For as long as I’ve been buying and selling cars, I’ve followed what a number of secondhand car owners know as the “30-day rule”: complete all the necessary paperwork, notarize the deed of sale, and submit the documents to the Land Transportation Office (LTO) within 30 days of purchase. It’s a process I first encountered almost 30 years ago when buying my first car, and it’s one I’ve continued to observe out of habit and practicality.

Over the years, I’ve seen the challenges of this bureaucratic maze firsthand. A single transfer of ownership involves multiple steps: securing a police clearance, undergoing stenciling for verification, and lining up at the Highway Patrol Group clearance center and the LTO district office. These steps alone require considerable time and patience.

Yet, the importance of ownership transfer hit me even harder when some years back I received in the mail a traffic ticket for a car I had already sold. The new owner hadn’t yet registered the vehicle in his name, leaving me in a tangled web of responsibilities for a car I no longer owned. It was not a major violation — driving on coding day — but I had to pay a hefty fine just the same.

To avoid future issues, I included a clause in every deed of sale I signed, requiring the buyer to complete the ownership transfer within what I felt was a “reasonable” timeframe, typically that familiar 30-day period. However, with the issuance of a new LTO Administrative Order, these expectations may soon shift for everyone in the pre-owned car market.

Under Administrative Order No. VDM-2024-046, the LTO has adjusted its expectations, now requiring that all ownership transfers be reported within a tighter 20-day period. This move is part of LTO’s mandate to enforce two significant laws: the Motorcycle Crime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 11235) and the new anti-carnapping law (Republic Act No. 10883).

The Motorcycle Crime Prevention Act sets an even shorter timeframe, demanding that ownership of motorcycles be registered within five days of sale. The Anti-Carnapping Law, meanwhile, mandates that all vehicle sales, including those involving engine or chassis replacements, be registered within 20 days.

The penalties for failing to comply are steep. Buyers and sellers alike face fines ranging from P20,000 to P40,000, and both the vehicle and relevant driver’s licenses can be flagged. However, while the spirit behind the Administrative Order (AO) is understandable, certain aspects of its implementation deserve scrutiny. The LTO should recognize the barriers to swift compliance, and as it stands, this AO could place undue burdens on law-abiding vehicle owners navigating a system already rife with challenges.

Around the world, regulations on pre-owned vehicle ownership transfers are designed with both security and practicality in mind. In Singapore, for instance, ownership transfers are handled through an efficient online system managed by the Land Transport Authority, requiring only a few days for complete processing. Transfers must be completed in seven days.

The United Kingdom’s Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) allows 30 days to register ownership changes, giving buyers and sellers ample time for due diligence while avoiding penalty traps.

An extended timeframe, paired with accessible online options, will be the best approach, I believe. Such not only streamlines ownership transitions but also helps create a fair system for all parties. Without overly rigid requirements, these frameworks acknowledge the logistical demands on individuals, recognizing that compliance cannot rely on speed alone.

While I support the LTO’s intention behind this order — encouraging timely ownership transfers and upholding accountability — I also see the need for a more practical approach. The requirement to report a sale online within five days raises significant barriers, especially given the gaps in access to the Land Transportation Management System (LTMS).

Not all Filipinos, especially those in remote areas, have easy access to online platforms. The hurdles extend to the paperwork as well; under the AO, sellers must upload notarized deeds, original registration documents, and identification within the five-day period — a time crunch that may prove unmanageable for many.

Compounding the problem is the AO’s treatment of liability. Under the new regulations, if the buyer fails to initiate the transfer process after the seller reports the sale, the seller could be flagged and potentially penalized. This asymmetry unfairly burdens sellers, who lose control over a vehicle yet remain liable for its infractions until the ownership is fully transferred.

Moreover, the requirement that liability remains with the seller until the registration is completed poses a serious problem. The UK and Singapore, for instance, treat a notarized bill of sale or official notification of transfer as sufficient to release a seller from further responsibility. This is a sensible approach, as it recognizes the reality that, once the keys change hands, the vehicle is out of the seller’s control.

While RA No. 11235 and RA No. 10883 clearly underscore the need for accurate and timely transfer reporting, the LTO can exercise more flexibility in implementing these laws. Extending the timeframe to 30 days, as practiced in other countries, would not dilute the law’s intentions but would instead provide a more realistic window for compliance.

In fact, considering bureaucratic issues here, this can perhaps be extended to a couple of months. Equally important is the matter of retroactivity; applying these new requirements to all past transactions could create unnecessary confusion and penalize those with limited access to previous buyers or sellers. The AO should be prospective, in my opinion, and should not cover past transactions.

Another consideration involves the inspection requirements. The AO demands that buyers submit a Private Motor Vehicle Inspection Center (PMVIC) Report before the transfer is complete. Although safety checks are essential, the limited availability and sometimes lengthy waiting periods at PMVICs may stretch beyond the AO’s current 20-day limit. An adjustment here could prevent bottlenecks while ensuring compliance.

I cannot help but recall the Non-Contact Apprehension Program (NCAP), which used camera-based surveillance to detect traffic violations, when it faced its own set of challenges in execution. The program saw widespread opposition due to concerns over privacy, transparency, and implementation.

It was ultimately suspended pending Supreme Court deliberation, with a crucial lesson: hasty policies without sufficient stakeholder engagement can lead to widespread pushback and policy reversals. As it stands, the LTO’s AO may encounter similar resistance if it fails to account for the concerns of the public, including both buyers and sellers.

The LTO’s intentions are commendable, but a practical framework that aligns with global best practices would make this AO a valuable step forward. Online reporting systems, liability guidelines, and transfer timeframes need to be realistic for both buyers and sellers. A 20-day period may work well on paper, but in practice, 30 days, as seen in the UK, or an extended transition period of maybe three months, might be more suitable given the current infrastructure. Stakeholder engagement, transparency, and fairness should guide this AO’s future.

I believe it’s essential for the LTO to actively involve the car-buying public and heed their suggestions. Otherwise, the AO risks ending up in the same legal limbo as the NCAP, leaving us with unclear regulations that ultimately create more challenges than solutions. Until this order is reviewed, those in the pre-owned car market will need to navigate these new waters with caution — because, as it stands, the AO’s demands are as rigorous as they are unforgiving.

A fine of P20,000 to P40,000 is a lot of money for most people. Almost the cost of an old car. And an alarm tag — akin to what is slapped on a stolen vehicle — on the vehicle subject of sale, as well as the license of both seller and buyer, for failure to follow an administrative requirement smacks of unconstitutionally treating ordinary citizens as criminals, guilty until proven innocent.

Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council

matort@yahoo.com