G.R. No. 130230 April 15, 2005 process clause of the Constitution. The respondent further a.

e Constitution. The respondent further a. There was indeed no quorum in that First Regular
contended that the provision violates the constitutional Meeting of the MMDA Council held on March 23, 1995, hence
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT prohibition against undue delegation of legislative authority, MMDA Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-001, authorizing
AUTHORITY, Petitioner, allowing as it does the MMDA to fix and impose unspecified – confiscation of driver's licenses upon issuance of a TVR, is
vs. and therefore unlimited - fines and other penalties on erring void ab initio.
DANTE O. GARIN, respondent. motorists.
b. The summary confiscation of a driver's license without
DECISION In support of his application for a writ of preliminary injunction, first giving the driver an opportunity to be heard; depriving him
Garin alleged that he suffered and continues to suffer great and of a property right (driver's license) without DUE PROCESS; not
irreparable damage because of the deprivation of his license and filling (sic) in Court the complaint of supposed traffic infraction,
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
that, absent any implementing rules from the Metro Manila cannot be justified by any legislation (and is) hence
Council, the TVR and the confiscation of his license have no unconstitutional.
At issue in this case is the validity of Section 5(f) of Republic Act legal basis.
No. 7924 creating the Metropolitan Manila Development
WHEREFORE, the temporary writ of preliminary injunction is
Authority (MMDA), which authorizes it to confiscate and
For its part, the MMDA, represented by the Office of the hereby made permanent; th(e) MMDA is directed to return to
suspend or revoke driver's licenses in the enforcement of traffic
Solicitor General, pointed out that the powers granted to it by plaintiff his driver's license; th(e) MMDA is likewise ordered to
laws and regulations.
Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 are limited to the fixing, collection desist from confiscating driver's license without first giving the
and imposition of fines and penalties for traffic violations, which driver the opportunity to be heard in an appropriate proceeding.
The issue arose from an incident involving the respondent Dante powers are legislative and executive in nature; the judiciary
O. Garin, a lawyer, who was issued a traffic violation receipt retains the right to determine the validity of the penalty In filing this petition,6 the MMDA reiterates and reinforces its
(TVR) and his driver's license confiscated for parking illegally imposed. It further argued that the doctrine of separation of argument in the court below and contends that a license to
along Gandara Street, Binondo, Manila, on 05 August 1995. The powers does not preclude "admixture" of the three powers of operate a motor vehicle is neither a contract nor a property right,
following statements were printed on the TVR: government in administrative agencies.4 but is a privilege subject to reasonable regulation under the police
power in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The
You are hereby directed to report to the MMDA Traffic The MMDA also refuted Garin's allegation that the Metro Manila petitioner further argues that revocation or suspension of this
Operations Center Port Area Manila after 48 hours from date of Council, the governing board and policy making body of the privilege does not constitute a taking without due process as long
apprehension for disposition/appropriate action petitioner, has as yet to formulate the implementing rules for Sec. as the licensee is given the right to appeal the revocation.
thereon. Criminal case shall be filed for failure to redeem license 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 and directed the court's attention to
after 30 days. MMDA Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-001 dated 15 April To buttress its argument that a licensee may indeed appeal the
1995. Respondent Garin, however, questioned the validity of taking and the judiciary retains the power to determine the
Valid as temporary DRIVER'S license for seven days from date MMDA Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-001, as he claims that validity of the confiscation, suspension or revocation of the
of apprehension.1 it was passed by the Metro Manila Council in the absence of a license, the petitioner points out that under the terms of the
quorum. confiscation, the licensee has three options:
Shortly before the expiration of the TVR's validity, the
respondent addressed a letter2 to then MMDA Chairman Prospero Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort issued a temporary restraining 1. To voluntarily pay the imposable fine,
Oreta requesting the return of his driver's license, and expressing order on 26 September 1995, extending the validity of the TVR
his preference for his case to be filed in court. as a temporary driver's license for twenty more days. A
2. To protest the apprehension by filing a protest with
preliminary mandatory injunction was granted on 23 October
the MMDA Adjudication Committee, or
Receiving no immediate reply, Garin filed the original 1995, and the MMDA was directed to return the respondent's
complaint3 with application for preliminary injunction in Branch driver's license.
3. To request the referral of the TVR to the Public
260 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque, on 12
Prosecutor's Office.
September 1995, contending that, in the absence of any On 14 August 1997, the trial court rendered the assailed
implementing rules and regulations, Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. decision5 in favor of the herein respondent and held that:
7924 grants the MMDA unbridled discretion to deprive erring The MMDA likewise argues that Memorandum Circular No. TT-
motorists of their licenses, pre-empting a judicial determination 95-001 was validly passed in the presence of a quorum, and that
of the validity of the deprivation, thereby violating the due the lower court's finding that it had not was based on a
"misapprehension of facts," which the petitioner would have us Municipality of Surigao11 on a legislative franchise to operate an The said case also involved the herein petitioner MMDA which
review. Moreover, it asserts that though the circular is the basis electric plant. claimed that it had the authority to open a subdivision street
for the issuance of TVRs, the basis for the summary confiscation owned by the Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. to public traffic
of licenses is Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 itself, and that such Petitioner cites a long list of American cases to prove this point, because it is an agent of the state endowed with police power in
power is self-executory and does not require the issuance of any such as State ex. Rel. Sullivan,12 which states in part that, "the the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. From this
implementing regulation or circular. legislative power to regulate travel over the highways and premise, the MMDA argued that there was no need for the City
thoroughfares of the state for the general welfare is extensive. It of Makati to enact an ordinance opening Neptune Street to the
Meanwhile, on 12 August 2004, the MMDA, through its may be exercised in any reasonable manner to conserve the safety public.
Chairman Bayani Fernando, implemented Memorandum Circular of travelers and pedestrians. Since motor vehicles are
No. 04, Series of 2004, outlining the procedures for the use of the instruments of potential danger, their registration and the Tracing the legislative history of Rep. Act No. 7924 creating the
Metropolitan Traffic Ticket (MTT) scheme. Under the circular, licensing of their operators have been required almost from their MMDA, we concluded that the MMDA is not a local government
erring motorists are issued an MTT, which can be paid at any first appearance. The right to operate them in public places is not unit or a public corporation endowed with legislative power, and,
Metrobank branch. Traffic enforcers may no longer confiscate a natural and unrestrained right, but a privilege subject to unlike its predecessor, the Metro Manila Commission, it has no
drivers' licenses as a matter of course in cases of traffic reasonable regulation, under the police power, in the interest of power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the
violations. All motorists with unredeemed TVRs were given the public safety and welfare. The power to license imports community. Thus, in the absence of an ordinance from the City
seven days from the date of implementation of the new system to further power to withhold or to revoke such license upon of Makati, its own order to open the street was invalid.
pay their fines and redeem their license or vehicle plates.7 noncompliance with prescribed conditions."
We restate here the doctrine in the said decision as it applies to
It would seem, therefore, that insofar as the absence of a prima Likewise, the petitioner quotes the Pennsylvania Supreme Court the case at bar: police power, as an inherent attribute of
facie case to enjoin the petitioner from confiscating drivers' in Commonwealth v. Funk,13 to the effect that: "Automobiles are sovereignty, is the power vested by the Constitution in the
licenses is concerned, recent events have overtaken the Court's vehicles of great speed and power. The use of them constitutes legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of
need to decide this case, which has been rendered moot and an element of danger to persons and property upon the wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either
academic by the implementation of Memorandum Circular No. highways. Carefully operated, an automobile is still a dangerous with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as
04, Series of 2004. instrumentality, but, when operated by careless or incompetent they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the
persons, it becomes an engine of destruction. The Legislature, in commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same.
The petitioner, however, is not precluded from re-implementing the exercise of the police power of the commonwealth, not only
Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-001, or any other scheme, for may, but must, prescribe how and by whom motor vehicles shall Having been lodged primarily in the National Legislature, it
that matter, that would entail confiscating drivers' licenses. For be operated on the highways. One of the primary purposes of a cannot be exercised by any group or body of individuals not
the proper implementation, therefore, of the petitioner's future system of general regulation of the subject matter, as here by the possessing legislative power. The National Legislature, however,
programs, this Court deems it appropriate to make the following Vehicle Code, is to insure the competency of the operator of may delegate this power to the president and administrative
observations: motor vehicles. Such a general law is manifestly directed to the boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations
promotion of public safety and is well within the police power." or local government units (LGUs). Once delegated, the agents
1. A license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on
that the state may withhold in the exercise of its police The common thread running through the cited cases is that it is them by the national lawmaking body.
power. the legislature, in the exercise of police power, which has the
power and responsibility to regulate how and by whom motor Our Congress delegated police power to the LGUs in the Local
vehicles may be operated on the state highways. Government Code of 1991.15 A local government is a "political
The petitioner correctly points out that a license to operate a
motor vehicle is not a property right, but a privilege granted by subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and
the state, which may be suspended or revoked by the state in the 2. The MMDA is not vested with police power. has substantial control of local affairs."16 Local government units
exercise of its police power, in the interest of the public safety are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, which
and welfare, subject to the procedural due process In Metro Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies.
requirements. This is consistent with our rulings in Pedro v. Association, Inc.,14 we categorically stated that Rep. Act No.
Provincial Board of Rizal8 on the license to operate a 7924 does not grant the MMDA with police power, let alone Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a body composed of several
cockpit, Tan v. Director of Forestry9 and Oposa v. Factoran10 on legislative power, and that all its functions are administrative in local government units. With the passage of Rep. Act No. 7924
timber licensing agreements, and Surigao Electric Co., Inc. v. nature. in 1995, Metropolitan Manila was declared as a "special
development and administrative region" and the administration of Therefore, insofar as Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 is criteria in cases of this nature that all reasonable doubts should be
"metro-wide" basic services affecting the region placed under "a understood by the lower court and by the petitioner to grant the resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a statute.22
development authority" referred to as the MMDA. Thus: MMDA the power to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers'
licenses without need of any other legislative enactment, such is A last word. The MMDA was intended to coordinate services
. . . [T]he powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: an unauthorized exercise of police power. with metro-wide impact that transcend local political boundaries
formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, or would entail huge expenditures if provided by the individual
preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, 3. Sec. 5(f) grants the MMDA with LGUs, especially with regard to transport and traffic
installation of a system and administration. There is no syllable the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations. management,23 and we are aware of the valiant efforts of the
in R. A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone petitioner to untangle the increasingly traffic-snarled roads of
legislative power. Even the Metro Manila Council has not Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7924 enumerates the "Functions and Metro Manila. But these laudable intentions are limited by the
been delegated any legislative power. Unlike the legislative Powers of the Metro Manila Development Authority." The MMDA's enabling law, which we can but interpret, and petitioner
bodies of the local government units, there is no provision in R. contested clause in Sec. 5(f) states that the petitioner shall "install must be reminded that its efforts in this respect must be
A. No. 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its Council to and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect authorized by a valid law, or ordinance, or regulation arising
"enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and from a legitimate source.
funds for the general welfare" of the inhabitants of Metro regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and
Manila. The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed.
"development authority." It is an agency created for the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, the provisions
purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the of Rep. Act No. 413618 and P.D. No. 160519 to the contrary SO ORDERED.
various national government agencies, people's organizations, notwithstanding," and that "(f)or this purpose, the Authority shall
non-governmental organizations and the private sector for enforce all traffic laws and regulations in Metro Manila, through
the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the its traffic operation center, and may deputize members of the
vast metropolitan area. All its functions are administrative in PNP, traffic enforcers of local government units, duly licensed
nature and these are actually summed up in the charter itself, viz: security guards, or members of non-governmental organizations
to whom may be delegated certain authority, subject to such
"Sec. 2. Creation of the Metropolitan Manila conditions and requirements as the Authority may impose."
Development Authority. -- -x x x.
Thus, where there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by
The MMDA shall perform planning, the legislature or those agencies to whom legislative powers have
monitoring and coordinative functions, and in been delegated (the City of Manila in this case), the petitioner is
the process exercise regulatory and supervisory not precluded – and in fact is duty-bound – to confiscate and
authority over the delivery of metro-wide suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the exercise of its mandate
services within Metro Manila, without of transport and traffic management, as well as the administration
diminution of the autonomy of the local and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic
government units concerning purely local engineering services and traffic education programs.20
matters."
This is consistent with our ruling in Bel-Air that the MMDA is a
…. development authority created for the purpose of laying down
policies and coordinating with the various national government
Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The agencies, people's organizations, non-governmental organizations
power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila and the private sector, which may enforce, but not enact,
Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the ordinances.
implementation of the MMDA's functions. There is no grant of
authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general This is also consistent with the fundamental rule of statutory
welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. 17 (footnotes construction that a statute is to be read in a manner that would
omitted, emphasis supplied) breathe life into it, rather than defeat it,21 and is supported by the