Drunk driving law needs a limit

Last week, President Benigno Aquino signed into law Republic Act 10586 or the “Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013,” which is a commendable new measure that carries fines of up to P500,000 and the permanent revocation of your driver’s license for those caught driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Awesome stuff, sure, but as admirable as the step may be, my concern is that I have yet to see anything stipulating what exactly that legal blood alcohol limit is. The new republic act states: Driving under the influence of alcohol refers to the act of operating a motor vehicle while the driver’s blood alcohol concentration level has, after being subjected to a breath analyzer test, reached the level of intoxication, as established jointly by the Department of Health (DOH), the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC). Again, what is that level?

This is absolutely crucial because, unlike drugs, which are a prohibited substance anyway, how does one define drunk? Six beers for you may be like two beers for me, or the other way around; I’ve seen ladies get all silly after a glass or two of wine and 250 pound men get a high score in Candy Crush after a bottle of scotch. It is all relative, and largely based on body weight, tolerance and even gender. 

The problem it poses later on is when ignorant, arrogant or enterprising enforcers decide to get a little creative in their apprehensions and start extorting innocent motorists who may have enjoyed a couple of bottles of beer or a harmless glass of wine over dinner with the family. They may be far from drunk, but when you consider that the new law introduces a minimum fine of P20,000 and three months in jail, you begin to see the potential for abuse. 

Don’t get me wrong, I applaud the new law — but I shiver in fear when it comes to its implementation. Because as much as I have been one of the noisiest advocates against drunk driving, even going as far as setting up the country’s first “Driver on Call” service with Lifeline ambulance precisely to give drunk drivers a safe and practical option to get themselves and their cars home in one piece, I see too much room for abuse –– both on the side of the law enforcers and the side of the offenders.

Take two typical scenarios. The first is responsible man A coming home from a nice evening out with his family. He has had a couple of beers, a decent meal, and is now stopped by authorities for “apparent indications and manifestations, including overspeeding, weaving, lane straddling, sudden stops or swerving”–– most of which are completely subjective. 

The enforcer, after claiming to smell alcohol on man A’s breath, accuses him of being drunk and insists on a highly subjective field sobriety test, such as the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand etc.––which, by the way, if refused, results in the immediate confiscation and automatic revocation of license –– and decides, based purely on his own opinion, that the man is indeed drunk. The enforcer then threatens Man A with a P20,000 fine and imprisonment, demand that he go to the precinct for a chemical or breathalyzer test, or to settle on the side of the road for say, P5,000?

Then there’s the more disturbing second scenario.

Man B is a habitual offender that regularly drives home under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The enforcer stops him for similar reasons. Man B hops out, fails the field sobriety test, contests it (which is his right) and either (a) offers to settle it on the side of the road for say, P5,000? Or (b) go to the precinct, take the breathalyzer test or chemical test, then pay a good lawyer to argue the definition of “drunk” based entirely on the absence of a pre-prescribed, published, legal blood alcohol limit. 

So this is what I would like to see happen. Introduce a legal blood alcohol level of, say, .06, which is what most countries do, and equip every police car or deputized enforcer with a breathalyzer that they can use for random breath testing at strategic points around the city, car park exits, and other known hot spots to check drivers. If they fail, they should be locked up for the night, fined, and face the possibility of extended jail time, but in turn, the absence of either should declare any such apprehension as null and void, and be grounds for extortion or harassment. 

I know I may sound cynical, but I think we can all agree that I’m being practical. Once again, it is not the law or its harsh penalties than concern me, but the holes in the implementation where corruption, extortion or abuse generally reside. If we see it happening from something as basic as a concealed traffic sign and a hungry enforcer around the corner, then all the more with something as subjective as this –– which is why it needs to be scientific, lest those penalties and fines simply end up as just another negotiating point for a handsome bribe.

The goal should be to get drunk drivers off the roads, so please, let’s focus more on effective enforcement than harsh punishment, because as it is now, it is no different to having a hefty fine for speeding, but no posted limit or radar gun to measure it.