Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
10th Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Branch 2, Hall of Justice
Libertad, Butuan City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 062744

Plaintiff,

-versus- FOR: “Violation of SP Ordinance

No. 432-85/3616-2010”

ALEX A. LUISON,
Accused.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Re: Order dated 7 May 2019)

COMPLAINANT, CITY GOVERNMENT OF BUTUAN, through counsel, moves

for the reconsideration of this Honourable Court’s Order dated 7 May 2019 and in
support thereof, avers as follows:

1. On 08 May 2019, herein Complainant received a copy of the said 7 May 2019 Order,
the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the case is hereby DISMISSED.

Let a copy of this Order be furnished to the LTO Caraga Regional Office
for its appropriate action concerning the accused operating or driving the
subject vehicle without first securing a valid driver’s license.

SO ORDERED.”

2. The complainant, City Government of Butuan, is a Party-in-Interest to the above

mentioned case, the same stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit,
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit1 ;

3. The City Mayor, as chief executive of the city government, has jurisdiction, to
enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city for an efficient,
effective and economical governance thereby promoting the general welfare of the city and
its inhabitants2 ;

1
Section 2 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court
2
Section 455 (b) (2) of R.A. No. 7160 or The Local Government Code of the Philippines

1
 4. Enforcement of laws in the City is within the purview of the City Mayor, thereby
any provision, order, circular or the like affecting the implementation of the laws,
the latter possesses the substantive right and has a legal claim towards it;

5. Complainant has fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice within which to file a
motion for reconsideration pursuant to Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court;

6. Thus, this Motion which is timely filed.

GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION

A. The Accused was apprehended for violating the provisions of the City Traffic
Ordinance and not the provisions of RA No. 4136;

B. The Authority used by the Traffic Enforcers and/or Police Officers in

apprehending the accused emanated from the City Traffic Ordinance and not RA
No. 4136;

C. RA No. 4136 is only applicable for violations of the provisions of the said Act;

D. The Local Government Unit (LGU) is vested with the power to create and approve
ordinances regulating traffic and the use of its streets;

E. The City Traffic Ordinance enjoys the presumption of validity and

constitutionality unless annulled.

DISCUSSIONS

A. The Accused was apprehended for

violating the provisions of the City Traffic
Ordinance and not the provisions of RA
No. 4136;

1. Accused herein violated the provisions provided by the City Ordinance and not
that of the national law (RA No. 4136). The Traffic and Transportation Code of Butuan
City3, provides the following provisions:

“CHAPTER XI
Section 2. PENALTY. - Any person violating any provision of this Code or
other traffic ordinances of the City shall be liable for an administrative fine
that shall be imposed and collected by the City or a penalty of imprisonment
or a fine or both at the discretion of the Court.
xxx

a. Violations in connection with licensing:

1. Driving without securing a license
2. Driving with delinquent, invalid, suspended, ineffectual or revoked
license

3
SP ORDINANCE NO. 3616-2010

2
 3. Failure to show or surrender for cause the driver’s license upon demand
by a person in authority
4. Driving without a driver’s license xxx”

2. Likewise, SP Ordinance No. 894-92 furnished the following law, thusly:

“Section 31.07. Penalties.

xxx
3. For any of the following offenses:
xxx
b. Failure to carry registration certificate and official receipt of payment of
registration fee for the current year.
xxx
6. For any of the following offenses:
xxx
e. Operating a motor vehicle with delinquent or suspended invalid
registration.”

Worth pointing out, is the fact that when this ordinance was crafted it was made
with due consideration to the provisions of the Land Transportation and Traffic
Code, making the local ordinance in line with the mandate of the national law in
the observance of transportation and traffic management.

3. Literally, the accused was apprehended and consequently issued a citation ticket
for violating the provisions under the city traffic ordinance and not those provided
in RA No. 4136. The traffic code of Butuan City, as a valid and existing law, can
promulgate specific traffic regulations within its jurisdiction. Hence, these City
Ordinances are the laws applied as legal basis in the case at hand that warrants its
prosecution.

4. To accentuate, when a violator defy the rules set by the local ordinance, it is the
City’s Traffic Citation Ticket (TCT) that is being issued not the Temporary
Operator's Permit (TOP) of the LTO. The Traffic Citation Ticket issued in
contravention to city ordinances provides therein the laws violated. Nowhere in
the enumeration of laws in the TCT is RA No. 4136 mentioned, for again, it is not a
violation against the former but is a violation of the local traffic ordinance.

B. The Authority used by the Traffic

Enforcers and/or Police Officers in
apprehending the accused emanated from
the City Traffic Ordinance and not RA No.
4136;

5. As established in the antecedent, the laws violated are the city ordinances, which
follows that the authority to implement and execute the same would be pursuant
to the exact laws being violated which are the city traffic ordinances.

6. The traffic regulations implemented by Police Officers of the Butuan City Police
Office (BCPO) and the Traffic Enforcers of the Butuan City Land Transportation
and Traffic Management Office (LTTMO) is not pursuant to Republic Act No. 4136
but on the Local Traffic Ordinances of Butuan City.

3
 7. The Traffic and Transportation Code of Butuan City4, as a localized version of the
national traffic code, provides therein the implementing agency in the execution of
traffic ordinance, particularly the following provisions:

“CHAPTER II
ARTICLE III

Section 4. AUTHORITY OF POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT

OFFICIALS. - 1. It shall be the duty of any police officer assigned by the
Chief of Police to fully enforce the provisions of this Code and all the national
laws applicable to street traffic in Butuan City.

CHAPTER XI
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY. The Traffic Enforcement Bureau

(TEB) under the supervision of the Land Transportation and Traffic
Management Office (LTTMO) is hereby authorized to implement the
provisions of this Code and other traffic ordinances of the City not specifically
included herein.

Section 3. AUTHORITY TO APPREHEND AND ISSUE CITATION

TICKETS - Law enforcement and peace officers duly designated by the Police
Station Commander or the Traffic Director and are duly recommended by the
LTTMO are hereby authorized to apprehend violators of the provisions of this
Code and other traffic rules of the City. The said law enforcers are authorized
to issue citation tickets.

Section 4. PROCEDURE UPON APPREHENSION OF TRAFFIC

VIOLATORS. - Any authorized police officer or traffic enforcer
apprehending a person for violating this Code and other traffic ordinances of
the City of Butuan, shall take the name, address and license number and the
registered number of the vehicle involved, and shall issue to him a citation
ticket with a warning that he should settle with the office of the City Treasurer
within seventy two (72) hours any fine due for such violation. Otherwise, if
after seventy two (72) hours and the violator still failed to settle his fines with
the City Treasurer, the case shall be filed with the City Fiscal’s Office.”

8. It is the Traffic Code of Butuan City that robed the Police Officers of the (BCPO)
and the Traffic Enforcers of (LTTMO) the authority to implement the provisions of
the local traffic ordinance to apprehend violators and issue citation tickets to
vehicles without registration and drivers without corresponding licenses, not the
national Law (RA No. 4136). Consequently, the violators denoted in the city
ordinance are those defined by the same not those enumerated by RA No. 4136.
Hence, rationale, those who violate the rules of the traffic code of Butuan City are
apprehended by BCPO and LTTMO, and those who disregard the provisions of the
RA No. 4136 are apprehended by LTO. Therefore, the enforcement of local traffic
regulation by Butuan City within the premises of its territory is not based on RA
No. 4136 but upon the city traffic ordinances.

4
SP ORDINANCE NO. 3616-2010

4
9. Evidently, Republic Act No. 4136 nowise provide a provision that if a local traffic
ordinance is violated, there is a necessity for the implementing officers of the same
to be deputized by the Land Transportation Office. Moreover, to reiterate, what is
being enforced by the Police Officers and Traffic Enforcers are the provisions of the
city ordinance and not of Republic Act No. 4136. Therefore, the authority to
implement emanates from its source - the local traffic ordinance; making
deputation from the LTO, as required by RA No. 4136, no longer necessary.

10. Further, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 4136 provides, thus:

“SECTION 58. – Duty of Clerks of Court. – It is hereby made the duty of

clerks of the Court of First Instance, the City Court of Municipal Court
trying traffic violation cases to certify to the Commission the result
of any case, whether criminal or civil, involving violations of any
provision of this Act or of other laws and ordinances relating to motor
vehicles. Said certificate shall specifically contain the name of the driver or
owner of the vehicle involved, his address, the number of his license and/or of
the certificate or registration of his vehicle, and the date thereof, and the
offense of which he was convicted or acquitted.” (Emphasis supplied)

From the above stated provision, it can be understood that when there is a violation
of the provisions of R.A No. 4136 or other laws and ordinances relating to motor
vehicles, the clerks of court in either way, has the duty to certify. Equally applicable,
the filing of cases in the Municipal Court can be made by the City Government of
Butuan representative pursuant to the violation, not of RA No. 4136, of city
ordinance.

11. Institution of cases before the courts for traffic related violations is not limited to
those authorized under Section 4 (d) (4) and (8) of RA No. 4136, which states:

“(4) The Commissioner of Land Transportation, with the approval of the

Secretary of Public Works and Communications, may designate as his
deputy and agent any employee of the Land Transportation
Commission, or such other government employees as he may deem
expedient to assist in the carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(Emphasis supplied)

True, the Commissioner of the Land Transport may designate any employees of
the Land Transportation Office or such other government employees as his agents
for the enforcement of RA 4136. Consequently, for the implementation of all other
laws involving transportation and traffic, besides this Act (RA 4136), deputation
from the LTO is not a requisite for obvious is the application of the provision that
it only covers violations of RA 4136. The case at hand is an enforcement and
apprehension pursuant to the local traffic ordinance, accordingly, deputation as
mentioned is not necessary.

(8) All cases involving violations of this Act shall be endorsed

immediately by the apprehending officer to the Land Transportation
Commission. Where such violations necessitate immediate action, the same
shall be endorsed to the traffic court, city or municipal court for
summary investigation, hearing and disposition, but in all such cases,

5
 appropriate notices of the apprehensions and the dispositions thereof shall be
given to the Commissioner of Land Transportation by the law-enforcement
agency and the court concerned.”(Emphasis supplied)

Once more, the requirement to endorse violations committed under RA 4136 to the
LTO connotes violations provided under the said Act. Nowhere in the above cited
provision is the statement that all cases be endorsed to the LTO for they alone can
file/endorse the same in court. Rather, the law is explicit, it provides that violations
under RA 4136 will be suitably filed by LTO. By implication, then, violations
outside the ambit of RA 4136 need not be endorsed to the LTO or await for LTO to
file the same in court, for clearly, RA 4136 applies to those contravention cited
under its provision.

12. Definitely, what is being filed in the court are not violations of the above
mentioned law, but its institution is pursuant to the violations committed against
the city ordinance. In the case at bar, as can be seen in its Title, it is a violation for
SP Ordinance No. 432-85/3616-2010 and not that of RA No. 4136.

13. Furthermore, Section 57 of Republic Act No. 4136 provides, to wit;

“SECTION 57. Punishment for other Offenses. – The conviction of any

person for any offense under this Act shall not bar his prosecution for
any other offense which may have been committed by such person
concurrently with the commission of the offense of which he was convicted or
in doing the act or series of acts which constituted the offense of which he was
convicted.”

It can be gleaned from the foregoing that even if a person has violated the provisions
of RA No. 4136, he can still be prosecuted for violation of the local traffic ordinance
notwithstanding the fact that it indicts the same act or series of acts under the former
law. The punishment provided under RA No. 4136 does not preclude the City
Government from prosecuting violators of its city ordinance. Simply put, a violation
under RA No. 4136 shall be prosecuted there under and a violation under local
traffic ordinances of the city shall be prosecuted under the latter’s regulations.

14. The authority to examine and inspect vehicles and drivers is not an exclusive
obligation of LTO. In fact, RA No. 4136 only gave the LTO the authority to examine
and inspect registration of motor vehicles, and is silent as to the examination of one’s
driver’s license. The said law provides under Chapter I Article III Section 4 (d) (6),
to wit:

“The Commissioner shall be responsible for the administration of this Act

xxx
(6) The Commissioner of Land Transportation or his deputies may at any
time examine and inspect any motor vehicle to determine whether such motor
vehicle is registered, or is unsightly, unsafe, overloaded, improperly marked
or equipped, or otherwise unfit to be operated because of possible excessive
damage to highways, bridges and/or culverts.”

The matter regarding registration of motor vehicle is further bolstered under

Chapter II Article III of the same Act Section 14 - Issuance of certificates of

6
 registration after due inspection and payment of corresponding registration fees
and Section 16 thereof - Suspension of registration certificate if on inspection, as
provided in paragraph (6) of Section 4 of the Act, motor vehicle is found to be
unsightly, unsafe, overloaded, improperly marked or equipped, or otherwise unfit
to be operated, or capable of causing excessive damage to the highways, or not
conforming to minimum standards and specifications; and Chapter V Article I
Section 56 (d) - Penalty for violation of driving a motor vehicle with delinquent,
suspended or invalid registration, or without registration.

It is emphatic that the right to examine and inspect any motor vehicle as expressed
in RA 4136 Chapter I Article III Section 4 (d) (6) is applicable when the
apprehension is pursuant to the said Act and what is being implemented are
Sections 14 and 16 thereof and the penalty imposed is that provided under Section
56. However, to accentuate, the City is not mandated by the said Act to delimit its
execution to that provided by the national law. The City’s duties and functions to
examine and inspect motor vehicles, as well as institute penalties, is based on its
own valid and real Transportation Code of the City.

15. Police Officers, under Memorandum dated June 20, 2018 of the National
Headquarters Philippine National Police, are mandated to thrust active presence
and aggressive deployment as an urgent intervention to prevent the occurrence of
common street crimes as mandated by Section 24 RA No. 6975, Implementation of
Enhances Managing Police Operations (EMPO) and LOI 64/2010 Police Integrated
Patrol System. The said Memorandum provides, thusly:

“3. In this regard, all Unit Commanders, especially the Chief of Police, are
directed to personally lead and oversee the following:
a. Strict implementation of laws and local ordinances xxx
b. Intensified conduct of Oplan Sita xxx
c. Intensified police visibility xxx
xxx
5. All Regional Directors are directed to perform the following:
a. Advise and ensure that all Chiefs of Police shall coordinate with
Local/Barangay Officials in the enforcement of ordinances xxx”

Attached as Annex 1 is a copy of the Memorandum issued by National

Headquarters Philippine National Police.

The function of the Traffic Enforcers to examine and inspect registration and license
is based primarily to the apparent traffic violation of our motorist; such as lack of
side mirror, no plate number, no tail light, no helmet and a lot more visible
infractions that would practically warrant the enforcers to flag down the vehicle,
assess the matter, ask for identification and, incidental to the lawful apprehension,
inquire for driver’s license and registration.

The prevalent criminal incidents and the probable cause related to its pervasiveness
roused our enforcers and officers to establish parameters to intensify law
enforcement operations, anti-criminality campaigns, and public safety services.

16. Explicit under Command Memorandum Circular No. 30/2018 “Clean Rider “ of
the Philippine National Police Regional Office 13 dated July 20, 2018 is the
provision of guidelines and procedures to be followed by all offices/units to

7
 eradicate unroadworthy motorcycles, to ensure safety and security of motorcycle
riders, to impound stolen motorcycles and to prevent crimes perpetrated by
Motorcycle Riding Suspects (MRS). As such the aforementioned circular provides,
to wit:

“2) Implementation Phase

xxx
c) All riders issued with Clean Rider Stickers shall not be subjected to
intensive verification process in PNP established checkpoints and other
related police operations but it will not prevent a police officer from
verifying the identity of the rider and the legality of said
motorcycle if there is reason to do otherwise;
xxx
e) Unroadworthy motorcycles shall be subjected to an intensive/
thorough verification and shall be temporarily impounded in the police
station which has jurisdiction of the area, for further investigation.
xxx
Disposition of Impounded Motorcycles:
a) Drivers of motorcycles with impoundable violations shall be issued
with appropriate receipts prior to impounding of motorcycle while other
violations not subject for seizure or other related City/Municipal
Ordinance shall be issued with corresponding Traffic Citation Tickets/
Traffic Violation Receipts.”

The same has been emphasized in the Revised Guidelines in the Conduct of
Checkpoint Operations to conduct thorough checking of motorcycle riding in
tandem.

Attached are the Command Memorandum Circular No. 30/2018 “Clean Rider “
and the Revised Guidelines in the Conduct of Checkpoint Operations of the PNP
Regional Office 13 as Annex 2 and Annex 3 respectively.

17. Upon comprehensive reading of the case Land Transportation Office vs. City of
Butuan5 , the facts do not fall squarely to the case beforehand for the issues on
vehicle registration and issuance of licenses is not the precursor, in fact, the Local
Government Unit of Butuan is not taking away that authority, rather the local
traffic ordinances act as forerunners in the enforcement of proper vehicle and
motorist documentation of the LTO by requiring driver’s license and official receipt
(OR) and certificate of registration (CR) as a pre requisite in driving the streets of
Butuan. Worthy of emphasis even, is the fact that by examination, the
Transportation Code of Butuan City is just a reiteration of RA No. 4136 making the
national law a localized version and a helping arm in the enforcement of an orderly
traffic condition. Setting it straight, the functions of Police Officers and Traffic
enforcers is not pursuant to the devolved or delegated power of LTO under RA No.
4136 but sprung from legitimate city ordinances.

18. Altogether, Police Officers of BCPO and Traffic Enforcers of LTTMO have the
authority to apprehend motorists for the law in which it is based is not that of RA
No. 4136 but the valid and existing traffic ordinances of the city.

5
G.R. No. 131512, January 20, 2000

8
C. RA No. 4136 is only applicable for
violations of the provisions of the said Act

19. The Land Transportation and Traffic Code or RA No. 4136 is pertinent to matters
involving violations enumerated under the said Code. As such, violations as far as
registration and operation of motor vehicles and licensing of owners, dealers,
conductors, drivers and similar matters embodied in RA No. 4136 shall be
controlled and punished correspondingly under such law.

20. In order to appreciate the distinct identity of RA No. 4136 from the enforced
ordinances of the City, the following provisions are used to outline the formers
applicability. RA No. 4136 Chapter I Article III Section 4 (d)

“The Commissioner shall be responsible for the administration of this Act

and shall have, in connection therewith, the following powers and duties:

(4) The Commissioner of Land Transportation, xxx, may designate as his

deputy and agent any employee of the Land Transportation Commission, or
such other government employees as he may deem expedient to assist in the
carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(5) The Commissioner of Land Transportation and his deputies are hereby
authorized to make arrest for violations of the provisions of this Act in so far
as motor vehicles are concerned; to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
to compel the appearance of motor vehicle operators and divers and/or other
persons or conductors; and to use all reasonable means within their powers
to secure enforcement of the provisions of this Act.

(6) The Commissioner of Land Transportation or his deputies may at any

time examine and inspect any motor vehicle xxx.

(7) The Philippine Constabulary and the city and municipal police forces are
hereby given the authority and the primary responsibility and duty to prevent
violations of this Act, and to carry out the police provisions hereof within
their respective jurisdiction: Provided, That all apprehensions made shall be
submitted for final disposition to the Commissioner and his deputies within
twenty-four hours from the date of apprehension.

(8) All cases involving violations of this Act shall be endorsed immediately
by the apprehending officer to the Land Transportation Commission. Xxx”

Deserving of note is the certitude that what is being implemented by the foregoing
provisions is not any other law but it all talks about RA No. 4136. The extent of the
powers and duties of LTO is all in relation to everything expressed and applicative
to the enforcement of RA No. 4136. Henceforth, laws that is not associated in the
enforcement of this Act, RA No. 4136, can be implement and administered based
on its ordained rules and regulations.

21. There is no question that RA No. 4136 is validly applicable if we are apprehending
violators under the said law based on the offenses provided by the same.
Reasonably, the proper penalty to be imposed is that found under RA No. 4136,
which provides:

9
 “Chapter V
Article I
Section 56. Penalty for violation. - The following penalties shall be
imposed for violations of this Act:

(b) For failure to sign driver's license or to carry the same while driving
xxx
(c) Driving a vehicle with a delinquent or invalid driver's license xxx
(d) Driving a motor vehicle with delinquent, suspended or invalid
registration, or without registration or without the proper license plate
for the current year xxx
(e) Driving a motor vehicle without first securing a driver's license
xxx”

Reiteratively, LTO can legally carry out the apprehension of violators and imposed
penalties pursuant to RA 4136. Notwithstanding, the LGU too may effectuate
apprehension and lay down penalties, not based on RA No. 4136, but on its own
local traffic ordinances.

22. By examining closely the Temporary Operator’s Permit (TOP) of the Land
Transportation Office, the violations therein are License-Related Violation, Motor
Vehicle (MV) Registration Violations, Violation in connection with dimension and
other violations as provided under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. It
does not provide for violations other than those incorporated under RA No. 4136.

On the other hand, the Traffic Citation Ticket (TCT) of the City of Butuan is
anchored on the SP Ordinances depicted on the citation ticket and none can be seen
on it any violations citing as its basis RA No. 4136 or other national traffic laws.

Both the TOP and the TCT are implementing traffic and transportation laws but
they are distinct in application. One emanates from the national congress and the
other from the legislative power of the sangguniang panlungsod. Stated
differently, the conviction of any person under RA No. 4136 will not bar his
prosecution for violating the city traffic ordinance.

Attached are copies of the Temporary Operator’s Permit (TOP) and the Traffic
Citation Ticket (TCT) as Annex 4 and Annex 5 accordingly.

D. The Local Government Unit (LGU) is

vested with the power to create and
approve ordinances regulating traffic and
the use of its streets;

23. Every Local Government Unit (LGU) is vested with the authority to create
ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective city
government, and in this connection shall maintain peace and order by enacting
measures to prevent and suppress lawlessness, disorder, riot, violence, rebellion or
sedition and impose penalties for violation of said ordinances.6

6
Republic Act No. 7160, Section 458 (a) (1) (ii)

10
 24. The Local Government Code of the Philippines7, empowers the sangguniang
panlungsod in the following manner:

“Section 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation.

(a) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the legislative body of the city, shall
enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the
general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of
this Code;

(5) Approve ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective
delivery of the basic services and facilities as provided for under Section
17 of this Code, and in addition to said services and facilities, shall:

(v) Regulate the use of streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks,

bridges, parks and other public places and approve the
construction, improvement repair and maintenance of the same;
establish bus and vehicle stops and terminals or regulate the use of
the same by privately-owned vehicles which serve the public;
regulate garages and the operation of conveyances for hire;
designate stands to be occupied by public vehicles when not in use;
regulate the putting up of signs, signposts, awnings and awning
posts on the streets; and provide for the lighting, cleaning and
sprinkling of streets; and public places;
(vi) Regulate traffic on all streets and bridges; prohibit
encroachments or obstacles thereon, and when necessary in the
interest of public welfare, authorize the removal or encroachments
and illegal constructions in public places. “(Emphasis supplied)

25. Checking the competence of a driver through his driver’s license and the
manoeuvrability of vehicles through the verification of its registration are but
anchored on the power of the LGU to regulate all that roams on its streets. The City
of Butuan can enact ordinances which regulates the use of streets, avenues, alleys,
sidewalks, bridges, park and other public places, as well as regulate traffic on all
streets and bridges. As defined in the case of Land Transportation Office vs. City of
Butuan8 , “to regulate” means to fix, establish, or control; to adjust by rule,
method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; or to subject to
governing principles or laws.

26. Precisely, the LGU has the authority to fix rules that address the usage of streets,
avenues and sidewalks, create methods to de-clog traffic on all streets and bridges
or establish mode by enacting rules or restriction or provide governing ordinances,
in the interest of public welfare, that ensures the safety of vehicles, motorist and
pedestrians in all. In fact, by regulating the streets that only those who have vehicle
registration and driver’s license can traverse the same, it lessens incidents of
accidents and de-clog traffic congestion. The implementation of these regulations
are part of the specific power granted by the local government code to the LGUs as
its power, duty and function.

7
Republic Act No. 7160, Section 458 (a) (5) (v) (vi)
8
G.R. No. 131512 , January 20, 2000

11
 27. Further, the creation of city ordinances is not confined to the specific power
expressed under the Local Government Code, the same law provides a shotgun
clause under Section 16, to wit:

“Section 16. General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall exercise
the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as
well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and
effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of
the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local
government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance
the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the
development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological
capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social
justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and
order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.”
(Emphasis supplied)

28. Under this provision, LGU may enact laws that are necessary, appropriate or
incidental for its efficient and effective governance. With this, the LGU may delimit
hazard, promote protection and well-being of its constituents, encourage city
streets to be used by motorist who have undergone seminars on traffic rules and
regulations and advocate that automobiles be with proper registration to ensure
that they are road worthy for the safety of all. In line with police power, the LGU
as a political subdivision of a nation or state and as constituted by law has
substantial control of its local affairs to anything that would promote general
welfare.

29. In relation, the Supreme Court elaborated the value and purpose of the general
welfare provision in the cases of Legaspi vs. City of Cebu9 and Jaban vs. Court of
Appeals10, when it held, thus:

“This provision contains what is traditionally known as the general welfare

clause. As expounded in United States vs. Salaveria, 39 Phil 102, the general
welfare clause has two branches. One branch attaches itself to the main trunk
of municipal authority, and relates to such ordinances and regulations as may
be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred
upon the municipal council by law. The second branch of the clause is much
more independent of the specific functions of the council, and authorizes such
ordinances as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for health, safety,
prosperity and convenience of the municipality and its inhabitants.

In a vital and critical way, the general welfare clause complements the more
specific powers granted a local government. It serves as a catch-all
provision that ensures that the local government will be equipped to
meet any local contingency that bears upon the welfare of its
constituents but has not been actually anticipated. So varied and
protean are the activities that affect the legitimate interests of the local
inhabitants that it is well-nigh impossible to say beforehand what may or may
not be done specifically through law. To ensure that a local government

9
G.R. No. 159110, December 10, 2013
10
G.R. No. 159692, December 10, 2013

12
 can react positively to the people’s needs and expectations, the general
welfare clause has been devised and interpreted to allow the local
legislative council to enact such measures as the occasion requires.”
(Emphasis supplied)

30. Giving spirit to the decision of the court in the above mentioned case, the LGU can,
under the general welfare clause, provide for mechanisms that promote safety and
create responsive measures to address local needs and expectations of the people
under their unit.

31. The common thread legitimizing the governance of traffic ordinances is the
legislature in the exercise of police power. Police power, as an inherent attribute of
sovereignty, is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make,
ordain, and establish wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances,
either with penalties or without. This includes the power and responsibility to
regulate how and by whom motor vehicles may be operated.

32. The National Legislature may delegate police power to the president and
administrative boards as well as the law making bodies of municipal corporations
or local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such
legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national law making body. Our
Congress delegated police power to the LGUs in the Local Government Code of
1991. A local government is a political subdivision of a nation or state which is
constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. Local government
units are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, which exercise police
power through their respective legislative bodies11.

33. To emphasize, the cases of Legaspi vs. City of Cebu and Jaban vs. Court of Appeals were
not ruled to confine the creation of traffic ordinances to traffic congestion.
Clamping Ordinance No. 1664 of Cebu City was enacted because of the traffic
congestion caused by illegal parking and the inability of existing penalties to curb
it. The plain objective of the said Ordinance was to serve the public interest and
advance the general welfare by immediately addressing the burgeoning traffic
congestions. For these reasons, the arguments in the afore-cited cases focused
mainly on the authority of LGUs to enact ordinances regarding traffic congestions.
However, it was not the intention of the court to delimit LGUs to enact ordinances
confined only to traffic congestion, otherwise, the court could have used delimiting
words restricting LGU’s to make ordinances relating absolutely to traffic violations that
hinder specifically the efficient and smooth flow of traffic, either by moving or non-
moving violations.

34. At any rate, granting without admitting, to elaborate the impact of traffic
congestion, the City could justifiably implement regulations on vehicles without
registration and drivers without license for such fact can contribute to traffic
congestion. If the City were to establish restrictions by prohibiting vehicles without proper
registration and drivers without due licenses to run/drive in City streets, the City is
actually solving the problem of traffic congestion. Thus, the regulation of registration and
licenses in relation to the power to regulate the use of streets is still within the scope of the
LGU to enforce.

11
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Dante O. Garin

13
 35. The intention of the Highest Court in the foregoing cases is not to limit its decision
to traffic congestion, if so the court could have expressly provided its exclusivity.
Rather, the same jurisprudence expresses the goal of the decentralization of powers
to the local government units, to ensure the enjoyment by each of the territorial and
political subdivisions of the State of a genuine and meaningful local autonomy.
And to attain the goal, the National Legislature has devolved the three great
inherent powers of the State to the LGUs.

36. The foregoing delegation reflected the desire of Congress to leave to the cities
themselves the task of confronting the problem of traffic congestions associated
with development and progress because they were directly familiar with the
situations in their respective jurisdictions. Indeed, the LGUs would be in the best
position to craft their traffic codes because of their familiarity with the conditions
peculiar to their communities. With the broad latitude in this regard allowed to
the LGUs of the cities, their traffic regulations must be held valid and effective
unless they infringed the constitutional limitations and statutory safeguards.12

37. The traffic ordinances of Butuan City were enacted with the purpose to regulate
the use of streets, as well as traffic, and in exercise of police power. Pursuant to
these, vehicles without registration and driver’s without license can be regulated
as they pose threat to the safety and risk to the welfare of commuters and
pedestrians. Premised, that when a vehicle is properly registered with the Land
Transportation Office, it is expected that it has been certified to be roadworthy for
it has undergone processes that ensure its fitness to be driven in public places. In
addition, vehicle registration is useful for crime detection purposes for it warrants
proper identification and tagging. Furthermore, having a driver’s license imply
that one has passed both the LTO driving exam and written exam on relevant traffic
rules and laws.

38. 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 travellers 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, under the police power, in the interest
of the public safety and welfare. The power to license imports further power to
withhold or to revoke such license upon noncompliance with prescribed
conditions13.

39. Automobiles are vehicles of great speed and power. The use of them constitutes
an element of danger to persons and property upon the highways. Carefully
operated, an automobile is still a dangerous instrumentality, but, when operated
by careless or incompetent persons, it becomes an engine of destruction. The
Legislature, in the exercise of the police power, not only may, but must, prescribe
how and by whom motor vehicles shall be operated on the highways. One of the
primary purposes of a system of general regulation of the subject matter, as here
by the Vehicle Code, is to insure the competency of the operator of motor vehicles.

12
Legaspi vs. City Of Cebu G.R. No. 159692, December 10, 2013
13
State ex. Rel. Sullivan, 63 P. 2d 653, 108 ALR 1156, 1159

14
 Such a general law is manifestly directed to the promotion of public safety and is
well within the police power14.

40. The enactment of Butuan City Ordinances on traffic violations is but part of the
power, duty and function of the LGUs under the Local Government Code. The
creation of regulations that address specifically vehicle registration and licensing
of drivers is included in the power of the LGU, under the general welfare clause
and police power, to ensure security of all its constituents. Such authority of the
LGU to construct local ordinances should not be limited to traffic congestion but
should be wide enough to confront problems associated with the progress and
development for the LGU is in a better position and has greater familiarity to
answer peculiar conditions of their locality.

E. The City Traffic Ordinance enjoys the

presumption of validity and
constitutionality unless annulled

41. Statutes and ordinances are presumed valid unless and until the courts declare the contrary
in clear and unequivocal terms. The mere fact that the ordinance is alleged to be
unconstitutional or invalid will not entitle a party to have its enforcement enjoined.
The presumption is all in favor of validity. The reason for this is obvious, the action
of the elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. The
councilors must, in the very nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their
particular municipality and with all the facts and circumstances which surround
the subject and necessitate action. The local legislative body, by enacting the
ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the
wellbeing of the people. The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action
when there is not a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of
police regulation. Courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to
legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by
the Constitution but also because the judiciary, in the determination of actual
cases and controversies, must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as
expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative
departments of the government15.

42. As emphasized in the case of Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs.

Dante o. Garin16, the court ruled in the following manner:

“Thus, where there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the

legislature or those agencies to whom legislative powers have been delegated
(the City of Manila in this case), the petitioner is not precluded – and in fact
is duty-bound – to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the
exercise of its mandate of transport and traffic management, as well as the
administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations,
traffic engineering services and traffic education programs.”

43. The same is true with the local traffic ordinance, it being consistent with its
dominant statue it is considered valid until annulled. Wide discretion is vested on

14
Commonwealth v. Funk, 323 Pa. 390, 186 A. 65 (108 ALR 1161)
15
SJS vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008
16
G.R. No. 130230 April 15, 2005

15
 the legislative authority to determine not only what the interests of the public
requires but also what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests.
Ordinances in concurrence to the lawful subject and lawful method are but valid
measures to safeguard public interest.

44. In the case of SMART vs. Municipality of Malvar, Batangas, the Supreme Court held,
thusly:

“Settled is the rule that every law, in this case an ordinance, is presumed
valid. xxxx To justify the nullification of the law or its implementation, there
must be a clear and unequivocal, not a doubtful, breach of the Constitution.
In case of doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing unconstitutionality,
the Court must sustain legislation because "to invalidate a law based on xx x
baseless supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature
that passed it but also of the executive which approved it." This presumption
of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there
was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and only when such a
conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce, in
the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be
struck down.”

45. As a matter of fact, our grounds are in line with the DILG legal Opinion No. 39
dated April 22, 2019, stating among others that the effectivity of the ordinance
cannot be restrained or quelled absent any court order. Laws are presumed to be
valid unless and until the courts declare the contrary in clear and unequivocal
terms.

Attached is the DILG legal Opinion No. 39 as Annex 6.

46. Therefore, may the Court favour the assumption of validity of the Traffic
Ordinance of Butuan City in the same light that the High Court ruled in the case of
Orlando L. Salvador vs. Placido L. Mapa, Jr.17, favouring the presumption of legality
of a law, as its decision reads:

“The constitutionality of laws is presumed. To justify nullification of a law,

there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a
doubtful or arguable implication; a law shall not be declared invalid unless
the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. The
presumption is always in favor of constitutionality. To doubt is to sustain.
Even this Court does not decide a question of constitutional dimension,
unless that question is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case
and is necessary to a determination of the case.”

47. The least we can do to ensure genuine and meaningful local autonomy is not to
force an interpretation that negates powers explicitly granted to local governments.
It is best not only to comply with the constitutional provisions on local autonomy
but should also appreciate the spirit and liberty upon which these provisions are
based.

17
G.R. NO. 135080 : November 28, 2007

16
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court that:

1. The Order dated 7 May 2019 dismissing the case be RECONSIDERED; and,
2. A new order be issued directing the continuation of trial against the accused
under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

Such other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed
for.

Respectfully submitted.

17 May 2019 at Butuan City, Philippines.

CITY LEGAL OFFICE

Counsel for Complainant City Government of Butuan
2nd Floor City Hall Building
Doongan Road, Butuan City
Telephone No. (085) 225-43-16

By:

CISCO FRANZ S. MACLANG

City Legal Officer
Roll No. 57901
PTR No. 1683567/1-3-2019/Butuan City
Life Time Member Roll No. 015381/9-15-2016/Pasig City
TIN: 292-129-060-000
MCLE Compliance No. V Exemption No. 002281
MCLE Compliance No. VI - Processing

MARIA JONIKA GONZAGA ROMANO

Attorney IV
Roll No. 62686
PTR No. 1702967/1-31-2019/ Butuan City
IBP No. 052553/1-9-2019/ Butuan City
TIN. 292-418-318-000
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0007805/ 04-14-2022

17
 NOTICE OF HEARING

THE CLERK OF COURT

Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2
Hall of Justice, Libertad, Butuan City

HON. ACP GENA B. JALA

Office of the City Prosecutor

LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (LTO)

Capitol Avenue, Butuan City,
Agusan del Norte

_________________________________
_________________________________
Accused

Greetings!

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration shall be
submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on Friday, 31 May
2019 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon as counsel and matter may be heard.

Atty. CISCO FRANZ S. MACLANG

City Legal Officer
Copy furnished to:

THE CLERK OF COURT

Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2
Hall of Justice, Libertad, Butuan City

HON. ACP GENA B. JALA

Office of the City Prosecutor

LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE (LTO)

Capitol Avenue, Butuan City,
Agusan del Norte

ACCUSED

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copies of this Motion for Reconsideration were personally served to the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities Branch 2, Hall of Justice, Libertad, Butuan City, Assistant City
Prosecutor Gena B. Jala, and the Land Transportation Office of Butuan City; copy for
the Accused through registered mail due to distance and impracticality of personal
service.

Atty. CISCO FRANZ S. MACLANG

City Legal Officer

18
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
IN THE CITY OF BUTUAN. . .) S. S.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, ANGELA MAE E. ARRIOLA, of legal age, single, Filipino and a resident of

Butuan City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
depose and state that:

I am a stenographer of the City Legal Office, City Hall, Butuan City.

I served upon a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration in the case entitled
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALEX A. LUISON docketed as CRIMINAL CASE
NO. 062744, as follows:

Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 2, Hall of Justice, Libertad, Butuan City
through personal service; Assistant City Prosecutor Gena B. Jala Hall of Justice,
Libertad, Butuan City through personal service; Land Transportation Office Capitol
Avenue, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte through personal service; and the Accused
through registered mail as shown by the signatures of their clerk and/or the attached
receipt number.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this _________________ in

Butuan City, Philippines.

ANGELA MAE E. ARRIOLA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this _______________ in Butuan City,

affiant having exhibited to me her BIR Identification Card with Tax Identification No.
706-724-971-000, bearing her picture and signature, serving as competent evidence of
identity.

Doc No._______;
Page No. ______;
Book No.______;
Series of 2019.

19