040 - Francisco v. Toll Regulatory Board

FRANCISCO v.
TOLL REGULATORY BOARD

October 19, 2010 | Tinga, J. | Approval of Sale and Mortgages of
Public Utility, Assets, or Equity
Digester: Alexis Bea
SUMMARY: Petitioners are assailing the Constitutionality the

grant to the President the power to authorize the assignment by
the PNCC, as franchise holder, of its franchise or the usufruct in its
franchise.
DOCTRINE: The Presidents approving authority is of statutory

origin. There is nothing illegal, let alone unconstitutional, with the
delegation to the President of the authority to approve the
assignment by PNCC of its rights and interest in its franchise, the
assignment and delegation being circumscribed by restrictions in
the delegating law itself.
FACTS:
4 petitions were consolidated.
3 civil actions were filed seeking to nullify statutes and
presidential actions relating to toll operation contracts and to
prohibitwhat they allege to be illegaltoll fee hikes (they
want to restrain the implementation of the illegal toll fee rate
hikes for NLEX, SLEX, and South Metro Manila Skyway) and 1
petition for review to annul the decision of the RTC in Pasig
allowing the collection of toll fees in SLEX
Historical Background
Marcos issued PD 1112 which authorized the establishment of
toll facilities on public improvements. It explicitly
acknowledged the huge financial requirements and the
necessity of tapping the resources of the private sector to
implement the infrastructure programs of the government.
In order to attract the private sector, the PD allowed the
collection of toll fees for the use of public improvements that
would allow a reasonable rate of return on their investments.
Thus, the law also created the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) and
vested it with the power to enter into contracts for the
operation of toll ways and issue the necessary Toll Operation
Certificate (TOC), fix initial toll rates, and adjust the same after
due notice and hearing.
On the same day, the PD 1113 was issued, granting the

Philippine National Construction Corporation, for a period of
30 years, a franchise to operate toll facilities in the North and
South Luzon Expressways, with the right to collect fees at such
rates as the TRB may authorize.
Because the franchise was not self-executing, TRB and PNCC
signed a Toll Operation Agreement (TOA) on the North and
Luzon Tollways, providing for construction, maintenance, and
operation of the expressway.
PD 1894 was issued, granting PNCC a franchise over MMEX,
and the expanded NLEX and SLEX. PNCC was granted the
right, privilege, and authority to construct, maintain, and
operate any and all such extensions, together with the toll
facilities in any part of NLEX and SLEX and to divert routes as
may be approved by the TRB
The 1987 Philippine Constitution was created which has
the following provision:
o Sec. 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form
of authorization for the operation of a public utility
shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines
or to corporations or associations organized under
the laws of the Philippines at least 60% of whose
capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such
franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive
in character or for a longer period than fifty years.
Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted
except under the condition that it shall be subject to
amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress
when the common good so requires. The State shall
encourage equity participation in public utilities by
the general public. The participation of foreign
investors in the governing body of any public utility
enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate
share in its capital, and all the executive and
managing officers of such corporation or association
must be citizens of the Philippines.
The Government Corporate Council, on PNCCs request,
issued an Opinion holding that the PNCC may enter into a
joint-venture agreement with private entities without going
into public bidding
In 1994, DPWH, TRB, PNCC, and other private and
government entities executed a Memorandum of
Understanding for the entry of private capital in the
extension of the expressways north of Manila, over which

PNCC has a franchise
They executed the Supplemental Toll Operation
Agreements (STOA) to implement the TOA
PNCC then entered into such JVAs
On May 16, 1995, President Ramos approved the
assignment of PNCCs usufructuary rights as franchise
holder to a JV company to be formed by PNCC and FPIDC
(First Philippine Infrastructure and Development
Corporation
PNCC and FPIDC would later agree to a JVA for the
rehabilitation and modernization of the NLEX (The Manila
North Tollways Corporation was then formed)
Petitioners arguments:
Grant to the President of the power to peremptorily (not open
to appeal or challenge) authorize the assignment by PNCC, as
franchise holder, of its franchise or the usufruct in its franchise
is unconstitutional.
According to them, it is an encroachment of legislative power
Whether or not the delegation to the President of the
authority to approve the assignment by PNCC of its rights
and interest in the franchise is unconstitutionalNO
Section 3 (a) of P.D. 1112 requires approval by the President of
any contract TRB may have entered into or effected for the
construction and operation of toll facilities.
3 (e) (3) of P.D. 1112 enjoins the transfer of the usufruct of
PNCCs franchise without the Presidents prior approval.
o That the toll operator shall not lease, transfer, grant the
usufruct of, sell or assign the rights or privileges
acquired under the Toll Operation Certificate (TOC) to
any person or legal entity nor merge with any other
company or corporation organized for the same purpose
without the prior approval of the President of the
Philippines. In the event of any valid transfer of the
TOC, the Transferee shall be subject to all the
conditions, terms, restrictions and limitations of this
Decree
The Presidents approving authority is of statutory origin.
There is nothing illegal, let alone unconstitutional, with the
delegation to the President of the authority to approve the
assignment by PNCC of its rights and interest in its franchise,

the assignment and delegation being circumscribed by
restrictions in the delegating law itself.
Court cites Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr.,
o the rights and privileges conferred under a franchise
may be assigned if authorized by a statute, subject to
such restrictions as may be provided by law, such as the
prior approval of the grantor or a government agency
There can, therefore, be no serious challenge to this
presidential-approving prerogative.
Should grave abuse of discretion in some way infect the
exercise of the prerogative, then the approval action may be
nullified for that reason, but not on the ground that the
underlying authority is constitutionally doubtful.
If the TRB may validly be empowered to grant private entities
the authority to operate toll facilities, then a delegation of a
lesser authority to approve the grant to the head of the
administrative machinery of the government would not be
objectionable
The fact that P.D. 1112 partakes of a martial law issuance does
not per se provide an objectionable feature to the decree,
albeit it may be argued with some plausibility that then
President Marcos intended to have the final say as to who shall
act as the toll operators of the Luzon expressways.
o All proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and
acts promulgated, issued, or done by the former
President (Ferdinand E. Marcos) are part of the law of
the land, and shall remain valid, legal, binding, and
effective, unless modified, revoked or superseded by
subsequent
proclamations,
orders,
decrees,
instructions, or other acts of the President
o Padua v. Ranada: The Court wryly observes that during
the past dictatorship, every presidential issuance, by
whatever name it was called, had the force and effect of
law because it came from President Marcos. Such are
the ways of despots. Hence, it is futile to argue that LOI
474 could not have repealed P.D. No. 27 because the
former was only a letter of instruction. The important
thing is that it was issued by President Marcos, whose
word was law during that time

040 - Francisco v. Toll Regulatory Board

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

040 - Francisco v. Toll Regulatory Board

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

040 - Francisco v. Toll Regulatory Board

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRANCISCO v.

TOLL REGULATORY BOARD

SUMMARY: Petitioners are assailing the Constitutionality the

DOCTRINE: The Presidents approving authority is of statutory

On the same day, the PD 1113 was issued, granting the

extension of the expressways north of Manila, over which

assignment by PNCC of its rights and interest in its franchise,

You might also like