The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed its 2021 decision that declared unconstitutional Mandaluyong City’s Motorcycle Riding-in-Tandem ordinances which ban a male back-rider who is not related to the driver. In a resolution, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Mandaluyong City government with a ruling that the ground raised were “mere rehash already considered and passed upon by this Court." Declared unconstitutional by the CA were Ordinance Nos. 550 S-2014, 595 S-2015, and 694 S-2018 on riding-in-tandem. The ordinances prohibit all motorcycle riding-in-tandem where the back-rider is a male except where the back-rider is a female, a male relative within the first degree of consanguinity, and children between seven to 10 years of age. Exempted from the provisions of the ordinances are members of the Philippine National Police Tactical and Mobile Unit assigned or detailed in Mandaluyong City. The 2021 decision written by Associate Justice Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan cited the constitutional mandate on equal protection. It granted the petition of Angkas rider Dino S. De Leon who challenged the constitutionality of the ordinances and pleaded to stop his prosecution for violation.  De Leon was arrested and fined for his violation and charged in court. The CA said equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated to be treated alike. Under Section 1, Article III on Bill of Rights of the Constitution, “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” The CA said the prohibition against male back-riders “is an oppressive measure.” “The prohibition is oppressive because it arbitrarily limits the movement and mode of transportation of male back-riders even though there is no direct link or available statistical data presented before the trial court to show that motorcycle riding criminals are males, and as such, the imposition of the prohibition is reasonably necessary to curtail the rate of criminality within the City of Mandaluyong,” the CA stressed. “Further, the City Government of Mandaluyong also failed to prove that the enactment and implementation of the subject ordinances are fair, not discriminatory and not unreasonable,” it said. “Verily, the ordinances are purely discriminatory to the class belonging to the male back-rider, unless he is a relative within the first degree of consanguinity or a child between 7 to 10 years of age, even though there is no evidence which would support the reason why the prohibition was imposed on such class of persons in the first place,” it added.