests that this political appointee created and implemented this policy without the knowledge and consent of CDC council. Considering these extenuating circumstances, my client is eager to forgive this error and hold the CDC harmless under the presumption that CDC council will promptly correct this error.   My client respectfully requests that CDC council issue a statement stipulating that compliance with this bicycle helmet policy is voluntary.

Should this issue not be resolved in a timely manner, my client intends to seek a judgment against the CDC.  Furthermore, my client intends to secure injunctive relief to immediately correct the clear and present danger of police making their own laws for the purpose of terrorizing the public.

Please be advised that my client is associated with the news media and that my client intends to press release this issue as, “CLARK POLICE MAKE-UP THEIR OWN LAWS TO TERRORIZE THE INNOCENT.” Furthermore, my client intends to continue to issue press releases and to give news media interviews throughout the course of litigation.

View user profile


Reclusion Perpetua
So what was the bicycle policy about?

View user profile

E.S. Arante

Arresto Menor
council wrote:So what was the bicycle policy about?
It is a policy to require helmet use as well as the wearing of shoes as well as some other requirements, but I am only disputing the bike helmet part.

Considering that it's a policy or a rule in the absence of any law, the term, "bicycle helmet," is undefined.

I'm curious about the validity of my various arguments.

View user profile

E.S. Arante

Arresto Menor
Is there a lawyer in the house that will send this for me? I am willing to pay the fee for sending a letter. Thanks. Very Happy

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum