MMDA v. Garin GR-No-130230
MMDA v. Garin GR-No-130230
MMDA v. Garin GR-No-130230
130230
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
At issue in this case is the validity of Section 5(f ) of Republic Act No. 7924
creating the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA),
which authorizes it to confiscate and suspend or revoke driver's licenses in
the enforcement of traffic laws and regulations.
You are hereby directed to report to the MMDA Traffic Operations Center
Port Area Manila after 48 hours from date of apprehension for
disposition/appropriate action thereon. Criminal case shall be filed for
failure to redeem license after 30 days.
For its part, the MMDA, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General,
pointed out that the powers granted to it by Sec. 5(f ) of Rep. Act No. 7924
are limited to the fixing, collection and imposition of fines and penalties
for traffic violations, which powers are legislative and executive in nature;
the judiciary retains the right to determine the validity of the penalty
imposed. It further argued that the doctrine of separation of powers does
not preclude "admixture" of the three powers of government in
administrative agencies.4
The MMDA also refuted Garin's allegation that the Metro Manila
Council, the governing board and policy making body of the petitioner,
has as yet to formulate the implementing rules for Sec. 5(f ) of Rep. Act No.
7924 and directed the court's attention to MMDA Memorandum Circular
No. TT-95-001 dated 15 April 1995. Respondent Garin, however,
questioned the validity of MMDA Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-001,
as he claims that it was passed by the Metro Manila Council in the
absence of a quorum.
On 14 August 1997, the trial court rendered the assailed decision5 in favor
of the herein respondent and held that:
In filing this petition,6 the MMDA reiterates and reinforces its argument
in the court below and contends that a license to operate a motor vehicle
is neither a contract nor a property right, but is a privilege subject to
reasonable regulation under the police power in the interest of the public
safety and welfare. The petitioner further argues that revocation or
suspension of this privilege does not constitute a taking without due
process as long as the licensee is given the right to appeal the revocation.
To buttress its argument that a licensee may indeed appeal the taking and
the judiciary retains the power to determine the validity of the
confiscation, suspension or revocation of the license, the petitioner points
out that under the terms of the confiscation, the licensee has three
options:
It would seem, therefore, that insofar as the absence of a prima facie case
to enjoin the petitioner from confiscating drivers' licenses is concerned,
recent events have overtaken the Court's need to decide this case, which
has been rendered moot and academic by the implementation of
Petitioner cites a long list of American cases to prove this point, such as
State ex. Rel. Sullivan,12 which states in part that, "the legislative power to
regulate travel over the highways and thoroughfares of the state for the
general welfare is extensive. It may be exercised in any reasonable
manner to conserve the safety of travelers and pedestrians. Since motor
vehicles are instruments of potential danger, their registration and the
licensing of their operators have been required almost from their first
appearance. The right to operate them in public places is not a natural
and unrestrained right, but a privilege subject to reasonable regulation,
The common thread running through the cited cases is that it is the
legislature, in the exercise of police power, which has the power and
responsibility to regulate how and by whom motor vehicles may be
operated on the state highways.
The said case also involved the herein petitioner MMDA which claimed
Tracing the legislative history of Rep. Act No. 7924 creating the MMDA, we
concluded that the MMDA is not a local government unit or a public
corporation endowed with legislative power, and, unlike its predecessor,
the Metro Manila Commission, it has no power to enact ordinances for
the welfare of the community. Thus, in the absence of an ordinance from
the City of Makati, its own order to open the street was invalid.
We restate here the doctrine in the said decision as it applies to the case at
bar: police power, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty, is the power
vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish
all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances,
either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as
they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and
for the subjects of the same.
….
Therefore, insofar as Sec. 5(f ) of Rep. Act No. 7924 is understood by the
lower court and by the petitioner to grant the MMDA the power to
confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenses without need of any other
legislative enactment, such is an unauthorized exercise of police power.
3. Sec. 5(f) grants the MMDA with the duty to enforce existing traffic
rules and regulations.
Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7924 enumerates the "Functions and Powers of
the Metro Manila Development Authority." The contested clause in Sec.
A last word. The MMDA was intended to coordinate services with metro-
wide impact that transcend local political boundaries or would entail
huge expenditures if provided by the individual LGUs, especially with
regard to transport and traffic management,23 and we are aware of the
valiant efforts of the petitioner to untangle the increasingly traffic-snarled
roads of Metro Manila. But these laudable intentions are limited by the
MMDA's enabling law, which we can but interpret, and petitioner must be
reminded that its efforts in this respect must be authorized by a valid law, or
ordinance, or regulation arising from a legitimate source.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
1 Records, p. 10.
2 Id., p. 11.
3 Id., p. 1.
14 G.R. No. 135962, 27 March 2000, 328 SCRA 836, penned by Justice
Reynato S. Puno.
16 Supra, Note 18, p. 844, citing Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines, A Commentary, pp. 95-98 [1996], citing UP Law Center
Revision Project, Part II, 712 [1970] citing Sady, "Improvement of Local
Government Administration for Development Purpose," Journal of
Local Administration Overseas 135 [July 1962].
SEC. 5.- In case of traffic violations, the driver's license shall not
be confiscated but the erring driver shall be immediately issued
a traffic citation ticket prescribed by the Metropolitan Manila
Commission which shall state the violation committed, the
amount of fine imposed for the violation and an advice that he
can make payment to the city or municipal treasurer where the
violation was committed or to the Philippine National Bank or
Philippine Veteran's Bank or their branches within seven days
from the date of issuance of the citation ticket. (emphasis
supplied)