[G.R. No. 130230.

April 15, 2005]

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
petitioner, vs. DANTE O. GARIN, respondent.
D E I ! I O N
HIO"NA#ARIO, J.$
At issue in this case is the validity of Section 5(f) of Republic Act No. 7924
creatin the !etropolitan !anila "evelop#ent Authority (!!"A)$ %hich
authori&es it to confiscate and suspend or revo'e driver(s licenses in the
enforce#ent of traffic la%s and reulations.
)he issue arose fro# an incident involvin the respondent "ante *. +arin$ a
la%yer$ %ho %as issued a traffic violation receipt (),R) and his driver(s license
confiscated for par'in illeally alon +andara Street$ -inondo$ !anila$ on .5
Auust /995. )he follo%in state#ents %ere printed on the ),R0
1*2 AR3 43R3-1 "5R36)3" )* R37*R) )* )43 !!"A )RA8856
*73RA)5*NS 63N)3R 7*R) AR3A !AN59A A8)3R 4: 4*2RS 8R*! "A)3 *8
A77R343NS5*N 8*R "5S7*S5)5*N;A77R*7R5A)3 A6)5*N )43R3*N.
6R5!5NA9 6AS3 S4A99 -3 8593" 8*R 8A592R3 )* R3"33! 9563NS3 A8)3R <.
"A1S.
,A95" AS )3!7*RAR1 "R5,3R(S 9563NS3 8*R S3,3N "A1S 8R*! "A)3 *8
A77R343NS5*N.
=/>
Shortly before the e?piration of the ),R(s validity$ the respondent addressed
a letter
=2>
to then !!"A 6hair#an 7rospero *reta re@uestin the return of his
driver(s license$ and e?pressin his preference for his case to be filed in court.
Receivin no i##ediate reply$ +arin filed the oriinal co#plaint
=<>
%ith
application for preli#inary inAunction in -ranch 2B. of the Reional )rial 6ourt
(R)6) of 7araCa@ue$ on /2 Septe#ber /995$ contendin that$ in the absence of
any i#ple#entin rules and reulations$ Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 rants
the !!"A unbridled discretion to deprive errin #otorists of their licenses$ preD
e#ptin a Audicial deter#ination of the validity of the deprivation$ thereby violatin
the due process clause of the 6onstitution. )he respondent further contended
that the provision violates the constitutional prohibition aainst undue deleation
of leislative authority$ allo%in as it does the !!"A to fi? and i#pose
unspecified E and therefore unli#ited D fines and other penalties on errin
#otorists.
5n support of his application for a %rit of preli#inary inAunction$ +arin alleed
that he suffered and continues to suffer reat and irreparable da#ae because of
the deprivation of his license and that$ absent any i#ple#entin rules fro# the
!etro !anila 6ouncil$ the ),R and the confiscation of his license have no leal
basis.
8or its part$ the !!"A$ represented by the *ffice of the Solicitor +eneral$
pointed out that the po%ers ranted to it by Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 are
li#ited to the fi?in$ collection and i#position of fines and penalties for traffic
violations$ %hich po%ers are leislative and e?ecutive in natureF the Audiciary
retains the riht to deter#ine the validity of the penalty i#posed. 5t further
arued that the doctrine of separation of po%ers does not preclude Gad#i?tureH of
the three po%ers of overn#ent in ad#inistrative aencies.
=4>
)he !!"A also refuted +arin(s alleation that the !etro !anila 6ouncil$ the
overnin board and policy #a'in body of the petitioner$ has as yet to for#ulate
the i#ple#entin rules for Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 and directed the court(s
attention to !!"A !e#orandu# 6ircular No. ))D95D../ dated /5 April /995.
Respondent +arin$ ho%ever$ @uestioned the validity of !!"A !e#orandu#
6ircular No. ))D95D../$ as he clai#s that it %as passed by the !etro !anila
6ouncil in the absence of a @uoru#.
Iude 4elen -autistaDRicafort issued a te#porary restrainin order on 2B
Septe#ber /995$ e?tendin the validity of the ),R as a te#porary driver(s
license for t%enty #ore days. A preli#inary #andatory inAunction %as ranted on
2< *ctober /995$ and the !!"A %as directed to return the respondent(s driver(s
license.
*n /4 Auust /997$ the trial court rendered the assailed decision
=5>
in favor of
the herein respondent and held that0
a. )here %as indeed no @uoru# in that 8irst Reular !eetin of the !!"A 6ouncil
held on !arch 2<$ /995$ hence !!"A !e#orandu# 6ircular No. ))D95D../$
authori&in confiscation of driver(s licenses upon issuance of a ),R$ is void ab initio.
b. )he su##ary confiscation of a driver(s license %ithout first ivin the driver an
opportunity to be heardF deprivin hi# of a property riht (driver(s license) %ithout "23
7R*63SSF not fillin (sic) in 6ourt the co#plaint of supposed traffic infraction$ cannot
be Austified by any leislation (and is) hence unconstitutional.
J43R38*R3$ the te#porary %rit of preli#inary inAunction is hereby #ade per#anentF
th(e) !!"A is directed to return to plaintiff his driver(s licenseF th(e) !!"A is li'e%ise
ordered to desist fro# confiscatin driver(s license %ithout first ivin the driver the
opportunity to be heard in an appropriate proceedin.
5n filin this petition$
=B>
the !!"A reiterates and reinforces its aru#ent in the
court belo% and contends that a license to operate a #otor vehicle is neither a
contract nor a property riht$ but is a privilee subAect to reasonable reulation
under the police po%er in the interest of the public safety and %elfare. )he
petitioner further arues that revocation or suspension of this privilee does not
constitute a ta'in %ithout due process as lon as the licensee is iven the riht
to appeal the revocation.
)o buttress its aru#ent that a licensee #ay indeed appeal the ta'in and
the Audiciary retains the po%er to deter#ine the validity of the confiscation$
suspension or revocation of the license$ the petitioner points out that under the
ter#s of the confiscation$ the licensee has three options0
/. )o voluntarily pay the i#posable fine$
2. )o protest the apprehension by filin a protest %ith the !!"A AdAudication
6o##ittee$ or
<. )o re@uest the referral of the ),R to the 7ublic 7rosecutor(s *ffice.
)he !!"A li'e%ise arues that !e#orandu# 6ircular No. ))D95D../ %as
validly passed in the presence of a @uoru#$ and that the lo%er court(s findin that
it had not %as based on a G#isapprehension of facts$H %hich the petitioner %ould
have us revie%. !oreover$ it asserts that thouh the circular is the basis for the
issuance of ),Rs$ the basis for the su##ary confiscation of licenses is Sec. 5(f)
of Rep. Act No. 7924 itself$ and that such po%er is selfDe?ecutory and does not
re@uire the issuance of any i#ple#entin reulation or circular.
!ean%hile$ on /2 Auust 2..4$ the !!"A$ throuh its 6hair#an -ayani
8ernando$ i#ple#ented !e#orandu# 6ircular No. .4$ Series of 2..4$ outlinin
the procedures for the use of the !etropolitan )raffic )ic'et (!))) sche#e.
2nder the circular$ errin #otorists are issued an !))$ %hich can be paid at any
!etroban' branch. )raffic enforcers #ay no loner confiscate drivers( licenses
as a #atter of course in cases of traffic violations. All #otorists %ith unredee#ed
),Rs %ere iven seven days fro# the date of i#ple#entation of the ne% syste#
to pay their fines and redee# their license or vehicle plates.
=7>
5t %ould see#$ therefore$ that insofar as the absence of a pri#a facie case to
enAoin the petitioner fro# confiscatin drivers( licenses is concerned$ recent
events have overta'en the 6ourt(s need to decide this case$ %hich has been
rendered #oot and acade#ic by the i#ple#entation of !e#orandu# 6ircular
No. .4$ Series of 2..4.
)he petitioner$ ho%ever$ is not precluded fro# reDi#ple#entin
!e#orandu# 6ircular No. ))D95D../$ or any other sche#e$ for that #atter$ that
%ould entail confiscatin drivers( licenses. 8or the proper i#ple#entation$
therefore$ of the petitioner(s future prora#s$ this 6ourt dee#s it appropriate to
#a'e the follo%in observations0
1. A license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege that the state may
withhold in the exercise of its police power.
)he petitioner correctly points out that a license to operate a #otor vehicle is
not a property riht$ but a privilee ranted by the state$ %hich #ay be
suspended or revo'ed by the state in the e?ercise of its police po%er$ in the
interest of the public safety and %elfare$ subAect to the procedural due process
re@uire#ents. )his is consistent %ith our rulins in Pedro v. Provincial Board of
Rizal
=:>
on the license to operate a coc'pit$ Tan v. Director of orestry
=9>
and
!posa v. actoran
=/.>
on ti#ber licensin aree#ents$ and "#rigao $lectric %o.&
'nc. v. (#nicipality of "#rigao
=//>
on a leislative franchise to operate an electric
plant.
7etitioner cites a lon list of A#erican cases to prove this point$ such as
"tate ex. Rel. "#llivan$
=/2>
%hich states in part that$ Gthe leislative po%er to
reulate travel over the hih%ays and thorouhfares of the state for the eneral
%elfare is e?tensive. 5t #ay be e?ercised in any reasonable #anner to conserve
the safety of travelers and pedestrians. Since #otor vehicles are instru#ents of
potential daner$ their reistration and the licensin of their operators have been
re@uired al#ost fro# their first appearance. )he riht to operate the# in public
places is not a natural and unrestrained riht$ but a privilee subAect to
reasonable reulation$ under the police po%er$ in the interest of the public safety
and %elfare. )he po%er to license i#ports further po%er to %ithhold or to revo'e
such license upon nonco#pliance %ith prescribed conditions.H
9i'e%ise$ the petitioner @uotes the 7ennsylvania Supre#e 6ourt in
%ommonwealth v. #n)$
=/<>
to the effect that0 GAuto#obiles are vehicles of reat
speed and po%er. )he use of the# constitutes an ele#ent of daner to persons
and property upon the hih%ays. 6arefully operated$ an auto#obile is still a
danerous instru#entality$ but$ %hen operated by careless or inco#petent
persons$ it beco#es an enine of destruction. )he 9eislature$ in the e?ercise of
the police po%er of the co##on%ealth$ not only #ay$ but #ust$ prescribe ho%
and by %ho# #otor vehicles shall be operated on the hih%ays. *ne of the
pri#ary purposes of a syste# of eneral reulation of the subAect #atter$ as here
by the ,ehicle 6ode$ is to insure the co#petency of the operator of #otor
vehicles. Such a eneral la% is #anifestly directed to the pro#otion of public
safety and is %ell %ithin the police po%er.H
)he co##on thread runnin throuh the cited cases is that it is the
leislature$ in the e?ercise of police po%er$ %hich has the po%er and
responsibility to reulate ho% and by %ho# #otor vehicles #ay be operated on
the state hih%ays.
*. The ((DA is not vested with police power.
5n (etro (anila Development A#thority v. Bel+Air ,illage Association& 'nc.$
=/4>
%e cateorically stated that Rep. Act No. 7924 does not rant the !!"A %ith
police po%er$ let alone leislative po%er$ and that all its functions are
ad#inistrative in nature.
)he said case also involved the herein petitioner !!"A %hich clai#ed that it
had the authority to open a subdivision street o%ned by the -elDAir ,illae
Association$ 5nc. to public traffic because it is an aent of the state endo%ed %ith
police po%er in the delivery of basic services in !etro !anila. 8ro# this pre#ise$
the !!"A arued that there %as no need for the 6ity of !a'ati to enact an
ordinance openin Neptune Street to the public.
)racin the leislative history of Rep. Act No. 7924 creatin the !!"A$ %e
concluded that the !!"A is not a local overn#ent unit or a public corporation
endo%ed %ith leislative po%er$ and$ unli'e its predecessor$ the !etro !anila
6o##ission$ it has no po%er to enact ordinances for the %elfare of the
co##unity. )hus$ in the absence of an ordinance fro# the 6ity of !a'ati$ its
o%n order to open the street %as invalid.
Je restate here the doctrine in the said decision as it applies to the case at
bar0 police po%er$ as an inherent attribute of sovereinty$ is the po%er vested by
the 6onstitution in the leislature to #a'e$ ordain$ and establish all #anner of
%holeso#e and reasonable la%s$ statutes and ordinances$ either %ith penalties
or %ithout$ not repunant to the 6onstitution$ as they shall Aude to be for the
ood and %elfare of the co##on%ealth$ and for the subAects of the sa#e.
4avin been loded pri#arily in the National 9eislature$ it cannot be
e?ercised by any roup or body of individuals not possessin leislative po%er.
)he National 9eislature$ ho%ever$ #ay deleate this po%er to the president and
ad#inistrative boards as %ell as the la%#a'in bodies of #unicipal corporations
or local overn#ent units (9+2s). *nce deleated$ the aents can e?ercise only
such leislative po%ers as are conferred on the# by the national la%#a'in
body.
*ur 6onress deleated police po%er to the 9+2s in the 9ocal +overn#ent
6ode of /99/.
=/5>
A local overn#ent is a Gpolitical subdivision of a nation or state
%hich is constituted by la% and has substantial control of local affairs.H
=/B>
9ocal
overn#ent units are the provinces$ cities$ #unicipalities and barangays$ %hich
e?ercise police po%er throuh their respective leislative bodies.
!etropolitan or !etro !anila is a body co#posed of several local
overn#ent units. Jith the passae of Rep. Act No. 7924 in /995$ !etropolitan
!anila %as declared as a Kspecial develop#ent and ad#inistrative reionK and
the ad#inistration of K#etroD%ideK basic services affectin the reion placed
under Ka develop#ent authorityK referred to as the !!"A. )hus0
. . . =)>he po%ers of the !!"A are li#ited to the follo%in acts0 for#ulation$
coordination$ reulation$ i#ple#entation$ preparation$ #anae#ent$ #onitorin$ settin
of policies$ installation of a syste# and ad#inistration. There is no syllable in R. A.
No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police poer, let alone legislative poer. E%&' ()&
M&(ro M*'il* o+',il )*- 'o( .&&' /&l&0*(&/ *'1 l&0i-l*(i%& po2&r. 2nli'e the
leislative bodies of the local overn#ent units$ ()&r& i- 'o pro%i-io' i' R. A. No.
3425 ()*( &6po2&r- ()& MMDA or i(- o+',il (o 7&'*,( or/i'*',&-, *ppro%&
r&-ol+(io'- *'/ *ppropri*(& 8+'/- 8or ()& 0&'&r*l 2&l8*r&7 o8 ()& i')*.i(*'(- o8
M&(ro M*'il*. )he !!"A is$ as ter#ed in the charter itself$ a Kdevelop#ent authority.K
I( i- *' *0&',1 ,r&*(&/ 8or ()& p+rpo-& o8 l*1i'0 /o2' poli,i&- *'/ ,oor/i'*(i'0
2i() ()& %*rio+- '*(io'*l 0o%&r'6&'( *0&',i&-, p&opl&9- or0*'i:*(io'-, 'o'"
0o%&r'6&'(*l or0*'i:*(io'- *'/ ()& pri%*(& -&,(or 8or ()& &88i,i&'( *'/
&;p&/i(io+- /&li%&r1 o8 .*-i, -&r%i,&- i' ()& %*-( 6&(ropoli(*' *r&*. All its
!"nctions are ad#inistrative in nat"re and these are actually su##ed up in the
charter itself$ vi&0
GSec. 2. 6reation of the !etropolitan !anila "evelop#ent
Authority. DD D? ? ?.
)he !!"A shall perfor# plannin$ #onitorin and coordinative
functions$ and in the process e?ercise reulatory and supervisory
authority over the delivery of #etroD%ide services %ithin !etro
!anila$ %ithout di#inution of the autono#y of the local
overn#ent units concernin purely local #atters.H
L.
6learly$ the !!"A is not a political unit of overn#ent. )he po%er deleated to the
!!"A is that iven to the !etro !anila 6ouncil to pro#ulate ad#inistrative rules and
reulations in the i#ple#entation of the !!"A(s functions. There is no grant o!
a"thority to enact ordinances and reg"lations !or the general el!are o! the
inhabitants o! the #etropolis.
=/7>
(footnotes o#itted$ e#phasis supplied)
)herefore$ insofar as Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 is understood by the
lo%er court and by the petitioner to rant the !!"A the power to confiscate and
suspend or revo'e drivers( licenses witho#t need of any other legislative
enactment$ such is an unauthori&ed e?ercise of police po%er.
-. "ec. ./f0 grants the ((DA with the d#ty to enforce existing traffic r#les and
reg#lations.
Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7924 enu#erates the G8unctions and 7o%ers of
the !etro !anila "evelop#ent Authority.H )he contested clause in Sec. 5(f)
states that the petitioner shall Ginstall and ad#inister a sinle tic'etin syste#$ fi?$
i#pose and collect fines and penalties for all 'inds of violations of traffic rules
and reulations$ %hether #ovin or non#ovin in nature$ and confiscate and
suspend or revo'e drivers( licenses in the enforcement of s#ch traffic laws and
reg#lations$ the provisions of Rep. Act No. 4/<B
=/:>
and 7.". No. /B.5
=/9>
to the
contrary not%ithstandin$H and that G(f)or this purpose$ the Authority shall enforce
all traffic la%s and reulations in !etro !anila$ throuh its traffic operation center$
and #ay deputi&e #e#bers of the 7N7$ traffic enforcers of local overn#ent
units$ duly licensed security uards$ or #e#bers of nonDovern#ental
orani&ations to %ho# #ay be deleated certain authority$ subAect to such
conditions and re@uire#ents as the Authority #ay i#pose.H
)hus$ %here there is a traffic la% or reulation validly enacted by the
leislature or those aencies to %ho# leislative po%ers have been deleated
(the 6ity of !anila in this case)$ the petitioner is not precluded E and in fact is
dutyDbound E to confiscate and suspend or revo'e drivers( licenses in the
e?ercise of its #andate of transport and traffic #anae#ent$ as %ell as the
ad#inistration and i#ple#entation of all traffic enforce#ent operations$ traffic
enineerin services and traffic education prora#s.
=2.>
)his is consistent %ith our rulin in Bel+Air that the !!"A is a develop#ent
authority created for the purpose of layin do%n policies and coordinatin %ith
the various national overn#ent aencies$ people(s orani&ations$ nonD
overn#ental orani&ations and the private sector$ %hich #ay enforce$ but not
enact$ ordinances.
)his is also consistent %ith the funda#ental rule of statutory construction that
a statute is to be read in a #anner that %ould breathe life into it$ rather than
defeat it$
=2/>
and is supported by the criteria in cases of this nature that all
reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a statute.
=22>
A last %ord. )he !!"A %as intended to coordinate services %ith #etroD
%ide i#pact that transcend local political boundaries or %ould entail hue
e?penditures if provided by the individual 9+2s$ especially %ith reard to
transport and traffic #anae#ent$
=2<>
and %e are a%are of the valiant efforts of the
petitioner to untanle the increasinly trafficDsnarled roads of !etro !anila. -ut
these laudable intentions are li#ited by the !!"A(s enablin la%$ %hich %e can
but interpret$ and petitioner #ust be re#inded that its efforts in this respect m#st
be a#thorized by a valid law& or ordinance& or reg#lation arising from a legitimate
so#rce.
<HERE=ORE$ the petition is "5S!5SS3".
!O ORDERED.