PREVIEW

PREVIEW — figures are transcribed, not yet reviewed. Check the cited instrument before relying on them.

MultaGuide
RESEARCH STATUSEvery figure on this site is at research status. No reviewer has signed one off, and the national schedule was transcribed by eye from page scans.

Metro Manila

The capital sets its own traffic fines, under its own charter, through its own authority and seventeen local governments. Not one primary peso figure from any of them was obtainable in this pass — so this site prints none, and this page explains the shape of what is missing rather than guessing at its size.

Two authorities

The national schedule is not the only schedule

The capital's own authority holds a charter power to fix, impose and collect traffic fines for the cities and municipalities inside it — and seventeen local governments legislate for themselves besides.

That power is stated in the authority’s own 1995 charter, and it is expressly stated to operate notwithstanding the national Traffic Code. It is also bounded: the Supreme Court has held that the charter grants no police power and that the authority’s functions are administrative in nature.

What exists in practice is a harmonisation template issued by the authority and 17 separate local ordinances, each legislated independently. Four of those local governments were confirmed by name as having adopted something — Quezon City (SP-3172 S-2023), Muntinlupa (2023-055), Taguig, Mandaluyong (917 S-2023) — and for none of them was the ordinance text itself obtainable.

Install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or non-moving in nature, and confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, the provisions of RA 4136 and PD 1605 to the contrary notwithstanding.RA 7924 (MMDA Charter, 1995), §5(f)
SourceSECONDARY · NOT PRINTEDSecondary source only — no primary text was obtainable, and no figure is printed from itIn force 1 March 1995. That is the day the Act was approved. The Act itself commences fifteen days after it is published, and the publication record is not in this site’s corpus — so the real start date is later than the date above by an unknown margin.Source last read 7 August 2026 — a read date, not a sign-off.

The finding

Unmeasured, not absent — and the difference matters

The law states amounts. This site does not hold them. Those are two different sentences, and only one of them is true here.

UNMEASURED

No Metro Manila peso figure — unmeasured, not absent

The capital's own authority holds a charter power to fix, impose and collect traffic fines for the cities and municipalities inside Metro Manila, and seventeen local governments legislate for themselves besides. Not one primary peso figure from the authority's own resolution or from any of those ordinances was obtainable in this pass. That makes the Metro Manila figures unmeasured, which is a different thing from absent — the law states amounts; this site does not hold them, and prints none.

What this means for you

A national figure is not a Metro Manila figure

RA 7924 §5(f) gives the MMDA its own power to fix, impose and collect fines for Metro Manila, independent of the national schedule — and that schedule was not obtainable in this pass. So a figure from the national schedule on any other page of this site may not be what applies to an apprehension made inside Metro Manila — and this site cannot tell you what does. The office named on your ticket can.

UNRESOLVED

A 2013 statute may have repealed the very power everyone cites

The 2013 Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act carries a repealing clause, and that clause names three provisions. The second of them is the exact subparagraph of the capital authority's 1995 charter that everyone — including this site's own sources — cites as its live power to run a single ticketing system and to fix, impose and collect traffic fines. Two readings are available and this corpus settles neither. It may be a drafting error, a narrow statute about drink driving reaching by mistake for an unrelated general grant. It may be a deliberate, oddly-placed narrowing of that authority's power to sanction licences. What is observable is that the authority has since proceeded as though the power still exists, and that is practice rather than a ruling. This site states both readings and stops there.

The camera-enforcement posture that sits on top of all this — currently unrestrained and never affirmatively validated — is on the no-contact apprehension page, which is secondary-sourced throughout and says so.

Every figure names the instrument it came from and whether that instrument was a statute text or a page scan.