White Light Corporation vs City of Manila relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the

exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for
G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009 its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal
rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily
Petitioner: White Light Corporation, Titanium Corporation and Sta. Mesa Tourist & invaded. Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be struck
Development Corporation down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the exercise
Respondent: City of Manila of police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected.
However, this is not in any way meant to take it away from the vastness of State police
Facts: On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into a law Manila City power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity. Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby
Ordinance No. 7774 entitled An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short- declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging
Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila. On MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association (G.R. No. 135962)
December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a
complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro
temporary restraining order (TRO) impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of Manila. Bel-Air is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose members are homeowners
Manila represented by Mayor Lim with the prayer that the Ordinance be declared invalid of Bel-Air Villagee in Makati City. Bel-Air is the registered owner of the Neptune Street,
and unconstitutional. a road inside Bel-Air Village.
On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium
Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed a December 30, 1995 Bel-Air received a notice from MMDA requesting Bel-Air to open
motion to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-intervention on the ground that Neptune St. to public vehicular traffic. On the same day, MMDA apprised that the
the Ordinance directly affects their business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be
and motels in Manila. The RTC issued a TRO directing the City to cease and desist demolished.
from enforcing the Ordinance. The City alleges that the Ordinance is a legitimate
exercise of police power. On October 20, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring January 2, 1996, MMDA instituted a case for injunction against Bel-Air; and prayed for
the Ordinance null and void. On a petition for review on certiorari, the Court of Appeals a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining Neptune St. and prohibiting the demolition
reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance. of the perimeter wall. Court issued a TRO the next day.

Issue: Whether Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 is a valid exercise of police power After due hearing, RTC denied the issuance of a preliminary injunction. MMDA question
the denial and appealed to the CA. CA conducted an ocular inspection of Neptune St.
Ruling: Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled then issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the MMDA proposed action.
in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and
provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant. On January 27, 1997, appellate court rendered a decision finding MMDA no authority
Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding to order the opening of Neptune St. It held that the authority is in the City Council of
right to protect itself and its people. Police power has been used as justification for Makati by ordinance.
numerous and varied actions by the State. The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to
minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, The motion for reconsideration is denied hence this recourse.
prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and
certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the desirability of ISSUE:
these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Those means must WON MMDA has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic as an agent of
align with the Constitution, and our emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees the state endowed with police power.
to the people.
That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a HELD:
product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional A local government is a political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted
requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must appear by law and has substantial control of local affairs. It is a body politic and corporate
that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular one endowed with powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as
class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory (LGC of 1991).
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private
rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the Our Congress delegated police power to the LGUs in Sec.16 of the LGC of 1991. It
purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable empowers the sangguniang panlalawigan, panlungsod and bayan to enact
ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the Pursuant to the E.O., the Metro Manila Council (MMC), the governing board and
[province, city or municipality] and its inhabitants pursuant to Sec.16 of the Code and policymaking body of the MMDA, issued Resolution No. 03-07 series of 20037
in the proper exercise of the [LGUs corporate powers] provided under the Code. expressing full support of the Project. Recognizing the imperative to integrate the
different transport modes via the establishment of common bus parking terminal areas,
There is no syllable in RA 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative the MMC cited the need to remove the bus terminals located along major thoroughfares
power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the LGUs, there is no grant of authority in RA of Metro Manila.8
7924 that allows the MMDA to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare On February 24, 2003, Viron Transport Co., Inc. (Viron), a domestic corporation
of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is merely a development authority and engaged in the business of public transportation with a provincial bus operation, filed a
not a political unit of government since it is neither an LGU or a public corporation petition for declaratory relief before the RTC of Manila. Chairman Fernando, was
endowed with legislative power. The MMDA Chairman is not an elective official, but is poised to issue a Circular, Memorandum or Order closing, or tantamount to closing,
merely appointed by the President with the rank and privileges of a cabinet member. all provincial bus terminals along EDSA and in the whole of the Metropolis under the
pretext of traffic regulation. This impending move, it stressed, would mean the closure
In sum, the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. of its bus terminal in Sampaloc, Manila and two others in Quezon City.
It is the LGUs, acting through their respective legislative councils, that possess The trial court sustained the constitutionality and legality of the E.O. pursuant to R.A.
legislative power and police power. No. 7924, which empowered the MMDA to administer Metro Manilas basic services
including those of transport and traffic management.
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution
ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by the MMDA is ISSUE: W/N EO is unconstitutional
illegal.
HELD: YES. The authority of the President to order the implementation of the Project
MMDA v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc. G.R. No. 170656 August 15, 2007 notwithstanding, the designation of the MMDA as the implementing agency for the
Project may not be sustained. It is ultra vires, there being no legal basis therefor.
FACTS: The present petition for review on certiorari, rooted in the traffic congestion It bears stressing that under the provisions of E.O. No. 125, as amended, it is the
problem, questions the authority of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority DOTC, and not the MMDA, which is authorized to establish and implement a project
(MMDA) to order the closure of provincial bus terminals along Epifanio de los Santos such as the one subject of the cases at bar. Thus, the President, although authorized
Avenue (EDSA) and major thoroughfares of Metro Manila. to establish or cause the implementation of the Project, must exercise the authority
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 179, with the pertinent provisions contain: through the instrumentality of the DOTC which, by law, is the primary implementing and
WHEREAS, the MMDA has recommended a plan to decongest traffic by eliminating administrative entity in the promotion, development and regulation of networks of
the bus terminals now located along major Metro Manila thoroughfares and providing transportation, and the one so authorized to establish and implement a project such as
more convenient access to the mass transport system to the commuting public through the Project in question.
the provision of mass transport terminal facilities that would integrate the existing By designating the MMDA as the implementing agency of the Project, the President
transport modes, namely the buses, the rail-based systems of the LRT, MRT and PNR clearly overstepped the limits of the authority conferred by law, rendering E.O. No. 179
and to facilitate and ensure efficient travel through the improved connectivity of the ultra vires.
different transport modes;
Section 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES. In accordance with the plan proposed by MMDA In another vein, the validity of the designation of MMDA flies in the absence of a specific
Section 3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTING AGENCY. The Metropolitan Manila grant of authority to it under R.A. No. 7924.
Development Authority (MMDA), is hereby designated as the implementing Agency for SECTION 2. Creation of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. . . .
the project. The MMDA shall perform planning, monitoring and coordinative functions, and in the
process exercise regulatory and supervisory authority over the delivery of metro-wide
As the above-quoted portions of the E.O. noted, the primary cause of traffic congestion services within Metro Manila, without diminution of the autonomy of the local
in Metro Manila has been the numerous buses plying the streets and the inefficient government units concerning purely local matters
connectivity of the different transport modes; and the MMDA had recommended a plan In light of the administrative nature of its powers and functions, the MMDA is devoid of
to decongest traffic by eliminating the bus terminals now located along major Metro authority to implement the Project as envisioned by the E.O; hence, it could not have
Manila thoroughfares and providing more and convenient access to the mass transport been validly designated by the President to undertake the Project. It follows that the
system to the commuting public through the provision of mass transport terminal MMDA cannot validly order the elimination of respondents terminals
facilitieswhich plan is referred to under the E.O. as the Greater Manila Mass Transport This Court commiserates with the MMDA for the roadblocks thrown in the way of its
System Project (the Project). efforts at solving the pestering problem of traffic congestion in Metro Manila. These
The E.O. thus designated the MMDA as the implementing agency for the Project. efforts are commendable, to say the least, in the face of the abominable traffic situation
of our roads day in and day out. This Court can only interpret, not change, the law, It is futile for MMDA to simply invoke its legal mandate to justify the dismantling of
however. It needs only to be reiterated that it is the DOTC as the primary policy, Trackworks billboards, signages and other advertising media. MMDA simply had no
planning, programming, coordinating, implementing, regulating and administrative power on its own to dismantle, remove, or destroy the billboards, signages and other
entity to promote, develop and regulate networks of transportation and communications advertising media installed on the MRT3 structure by Trackworks. In Metropolitan
which has the power to establish and administer a transportation project like the Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., Metropolitan Manila
Project subject of the case at bar. Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc., and Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority v. Garin, the Court had the occasion to rule that MMDAs
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Trackworks Rail Transit powers were limited to the formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation,
Advertising, Vending and Promotions, Inc. preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system, and
G.R. No. 179554 December 16, 2009 administration. Nothing in Republic Act No. 7924 granted MMDA police power, let alone
legislative power.
Facts: In 1997, the Government, through the Department of Transportation and
Communications, entered into a build-lease-transfer agreement (BLT agreement) with The Court also agrees with the CAs ruling that MMDA Regulation No. 96-009 and MMC
Metro Rail Transit Corporation, Limited (MRTC) pursuant to Republic Act No. 6957 Memorandum Circular No. 88-09 did not apply to Trackworks billboards, signages and
(Build, Operate and Transfer Law), under which MRTC undertook to build MRT3 other advertising media. The prohibition against posting, installation and display of
subject to the condition that MRTC would own MRT3 for 25 years, upon the expiration billboards, signages and other advertising media applied only to public areas, but
of which the ownership would transfer to the Government. In 1998, respondent MRT3, being private property pursuant to the BLT agreement between the Government
Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending & Promotions, Inc. (Trackworks) entered and MRTC, was not one of the areas as to which the prohibition applied.
into a contract for advertising services with MRTC. Trackworks thereafter installed
commercial billboards, signages and other advertising media in the different parts of Binay vs Domingo Case Digest
the MRT3. In 2001, however, MMDA requested Trackworks to dismantle the billboards,
signages and other advertising media pursuant to MMDA Regulation No. 96-009, Facts:
whereby MMDA prohibited the posting, installation and display of any kind or form of
billboards, signs, posters, streamers, in any part of the road, sidewalk, center island, Petitioner Municipality of Makati, through its Council, approved Resolution No. 60 which
posts, trees, parks and open space. After Trackworks refused the request of MMDA, extends P500 burial assistance to bereaved families whose gross family income does
MMDA proceeded to dismantle the formers billboards and similar forms of not exceed P2,000.00 a month. The funds are to be taken out of the unappropriated
advertisement. available funds in the municipal treasury. The Metro Manila Commission approved the
resolution. Thereafter, the municipal secretary certified a disbursement of P400,000.00
Issue: Whether MMDA has the power to dismantle, remove or destroy the billboards, for the implementation of the program. However, the Commission on Audit disapproved
signages and other advertising media installed by Trackworks on the interior and said resolution and the disbursement of funds for the implementation thereof for the
exterior structures of the MRT3. following reasons: (1) the resolution has no connection to alleged public safety, general
welfare, safety, etc. of the inhabitants of Makati; (2) government funds must be
Ruling: That Trackworks derived its right to install its billboards, signages and other disbursed for public purposes only; and, (3) it violates the equal protection clause since
advertising media in the MRT3 from MRTCs authority under the BLT agreement to it will only benefit a few individuals.
develop commercial premises in the MRT3 structure or to obtain advertising income
therefrom is no longer debatable. Under the BLT agreement, indeed, MRTC owned the Issue:
MRT3 for 25 years, upon the expiration of which MRTC would transfer ownership of Whether or not Resolution No. 60 of the Municipality of Makati is a valid exercise of
the MRT3 to the Government. police power under the general welfare clause.

Considering that MRTC remained to be the owner of the MRT3 during the time material The police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty, which
to this case, and until this date, MRTCs entering into the contract for advertising was born with civilized government. It is founded largely on the maxims, "Sic utere tuo
services with Trackworks was a valid exercise of ownership by the former. In fact, in et ahenum non laedas and "Salus populi est suprema lex. Its fundamental purpose is
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, securing the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people.
Vending & Promotions, Inc., this Court expressly recognized Trackworks right to install
the billboards, signages and other advertising media pursuant to said contract. The Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations. Before a
latters right should, therefore, be respected. municipal corporation may exercise such power, there must be a valid delegation of
such power by the legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of the State.
Municipal governments exercise this power under the general welfare clause. Pursuant contract workers, "but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between the
thereto they are clothed with authority to "enact such ordinances and issue such sexes. It is well-settled that "equality before the law" under the Constitution does not
regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities import a perfect Identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of classifications,
conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the provided that (1) such classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are
health, safety, comfort and convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined to existing conditions;
morals, promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and the and (4) they apply equally to all members of the same class.
inhabitants thereof, and insure the protection of property therein. The Court is satisfied that the classification made-the preference for female workers
rests on substantial distinctions.
PASEI vs. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386
TIO vs VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD151 SCRA 208
Facts: The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI, for
short), a firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and Facts: The case is a petition filed by petitioner on behalf of videogram operators
female, for overseas placement," challenges the Constitutional validity of Department adversely affected by Presidential Decree No. 1987, An Act Creating the Videogram
Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment, in the Regulatory Board with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry.
character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF
DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this A month after the promulgation of the said Presidential Decree, the amended the
petition for certiorari and prohibition. The measure is assailed for "discrimination against National Internal Revenue Code provided that:
males or females," that it 'does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic
helpers and females with similar skills," and that it is violative of the right to travel. It SEC. 134. Video Tapes. There shall be collected on each processed video-tape
was likewise held to be an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police power being cassette, ready for playback, regardless of length, an annual tax of five pesos;
legislative, and not executive, in character. Provided, That locally manufactured or imported blank video tapes shall be subject to
sales tax.
In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section 3, of Article XIII, of the
Constitution, providing for worker participation "in policy and decision-making Section 10. Tax on Sale, Lease or Disposition of Videograms. Notwithstanding any
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law." In addition, it provision of law to the contrary, the province shall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%)
was contended that Department Order No. 1 was passed in the absence of prior of the purchase price or rental rate, as the case may be, for every sale, lease or
consultations. It was claimed to be in violation of the Charter's non-impairment clause, disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any motion picture or
in addition to the "great and irreparable injury" that PASEI members face should the audiovisual program.
Order be further enforced.
Fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds of the tax collected shall accrue to the province,
The Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondent Secretary of Labor and Administrator and the other fifty percent (50%) shall accrue to the municipality where the tax is
of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, invokes the police power of the collected; PROVIDED, That in Metropolitan Manila, the tax shall be shared equally by
Philippine State. the City/Municipality and the Metropolitan Manila Commission.

ISSUE: The rationale behind the tax provision is to curb the proliferation and unregulated
circulation of videograms including, among others, videotapes, discs, cassettes or any
Whether or not D.O. No. 1 of DOLE is constitutional as it is an exercise of police power. technical improvement or variation thereof, have greatly prejudiced the operations of
movie houses and theaters. Such unregulated circulation have caused a sharp decline
RULING: in theatrical attendance by at least forty percent (40%) and a tremendous drop in the
collection of sales, contractors specific, amusement and other taxes, thereby resulting
[Police power] has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may in substantial losses estimated at P450 Million annually in government revenues.
interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare." As
defined, it consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order Videogram(s) establishments collectively earn around P600 Million per annum from
to foster the common good. It is not capable of an exact definition but has been, rentals, sales and disposition of videograms, and these earnings have not been
purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace. subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of approximately P180 Million in
taxes each year.
The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the contested measure should
be nullified. There is no question that Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female
The unregulated activities of videogram establishments have also affected the viability Issue:
of the movie industry.
Whether or not the regulation of ERB as to the adjustment of rates of MERALCO is
Issues: valid.
(1) Whether or not tax imposed by the DECREE is a valid exercise of police power.
(2) Whether or nor the DECREE is constitutional. Ruling:

Held: Taxation has been made the implement of the states police power. The levy of We grant the petition.
the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was imposed primarily to answer the need for
regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the The regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon the police
flagrant violation of intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of pornographic powers of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulation of public
video tapes. And while it was also an objective of the DECREE to protect the movie utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When private property is used for a public purpose
industry, the tax remains a valid imposition. and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only and becomes subject
to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good. Submission to regulation
We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would justify us in pronouncing may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as long as use of the property
Presidential Decree No. 1987 as unconstitutional and void. While the underlying is continued, the same is subject to public regulation.
objective of the DECREE is to protect the moribund movie industry, there is no question
that public welfare is at bottom of its enactment, considering the unfair competition In regulating rates charged by public utilities, the State protects the public against
posed by rampant film piracy; the erosion of the moral fiber of the viewing public brought arbitrary and excessive rates while maintaining the efficiency and quality of services
about by the availability of unclassified and unreviewed video tapes containing rendered. However, the power to regulate rates does not give the State the right to
pornographic films and films with brutally violent sequences; and losses in government prescribe rates which are so low as to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return
revenues due to the drop in theatrical attendance, not to mention the fact that the on investment. Thus, the rates prescribed by the State must be one that yields a fair
activities of video establishments are virtually untaxed since mere payment of Mayors return on the public utility upon the value of the property performing the service and
permit and municipal license fees are required to engage in business. one that is reasonable to the public for the services rendered. The fixing of just and
reasonable rates involves a balancing of the investor and the consumer interests.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.
The ERB was created under Executive Order No. 172 to regulate, among others, the
Republic v. MERALCO (G.R. No. 141314) distribution of energy resources and to fix rates to be charged by public utilities involved
in the distribution of electricity. In the fixing of rates, the only standard which the
Facts: legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is
that the rate be reasonable and just. It has been held that even in the absence of an
Respondent (MERALCO) filed with the Petitioner (ERB) an application for the revision express requirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied. What is a
of its rate schedules to reflect an average increase of 21 centavos per kilowatt hour just and reasonable rate is a question of fact calling for the exercise of discretion, good
(kwh) in its distribution charge. Petitioner granted a provisional increase of P0.184 per sense, and a fair, enlightened and independent judgment. The requirement of
kwh, subject to the condition that should the COA thru its audit report find Respondent reasonableness comprehends such rates which must not be so low as to be
is entitled to a lesser increase in rates, all excess amounts collected from the latters confiscatory, or too high as to be oppressive. In determining whether a rate is
customers shall either be refunded to them or correspondingly credited in their favor confiscatory, it is essential also to consider the given situation, requirements and
for application to electric bills covering future consumptions. The COA submitted its opportunities of the utility.
Audit Report to which Petitioner adopting its recommendation, authorized Respondent
to implement a rate adjustment in the average amount of P0.017 per kwh, and ordered WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petitions are GRANTED and the
that the provisional increase granted is superseded and modified and the excess decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED. Respondent MERALCO is authorized
average amount be refunded to Respondents customers or correspondingly credited to adopt a rate adjustment in the amount of P0.017 per kilowatt hour, effective with
in their favor for future consumption. Petitioner also adopted the recommendation of respect to MERALCOs billing cycles beginning February 1994. Further, in accordance
COA that income tax should not be treated as operating expense and in applying the with the decision of the ERB dated February 16, 1998, the excess average amount of
net average investment method as the computation of the rate base. On appeal, the P0.167 per kilowatt hour starting with the applicants billing cycles beginning February
CA set aside the ERB decision. Petitioners filed separate motions for reconsideration 1998 is ordered to be refunded to MERALCOs customers or correspondingly credited
but were denied. in their favor for future consumption.