Common questions

This site cannot give you a national figure that scales with your speed, because no such figure exists in anything it could source. The Traffic Code sets a flat ceiling from 1964 that has never been adjusted and does not vary with how far over the limit you were, and the 2014 national schedule does not price speeding at all — its own closed list of violations, drafted broadly enough to cover disregarding a traffic sign, does not include it. Where a violation is charged, it routes to the schedule's flat catch-all, or to reckless driving if it is separately classified. A specific peso figure you have seen quoted for overspeeding is almost certainly a city ordinance, not national law.

None that this site can show you, and quite possibly none at all. A demerit-point system is widely reported to exist under the implementing rules of a 2019 licensing law — the rules, never the Act. This site read that Act in full and it contains no point mechanics of any kind: it is a licence-validity statute and a licensing-fraud statute. The implementing rules themselves have since been read in full, and they settle the thresholds that secondary reports used to disagree about — but this site has no place built to show a demerit-point figure yet, so none appears anywhere on it.

Almost certainly, and this site cannot tell you by how much. The capital's authority has its own charter power to fix and collect fines for the cities and municipalities inside it, and seventeen local governments legislate for themselves besides. No primary text from any of them was obtainable in this pass — every relevant government site returns a security challenge that could not be cleared, live or archived. So no Metro Manila figure appears anywhere here. That is unmeasured, not zero.

Because they are not, and saying so is the only honest option. The national schedule exists in this project only as page scans with no usable text layer, transcribed by eye page by page. The machine text extracted from those scans is provably wrong on the amount column and blind on at least one page, so it was never trusted. A human eye is the only instrument between the scan and these tables, and no reviewer has yet gone back over that work. Every figure is marked research status until one does.

No, and that is a positive finding rather than an omission. The schedule's own procedure states one consequence for failing to settle inside the window, and it is an automatic licence suspension counted from the day of apprehension — not a larger fine, not a surcharge, not an escalating fee. Several other countries ladder the amount upward on delay; this instrument does not, and this site will not invent one.

Because it states none. The drink and drug driving item opens “In addition to the fines and penalties prescribed by law” and then lists licence consequences only — the money is entirely in the Act it cites, which gives a court a range rather than a fixed amount. A table showing a zero there would tell you drink driving is free, which is why you will not see one on this site.

Because the order's own copy cannot be read at that line. A certification stamp is physically printed over the figure in the only obtainable scan — it is not a scanning failure, the ink is on top of the number. The figure shown here comes instead from the statute the order's own heading names, whose first three rungs match the order exactly. The row says which instrument it came from rather than quietly attributing it to the order.

A percentage of a vehicle charge set outside the schedule — and this site does not hold the schedule of that charge, so it cannot turn the percentage into pesos. The order states the percentage, then adds “to be computed based on formula”, and the formula is not stated anywhere in the order either. Both of those absences are on the overloading page, with the percentage, rather than a figure that would have to be guessed.

The schedule's general procedure states it in hours, and the permit page computes the expiry from the date you were apprehended. Two other clocks start at the same moment and run for different lengths — one to contest the apprehension in writing, one to settle — and confusing them is the most expensive ordinary mistake in this process.

A colorum vehicle is one carrying passengers or goods for hire without the franchise the law requires — no Certificate of Public Convenience at all, or operating outside the terms of the one it holds. The word appears in no statute; it is the trade term for unfranchised public transport, and the national schedule prices it in its franchise section rather than among the driver's licence offences. Two features of it surprise people. It is priced by the type of vehicle rather than by what the driver did, so a bus and a motorcycle are not on the same figure. And the offence is counted against the operator rather than against the unit that was stopped, so a second offence reaches the operator's whole fleet. The amounts are on the colorum and franchise page, where each vehicle type carries its own.

No, and no site that is not the issuing agency can. A violation record lives in a live government database, and reading it means an authenticated query against that database — not a lookup of published rules. This site is a set of static pages: it holds the instruments and the amounts those instruments state, and it holds nothing at all about any person or any vehicle. It asks for no licence number, no plate number, no permit reference and no date of birth, and there is no lookup form anywhere on it. For your own record, use the government's own digital services or the office named on the ticket. A site that offered to check it for you would either be guessing or collecting your details.

Enforcement by camera rather than by an officer at the roadside: a violation is recorded by a fixed or mobile camera and the notice reaches the registered owner afterwards, often long afterwards. It is operated by the capital's authority and by individual local governments under their own ordinances — never by the national schedule this site models — which is one more reason no camera-enforcement figure appears anywhere here. Its legal standing is also less settled than either side of the argument usually admits. Everything this site could learn about the litigation is secondary-sourced, and the court removed the case without ever ruling the scheme valid. The page on it says so, at length, and prints no amount.

Because there is nothing for one to compute. A speeding calculator in another market takes how far over the limit you were and returns a band from a ladder that scales with the excess. Nothing in this corpus builds such a ladder at any level of government this site could reach: the Traffic Code prices a violation of its own speed table at a flat ceiling that does not move with the excess, and the national schedule does not price speeding at all. So the speed page shows the limit table and tells you which limit applied — a verdict, not an amount. A slider that returned a peso figure would mean inventing the ladder behind it, and inventing it is the one thing a site about money somebody owes must not do.

Two kinds of place, and each row says which. Statute figures were read from machine-readable texts of the Republic Acts, fetched from a private consolidator because every government origin returns a security challenge. Schedule figures were read by eye from page images of a 2014 joint administrative order, at the page numbers each row cites. Nothing here comes from a news article, a blog or another calculator, and where the only available source was one of those the figure is not printed at all.