- 11 hours ago
Road crashes don’t just make headlines—they leave families grieving and communities searching for answers.
The story of Kingston Cheng has become a painful reminder of how one moment on the road can change everything. As calls grow to strengthen the Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act, many are asking: are our laws enough to protect lives?
Join us on SunStar Beyond the Headlines as we speak with Atty. Joan Largo about the proposed amendments and what they mean for justice, accountability, and safer roads.
🎙️ Guest: Atty. Joan Largo
📍 Live on the SunStar Facebook page
🕛 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
How many more lives must be lost before change happens?
Be part of the conversation.
The story of Kingston Cheng has become a painful reminder of how one moment on the road can change everything. As calls grow to strengthen the Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act, many are asking: are our laws enough to protect lives?
Join us on SunStar Beyond the Headlines as we speak with Atty. Joan Largo about the proposed amendments and what they mean for justice, accountability, and safer roads.
🎙️ Guest: Atty. Joan Largo
📍 Live on the SunStar Facebook page
🕛 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
How many more lives must be lost before change happens?
Be part of the conversation.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:12Good afternoon and welcome to Beyond the Headlines, I'm DJ Moises.
00:16A coordinated advocacy campaign held on April 23 called for amendments to Republic Act No. 10586 following the February 8,
00:282026 hit-and-run death of 23-year-old entrepreneur Kingston Ralph Ko Cheng along Paseo Saturnino in Banila, Cebu
00:37City.
00:37To tell us more about the amendments is the Vice President for Administration of the University of San Carlos, Attorney
00:45John S. Largo.
00:47Hello, Attorney Largo. Welcome to Beyond the Headlines.
00:50Mayung uddo, sir. Thank you so much.
00:53Yeah, we're very grateful for you making time for this conversation.
00:59Sige, Attorney Largo, my first question here is because you are a celebrated personality, particularly in the academic world, no?
01:09Although I know that you also have an exceptional law practice.
01:13So what personally moved you to take on in this particular concern or issue?
01:20Thank you, sir. So in the College of Law of University of San Carlos, where I teach, there is a
01:27course.
01:29This is to be taken by third-year law students.
01:32There is a course called Criminal Justice System.
01:36So while we look at the whole criminal process and look at as well the constitutional implications of the processes,
01:45because of what happened last February 8th, at first you felt a sense of grief.
01:56And then followed by indignation at what had happened, but more of grief at what had happened.
02:03And then this, I realized when I shared this one with faculty as well as my students in the course,
02:10I realized that this is not something peculiar to us, even if we don't know the Cheng family personally.
02:18We were not personally acquainted with them.
02:21This collective sense of grief as well as indignation is a feeling that is shared by everyone in the university,
02:31at least in USC law.
02:33So, I mean, we just thought of the idea of doing something about this one beyond grief, beyond indignation,
02:43so that the laws that we are not seeing, we will see.
02:49So the four classes came together and worked not just on looking at the current state of loss,
02:57but looking as well as the best practices in other jurisdictions.
03:01So deep dive into the research as well as the policy analysis, that's what our students did.
03:08So after the deep dive, Attorney Largo, from a legal standpoint, what gaps did you and the students discover?
03:22Particularly in the context of the Philippine roads.
03:26For me, sir, the setting of the alcohol threshold, they call it the BCA.
03:39So we find that one not appropriate for the condition of our Philippine infrastructure, of our roads.
03:50Having a BCA that is set only at 0.05, having that BAC threshold might be acceptable in other jurisdictions.
04:09But in the Philippines, you have unforgiving infrastructure.
04:16So as we shared with our students and with our faculty, in other countries, a driver error would result in
04:28that driver hitting simply a guardrail.
04:31But in the Philippines, that driver mistake, that driver error results in hitting such a precious person in the person
04:41of Kingston.
04:42So number one, that's the gap.
04:45We have to make our loss stricter because our infrastructure, our road networks are hostile.
04:56So we need to lower the BAC threshold.
04:59And then there has got to be an implied consent.
05:04Whenever you are issued a driver's license, as in other jurisdictions, the moment you receive the driver's license,
05:11you give the consent to testing the moment you are lawfully stopped by a law enforcement authority.
05:18So there has got to be that implied consent the moment you receive your driver's license,
05:24that the moment you are lawfully stopped, the officer stopping you should be able to conduct a mandatory alcohol screening.
05:34In fact, we want to put in place that the moment you refuse to submit yourself to testing,
05:41there should be a rebuttable, anyway, disputable man, a rebuttable presumption of intoxication.
05:47Because why else would you not submit yourself to mandatory screening?
05:53So that's one.
05:53And then looking at the science of this one, we want to put in the two-hour rule.
06:00The two-hour rule mandates that there should be testing of the driver who has been lawfully stopped within the
06:07two-hour period.
06:08That two-hour period will allow or give space na dili pa madisipate ang alcohol content, okay?
06:19So, but then again, assuming there is no test that has been done within the two-hour window,
06:26our students proposed what is known as there should be, we should allow for the back retrograde extrapolation.
06:33That is a scientific process whereby we will allow an estimation of a person's BAC at the time that he
06:42or she was driving
06:44by projecting backward from the time the chemical test was actually administered.
06:49So there's that retrograde extrapolation, if only to address the possibility that we were not able to do.
06:58There's a delay.
07:00And quite importantly, we were able to, we wanted to see the possibility of putting in the law itself,
07:09post-accident testing requirements and ascribing responsibilities for that.
07:14For example, we want to put in place and we want to make it very clear that it is the
07:21duty of the responding officer
07:23to facilitate immediate testing.
07:26In fact, we want to put in place na the failure of the officer to initiate that testing without valid
07:32justification
07:33should be ground at the very least for an administrative disciplinary action.
07:38And on the part as well of the medical facilities, what we want to see in the legislation is a
07:45mandatory cooperation
07:47on the part of the medical facilities.
07:50So it is not that they will be required, but that they should see that there is a need to
07:59cooperate.
08:00And they should treat this one as a forensic emergency and as a forensic priority so that there has got
08:08to be a cooperation
08:10that we will see in the medical facilities and failure, in fact, to cooperate will be, should be seen as
08:18prima facie evidence
08:19of obstruction of justice.
08:21Now, we want to make it clear, although it's quite, it can be gleaned in the Data Privacy Act,
08:29but we want to make it clear na the provisions of the Data Privacy Act should not apply in the
08:35conduct of the tests
08:37for DUI investigations.
08:40And then, quite importantly, my students also were very keen on seeing to it na we address the penal sanctions
08:51imposed in the current legislation, but not only the penal sanctions, but also what happens after.
08:59So, for example, we want to increase the penalty that we will impose on injuries resulting in,
09:08I say, on this incident that would result in physical injuries as well, even worse, to homicide or death.
09:17But not only that, if that DUI incident happened in what we referred to as a vulnerable zone,
09:25and what are vulnerable zones?
09:29Overspeeding in schools, in residential houses, near the premises of public hospitals,
09:40we have defined what these vulnerable zones are, should carry higher penalty.
09:47Because in those instances, in those premises, you are supposed and you are charged to take note
09:55that there is higher risk involved, and therefore, you should be extra careful.
09:59So, when we increase the penalty, sir, we put front and center the gravity of this one.
10:07But why should we emphasize the gravity?
10:11Because I don't know if we know this one, or if the public is aware of this one,
10:15but road mishaps remain to be one of the leading causes of death, actually.
10:21One of the leading causes of death.
10:24And we change paradigm, we change mindset, and we make this one a serious, serious offense
10:32if we increase as well the penalty that we ascribe.
10:36But this isn't just about increasing penalty.
10:40My students are very keen on putting in what they call the rehabilitative pathway.
10:45In addition to addressing the penalties of imprisonment, as well as fine,
10:52they wanted to see that the erring driver is able to complete what they referred to as
10:59an impaired driver intervention program that will include behavioral therapy,
11:05defensive driving education, as well as victim impact seminars
11:09before we reinstate their driver's license.
11:17In fact, your refusal to complete the IDIP, the Impaired Driver Intervention Program,
11:24should be considered a ground for permanent revocation of driver's license.
11:30And then, not just that, they want to put in as well the benefit of technology, sir.
11:37My students were referring to what is known as the ignition interlock device.
11:43What this ignition interlock device is something that is made mandatory,
11:49be made mandatory to repeat offenders.
11:51What this ignition interlock device will allow is that
11:56marami siyang breathalyzer or test breathalyzer that is attached to the vehicle
12:02and it will refuse to ignite.
12:05It will not turn on or function if the breath alcohol analyzer connected to the motor vehicle
12:20will detect that the BAC threshold has been met.
12:38So, these are, in other words, sir, four important points.
12:43The lowering of BAC threshold, addressing the mandatory screening,
12:49as well as the post-incident responsibilities, enhanced penalties,
12:56including enhanced penalties for what we refer to as vulnerable zones,
13:01because we recognize that in these vulnerable zones,
13:05there's a heightened moral blameworthiness.
13:08The moment there's a high-density residential area,
13:13there's a school zone, there's a hospital vicinity, there's a place.
13:17So, and fourthly, the technological as well as the rehabilitative interventions.
13:24Those are what we proposed to both House of Representatives as well as Senate.
13:30The part, actually, attorney, that I'm curious was because there were observations
13:36when the incident happened on February 8th,
13:41the penalties, and I'm referring to the monetary penalties,
13:46were too light considering the economic or financial capability of the people involved.
13:54And from what I gathered, and you can correct me if I'm wrong,
13:58the limitation of the financial penalties is also because of a set of schedules
14:06that are provided specific to this particular case.
14:10Is this true?
14:12And if it is, what are also the financial enhancements, man said,
14:17on the penalties that you and the students are introducing?
14:23All right.
14:25First of all, there's no, sorry, let me just very quickly,
14:31you said siguro correct, sir, no?
14:33But for purposes of precision, no such thing as financial penalty.
14:38If we're referring to fine, fine actually goes to the government.
14:44That is something to be paid to the government.
14:46But that is also, in fairness, current legislation.
14:50Fine is not something that is extracted or imposed to somebody
14:55who committed DUI, and then it resulted in physical injury or homicide or death.
15:19So, in this case, they have limited, the definition of driving under the influence
15:27is limited to one that is established by a test.
15:31So, we want to change that perception and, in fact, increase also the penalty.
15:37But the reason why there is bail that was able to be set up in this or put up in
15:46this case
15:46is because the penalty, of course, that has been imposed is bailable.
15:59In the proposed amendment, we want to bring it into the category of non-bailable offense.
16:07That's my second question, actually.
16:10Okay, one of the observations also during that time was, again,
16:16considering the economic or financial capacity of those involved,
16:20the bail was perceived to be just too small, no?
16:25So, you said, sir, faulted na ang system because bail is commensurate to the penalty imposed,
16:35to the crime charged.
16:37There's already a separate bail ban guide, as we would say it.
16:42And then all that the prosecutor, recommending prosecutor, will do is recommend based on that
16:48bail ban guide, in fact, which is tied up to the penalty imposed.
16:52If we increase the penalty imposed to the level that we will make it a non-bailable offense,
16:58then this is not anymore a question of whether the person can afford.
17:02Because if no bail can be recommended, then no bail can be set up,
17:07even if the offender can afford to put up bail.
17:11And then thank you for the education, Turn Largo.
17:15The other part also, which I wish to be educated and perhaps the viewers also,
17:20was the other observation that people also had when the incident happened.
17:27And this was in the number of years of imprisonment.
17:31I think you touched it already earlier.
17:33And correct me if I'm wrong again,
17:35but one of the reasons why at that time it appeared that the number of years of imprisonment
17:42was lighter because of the guide rule that specifies that the penalty can only be heavy
17:53if there is a motive or an intent to kill.
17:58And in this particular case, it was viewed as an accident.
18:03Can you tell us more also about that angle?
18:07That is possible, sir.
18:09But even if intent to kill is ruled out,
18:14because this one, if it is argued that this is because of negligence,
18:19which negates intent,
18:21because there are two ways of committing a crime,
18:23intentionally or through recklessness or negligence.
18:27So, even in the absence of intent,
18:30it can be a higher penalty imposed if under the current legislation,
18:36it is established that the person was driving under the influence of alcohol
18:41as established by the test.
18:43So, we want to revise the way we define
18:47who is driving under the influence of alcohol.
18:51And it's good because amendments such as this one is moving forward.
18:57The other part, I know there is an ecosystem who will eventually,
19:01once this one is approved and passed,
19:05there's an ecosystem who is supposed to implement this.
19:08The other piece, attorney, and this is just your opinion,
19:12one of the usual observations also on the weakness of our system is
19:18we have good laws, but the problem sometimes is on the implementation.
19:23Like when this incident happened, for example,
19:26the breathalyzer was not available when in fact it should have been.
19:30And then there was supposed to be a preliminary test
19:34in which a person needs to stand in one leg, etc.,
19:37which could have been done,
19:38but unfortunately it was also not done.
19:41So, in your opinion, once this is approved and passed,
19:44how can we become better as an ecosystem
19:48and really implementing this
19:50so that they will not just remain on paper?
19:54Wow. I shared you that observation.
19:58I shared that frustration.
20:01That is why the way to address that one,
20:03one of the ways of addressing that one
20:06is to ascribe responsibility or liability
20:09in the event that what should have been done is not done.
20:13Yes, yes. I captured that earlier, no, Sakto? Continue.
20:17So, in the one of the sections that in the proposal
20:23is dedicated to post-accident testing requirements,
20:27but not only that, ascribing as well
20:30who is responsible in doing that post-accident testing requirement, sir.
20:36Now, the other thing also is eventually,
20:39correct me if I'm wrong, also when we did our research,
20:42the proposal was submitted to both Congressman Edurama,
20:46and I think you mentioned this also earlier,
20:48and Senator Bam Aquino in the Senate.
20:50So, this is House Bill No. 08939 in Congress,
20:56and then this is Senate Bill No. 2068 in the Senate.
21:01Will they be treated as separate measures?
21:06Because under our legislative process,
21:12every bill will have to be tackled
21:16and dealt with separately by both houses.
21:20So, this measure will have to be passed in the lower house
21:25as well as in the Senate, as in the upper house.
21:29And once the two bills are sent to each house,
21:34if there be conflicting versions,
21:36a bicameral conference committee will do the task
21:39of reconciling the conflicting versions.
21:42But every bill, every measure is initiated by both houses separately, sir.
21:49Okay. So, I'm just down to my last three questions,
21:53Attorney Largo.
21:54So, now let's go back on the human side of this story.
22:00So, as a citizen,
22:03when you look at the road conditions today,
22:06what concerns you the most?
22:11What concerns you the most, sir?
22:14What concerns you the most, sir?
22:16What concerns you the most, is this society, right?
22:21Number one, we have a government
22:24that makes do with something that is even substandard.
22:29And we have citizens who just accept that to be the case.
22:34If you look at our roads everywhere,
22:38anywhere in the country,
22:40unsafe.
22:49I think Attorney Joanne's signal was cut off.
22:56But while waiting for her to lag back in again,
23:01the good thing about this proposed amendment,
23:04at least from what I've captured,
23:06because it has already institutionalized,
23:11there's an attempt to institutionalize
23:13the use of tests, no?
23:16Plus the post-incident also
23:18that this amendment hopes to cover
23:21to ensure at least, no?
23:22That there's some level of implementation
23:25in the proposed amendments.
23:27I think she's back.
23:29Okay, you can continue.
23:31Attorney Largo.
23:32Sir, you wanted me to comment
23:34on the state of our infrastructure.
23:37Yes.
23:38Literature, in fact, would describe,
23:40would very much fit the description
23:42of our Philippine roads
23:44as a hostile infrastructure.
23:46Unlike other jurisdictions,
23:58they have safer roads.
24:01As in the Philippines,
24:02Philippine roads lack consistent sidewalks,
24:05pedestrian overpasses,
24:07dedicated bike lanes.
24:09So, we are forced to walk
24:11on the shoulder of the road
24:12or literally the edge of the driving lane.
24:16We are in constant proximity
24:18to moving vehicles.
24:20So, as I mentioned,
24:22mag-gold,
24:23yung kuwani always, sir,
24:25every minute that the legislations
24:27are not amended,
24:28every minute we are exposed
24:30to greater but preventable risk.
24:33Kay,
24:34in a forgiving road system,
24:37makaigo,
24:38masayop ang driver,
24:39makaigo siya,
24:40kung ano man in town,
24:41ka ng edge sa sidewalk
24:43or guardrail.
24:45But here,
24:46tao,
24:46tao, sir.
24:47So,
24:48the Filipinos are in constant,
24:51are placed in constant risk.
24:53So,
24:54ang error of hitting a pedestrian
24:56is very much real.
24:58So,
24:59when can we improve
25:01our infrastructure?
25:02When can we turn
25:03our hostile infrastructure
25:05to forgiving ones
25:07so that we will not anymore
25:09be as vulnerable?
25:11Dugay pakaayo.
25:11So,
25:12what we can do
25:13in the meantime
25:14is that
25:14our laws must be stricter
25:16to compensate
25:17for the lack
25:18of structural safety.
25:20And,
25:21and,
25:21and when this measure
25:23succeeds,
25:24Attorney Largo,
25:24what will this mean
25:25to you personally?
25:29Like I mentioned,
25:30sir,
25:30we do not know
25:31personally
25:32the Cheng family,
25:34pero,
25:35collective,
25:36ang feeling na to
25:37sa,
25:38of grief.
25:38And so,
25:39if this passes,
25:41and I hope
25:41this carries
25:42the name
25:43of Kingston,
25:44this becomes
25:45the Kingston-Cheng
25:46amendments,
25:48if this passes
25:49ka nang,
25:51I do,
25:52I know,
25:53this will not
25:54ease at all
25:55the pain
25:56of losing
25:57a son,
25:58pero,
26:00hopefully,
26:01bisa na lag
26:01makaprovide
26:02a little
26:03sense of
26:04alleviation
26:05to the family
26:06so that
26:07everything
26:07is not
26:08for naught
26:09at all.
26:10Murag ka na,
26:11that is what
26:12it will mean
26:12to me personally.
26:14Murag mo hatag
26:15o gamayin,
26:17a way
26:17of alleviating
26:18that indescribable,
26:20immeasurable
26:22feeling of pain
26:23and loss
26:24on the part
26:24of the family.
26:25So,
26:26thank you very much,
26:27Attorney Largo,
26:28for joining us
26:29this afternoon
26:29and for
26:31enlightening us
26:32and for educating us
26:33about this
26:34proposed
26:34amendment.
26:35Alamat po,
26:36sir.
26:38Behind every
26:39case is a
26:40family.
26:41The call
26:41to strengthen
26:42Republic Act
26:43number
26:4310586
26:45is ultimately
26:46a call
26:46to prevent
26:47the next
26:48loss.
26:48The measure
26:49of any law
26:50is not
26:50in how
26:51it is written,
26:52but in the
26:53lives it
26:54protects.
26:54Thank you
26:55for being
26:55with us
26:56this afternoon.
26:57I'm DJ
26:57Moises.
26:58This is
26:58Beyond the
26:58Headlines.
26:59Have a good
27:00afternoon.
Comments