 is drawing fire from legal advocates and commuters’ rights groups over its proposed “shame campaign”){kind=link}
THE DEPARTMENT OF Transportation (DOTr) is drawing fire from legal advocates and commuters’ rights groups over its proposed “shame campaign” against traffic violators—a plan critics warn could trample due process, violate privacy laws, and open the government to lawsuits.
At the center of the controversy is a directive from DOTr Secretary Vince Dizon for the Land Transportation Office (LTO) to study the feasibility of publishing the names of repeat or grave traffic violators as a deterrent. The proposal, while pitched as a bold move to discipline erring motorists, is now under heavy scrutiny.
LAWYERS PUSH BACK HARDER
The Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection (LCSP), a group that has consistently advocated for safe, fair, and lawful transport policies, has come out strongly against the idea.
“This scheme has no basis in law and directly undermines both the rights and dignity of Filipino motorists,” declared Atty. Albert N. Sadili, LCSP spokesperson. “What the DOTr is proposing is not just illegal—it is reckless, disproportionate, and dangerous.”
According to LCSP, the penalties for traffic violations are already clearly laid out under Republic Act 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, as well as Joint Administrative Circular No. 2014-01. These include fines, suspension or revocation of driver’s licenses, and suspension or cancellation of franchises for public utility vehicles. Nowhere in these provisions, the group stressed, is public shaming listed as a sanction.
‘If the DOTr truly wants to protect commuters, then it should strengthen institutions, improve road safety infrastructure, and ensure that law enforcers do their jobs consistently and fairly.’
PRIVACY, DUE PROCESS
Beyond the absence of legal grounding, LCSP warns that the proposal could directly clash with the Data Privacy Act of 2012, which protects personal information from unlawful disclosure.
“Publishing the names of supposed violators without final adjudication is not only irresponsible but potentially libelous,” Sadili noted. “Imagine the reputational damage if a motorist is wrongly accused. This could affect their employment, their families, even their safety.”
He further argued that the scheme fails to uphold due process, a constitutional guarantee that individuals must be heard before being penalized. “To shame someone publicly without establishing liability through proper investigation is unlawful,” he emphasized.
FLAWED DETERRENCE
The DOTr’s rationale for the shame campaign is deterrence —using humiliation as a tool to discourage future violations. But LCSP dismisses this logic as both “misguided and ineffective.”
“Public humiliation has no place in modern governance,” the group said in its statement. “It is neither professional nor proportional. Discipline on the road must be built on fair enforcement of laws, not on spectacles designed to embarrass people.”
LCSP maintains that the more sustainable solution lies in the consistent enforcement of existing rules, not in introducing legally questionable shortcuts.
POTENTIAL LEGAL BATTLES AHEAD
If pursued, the shame campaign could also trigger legal action against the government itself. Lawyers point out that motorists who are wrongfully shamed may file civil cases for damages, or even criminal complaints for libel.
“The government would be exposing itself to an avalanche of lawsuits,” warned Sadili. “Instead of fixing traffic, it will clog the courts with cases and erode public trust in our transport institutions.”
PUBLIC REACTION DIVIDED
On social media, public opinion is split. Some frustrated commuters, tired of reckless drivers and repeat offenders, expressed support for the idea, saying violators deserve to be exposed. Others, however, echoed LCSP’s concerns, calling the plan authoritarian and prone to abuse.
“Sure, we want safer roads. But do we really want to live in a society where the government can plaster your name publicly without proof?” wrote one commenter.
A CALL FOR REAL REFORM
For LCSP, the bigger issue is not the lack of penalties but the lack of consistent enforcement. Traffic violators, they argue, are often emboldened not because the penalties are weak, but because enforcement is uneven and sometimes marred by corruption.
“What we need is not shame campaigns but professional, sustained, and corruption-free enforcement of traffic laws,” said Sadili. “If the DOTr truly wants to protect commuters, then it should strengthen institutions, improve road safety infrastructure, and ensure that law enforcers do their jobs consistently and fairly.”
THE ROAD AHEAD
The DOTr has yet to release a final decision, with the LTO currently studying the proposal’s legality. But with the strong opposition from legal circles, privacy advocates, and commuters’ groups, the road ahead for the shame campaign looks rough.
For now, LCSP has made its position crystal clear: public shaming is not the answer.
“Traffic discipline should be pursued within the bounds of law and human dignity,” Sadili concluded. “Anything less is a betrayal of the very public the DOTr claims to protect.”