3Republic of tbe tlbilippines

$,upreme ([ou rt
;iflllanila

EN BANC

FEDERATION OF JEEPNEY G.R. No. 209479

OPERATORS AND DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION OF THE Present:
PHILIPPINES (FEJODAP),
ALLIANCE OF CONCERNED GESMUNDO, CJ,
TRANSPORT OPERATORS LEONEN,
(ACTO), ALLIANCE OF CAGUIOA,
TRANSPORT OPERATORS HERNANDO,
AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION LAZARO-JAVIER,
OF THE PHILIPPINES INTING,
(ALTODAP), ZALAMEDA,
PANGKALAHATANG LOPEZ,M.,
SANGGUNIANG MANILA AND GAERLAN,
SUBURBS DRIVERS ROSARIO,
ASSOCIATION, INC. LOPEZ, J.,*
(PASANG-MASDA), METRO DIMAAMPAO,
MANILA BUS OPERATORS MARQUEZ,
ASSOCIATION (MMBOA), KHO, JR., and
PAGKAKAISA NG MGA SINGH, JJ.
SAMAHAN NG TSUPER AND
OPERATOR NATIONWIDE
(PISTON), MAKA TI JEEPNEY
OPERATORS AND DRIVERS Promulgated:
ALLIANCE, INC. (MJODA),
INTEGRATED METRO BUS July 11, 2023
OPERATORS ASSOCIATION
([Link]), NORTHEAST
z=)~1
MANILA BUS OPERATORS
GROUP (NEMBOG),
NATIONAL TRANS-
WORKERS UNION (NTU), AND
PROVINCIAL BUS
OPERATORS ASSOCIATION
OF THE PHILIPPINES
(PBOAP),
Petitioners,

• No part.
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 209479

- versus -
• ·'4 -~ "'· -· .;:
''-,f/"•,a,,«.:, '!>"
...__., ·.:·

GOVERNMENT OF MANILA
•'.:.cffY, QUEZON CITY,
·· VALENZUELA CITY,
CALOOCAN CITY, SAN JUAN,
NA VOTAS, LAS PINAS,
TAGUIG, PASAY CITY,
PARANAQUE CITY,
MUNTINLIPA CITY,
MANDALUYONG CITY,
MAKATI CITY, PASIG CITY,
PATEROS, METROPOLITAN
MANILA DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (MMDA), LAND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICE
(LTO) AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC),
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

(With Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or
Temporary Restraining Order)' (Petition) assailing the Decision2 dated
December 7, 2012 and Resolution3 dated October 3, 2013 issued by the Sixth
Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 97308.

Facts

On June 20, 1964, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 4136, otherwise
known as the "Land Transportation and Traffic Code," (LTO Law) which
created the Land Transportation Commission (LTC), later renamed as Land
Transportation Office (LTO). Pursuant to its creation, Congress vested on the

1
Rollo pp. 3-29.
Id. at 1023-1038. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, and concurred in by Associate
Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, Sixth Division, Court of Appeals.
3 Id. at 32-35.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 209479

L TC, now L TO, several powers and functions, pertinent of which are as
follows:
SECTION 4. Creation of Commission. - ...

The Commissioner shall be responsible for the administration of this

Act and shall have, in connection therewith, the following powers and
duties, in addition to those mentioned elsewhere in this Act:

5) The Commissioner of Land Transportation and his [or

her] 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 drivers 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 [or her]

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.

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 jurisdictions: Provided, That all
apprehensions made shall be submitted for final
disposition to the Commissioner and his [or her] deputies
within twenty-four hours from the date of apprehension.

CHAPTER III
Operation of Motor Vehicle

ARTICLE I
License to Drive Motor Vehicles

SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver's Licenses. - Law

enforcement and peace officers duly designated by the Commissioner shall,
in apprehending any driver for violations of this Act or of any regulations
issued pursuant thereto, or of local traffic rules and regulations, confiscate
the license of the driver concerned and issue a receipt prescribed and issued
by the Commission therefor which shall authorize the driver to operate a
motor vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy-two hours from the time
 .,
Decision 4 G.R. No. 209479 .

and date of issue of said receipt. The period so fixed in the receipt shall not
be extended, and shall become invalid thereafter. Failure of the driver to
settle his [or her] case within fifteen days from the date of apprehension will
cause suspension and revocation of his [or her] license.

In addition to the foregoing provisions which petitioners invoke, they

reference as well Section 62 of the same law, which provides:

ARTICLE III
Final Provisions

SECTION 62. No provincial board, city or municipal board or

council shall enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution in conflict with
the provisions of this Act, or prohibiting any deputy or agent of the
Commission to enforce this Act within their respective territorial
jurisdiction and the provisions of any charter to the contrary
notwithstanding.

On July 23, 1979, through Executive Order No. 546, the LTC was
renamed Bureau of Land Transportation, and was placed under the then
Ministry of Transportation and Communications. 4

On March 20, 1985, Executive Order No. IO 11 was issued, abolishing

in the process the then Bureau of Land Transportation. A new L TC was
created and absorbed the powers and functions of the Bureau of Land
Transportation and the then Bureau of Transportation which was similarly
abolished. Executive Order No. 1011 did not specifically provide for the
LTC' s power to confiscate licenses and issue receipts for violations, although
it granted the same a general power to "implement and enforce laws and
policies on land transportation." 5

Subsequently, on January 30, 1987, the LTC was again abolished

through EO 125,6 and its functions were transferred to the Bureau of Land .
Transportation. Similar to Executive Order No. IO 11, and Executive Order
No. 125 did not specifically grant the Bureau of Land Transportation the
power to confiscate licenses and issue receipts. However, it granted the said
bureau the general power to"[ e]stablish and prescribe the corresponding rules
and regulations for the enforcement of laws governing land transportation,
including the penalties for violation thereof, and for the deputation of
appropriate law enforcement agencies in pursuance thereof." 7 The Bureau of
Land Transportation was later on renamed as Land Transportation Office or
LTO.

On October 10, 1991, RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local

Government Code of 1991 (LGC) was approved, and took effect on January
1, 1992. The LGC defined and enumerated the powers, duties, and functions
common to legislative bodies of the various local government units, to wit:
4
Executive Order No. 546 (I 979), sec. I 0.
Executive Order No. IO 11 (1985), sec. 5(b)(3).
Executive Order No. I 25 (I 987), sec. 17.
7
Id. at sec. 13(e).
Decision 5 G.R. No. 209479

SECTION 447. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. -

(a) The [sangguniang bayan], as the legislative body of the municipality,
shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the
general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section
16 of thils Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the
municipality as provided for under Section 22 ofthis Code, and shall:

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; provide for the lighting,
cleaning and sprinkling of streets and
public places;

(vi) Regulate traffic on all streets and

bridges, prohibit the putting up of
encroachments or obstacles thereon,
and, when necessary in the interest of
public welfare, authorize the removal of
encroachments and illegal
constructions in public places;

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 and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the city as
provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:
Decision 6 G.R. No. 209479

( 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.

Subsequently, or on March 1, 1995, Congress enacted Republic Act No.

7924, "An Act Creating The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority,
Defining Its Powers and Functions, Providing Funds Therefor, and Other
Purposes" (MMDA Law); Section 5(f) of said law places upon the
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) the duty to:

SECTION 5. Functions and Powers of the Metro Manila

Development Authority. - The MMDA shall:

(f) Install and administer a single ticketing system, fix,

impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of
violations cf traffic rules and regulations, whether
moving or non-moving in nature, and confiscate and
suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the enforcement of
such traffic laws and regulations, the provisions of
[Republic Act No.] 4136 and [Presidential Decree No.]
1605 to the contrary notwithstanding. For this purpose,
the Authority shall enforce all traffic laws and
Decision 7 G.R. No. 209479

regulations in Metro Manila, through its traffic operation

center, and may deputize members of the PNP, traffic
enforcers of local government units, duly licensed
security guards, or members of non-governmental
organizations to whom may be delegated certain
authority, subject to such conditions and requirements as
the Authority may impose[.]

In 2003, 2004, and 2005, the legislative bodies of the respondent local
govermnent units (LGUs) of Metro Manila, acting separately, passed the
following Ordinances:

Ordinance No. 2003-89 series of2003 ofMakati City titled "AN

ORDINANCE ENACTING THE [Link]! CITY TRAFFIC
CODE SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS AND EXISTING LEGAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS."

Ordinance No. 103 series of 2003 of Taguig titled "AN

ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
TAGUIG."

Ordinance No. 05-04 series of2004 of Parafiaque City titled "AN

ORDINANCE ENACTING THE PARANA QUE CITY
TRAFFIC CODE SUBJECT TO EXISITING LAWS AND
APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS."

Ordinance No. 2916 series of 2004 of Pasay City titled "AN

ORDINANCE ADOPTING A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
CODE OF PASAY CITY."

Ordinance No. SP-1444 series of2004 of Quezon City titled "AN

ORDINANCE CREATING THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
CODE OF QUEZON CITY."

Ordinance No. 37 series of 2004 of San Juan titled

"MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE KNOWN AND CITED AS THE
MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN
JUAN, METRO [Link]."

Ordinance No. 2004-14 series of 2004 of Navotas titled

"TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS, METRO MANILA."

Ordinance No. 652-04 series of 2004 of Las Pifias titled "LAS

PINAS TRAFFIC CODE."
 .
Decision 8 G.R. No. 209479

Ordinance No. 01 series of 2004 of Pasig City titled "AN

ORDINANCE ENACTING THE 2004 TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF PASIG."

Ordinance No. 04-022 series of 2005 of Muntinlupa City titled

"AN ORDINANCE ENACTING THE MUNTINLUP A CITY
TRAFFIC CODE, SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS AND EXISTING
LEGAL RULES AND REGULATIONS."

Ordinance No. 358 series of 2005 of the City of Mandaluyong

titled "THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE CITY
OF MANDALUYONG."

Ordinance No. 019 series of2005 of Valenzuela City titled "AN

ORDINANCE ENACTING THE LAND TRANSPORTATION
CODE OF THE CITY OF VALENZUELA."

Ordinance No. 0391 series of2005 of Caloocan City titled "AN

ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
NEW TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CODE OF CALOOCAN
CITY."

Ordinance No. 8092 series of 2005 of the City of Manila titled

"AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE TRAFFIC CODE OF
THE CITY OF MANILA BY AMENDING CHAPTER 121 OF
THE COMPILATION OF THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF MANILA AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."

Ordinance No. 2005-19 series of 2005 of Pateros titled

"ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
PATEROS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATORS
AND FOR OTHER LEGAL PURPOSES."

Each of the foregoing Ordinances provides for the issuance of a traffic

violation ticket to erring drivers denominated as "Ordinance Violation
Receipt" (OVR). The Ordinances have a common provision, which reads:

Procedure in the Issuance of Ordinance Violation Receipt (OVR) - Any

person violating any provision of this Ordinance or any Ordinance of the
City shall be issued an Ordinance Violation Receipt (OVR). In case of
violation of the Traffic Management Code, a duly deputized traffic
enforcement officer shall confiscate the driver's license and the issued
receipt shall serve as Temporary Driver's License for five (5) working days
from date of issuance. Ordinance Violation Receipt (OVR) issued by the
Decision 9 G.R. No. 209479

local government [Unit] in Metropolitan Manila shall be honored or

respected by the apprehending traffic enforcer. 8 (Italics supplied)

On December 21, 2006, the Federation of Jeepney Operators and

Drivers Association of the Philippines (FEJODAP), Alliance of Concerned
Transport Operators (ACTO), Alliance of Transport Operators and Drivers
Association of the Philippines (AL TODAP), with [Link]
Sangguniang Manila and Suburbs Drivers Association, Inc. (P ASANG-
MASDA), Metro Manila Bus Operators Association (MMBOA), Pagkakaisa
ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at Operator Nationwide (PISTON), Mak:ati
Jeepney Operators and Drivers Alliance, Inc. (MJODA), Integrated Metro
Bus Operators Association (IMBOA), Northeast Manila Bus Operators Group
(NEMBOG), National Transworkers Union (NTU), and Provincial Bus
Operators Association of the Philippines (PBOAP) ( collectively, petitioners),
all of them transport organizations duly registered under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines and which members are either public utility
transport operators and/or drivers of public utility vehicles duly authorized by
the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, filed before the
CA a Petition for Injunction and Mandamus against respondents LGUs, and
the MMDA, the LTO, and the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC), seeking the nullification of the OVR provision in
the aforementioned Ordinances.

Petitioners claimed that the OVR prov1s10n, which authorizes

respondent LGUs to confiscate licenses and issue OVRs to erring drivers,
violates Sections 29 and 62 of the LTO Law which grants the LTO authority
to confiscate driver's licenses and issue a prescribed receipt for violations of
said law or of any regulations issued pursuant thereto or of local traffic rules
and regulations, and Section S(f) of the :tv1MDA Law, authorizing the :tvfMDA
to "install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect
fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations .
. . and confiscate and suspend or revoke driver's licenses in the enforcement
of such traffic laws and regulations." 9

Petitioners also prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus

directing the MMDA to immediately draw up, install, and administer a single
ticketing system for all traffic violations in Metro Manila in compliance with
Section S(f) of the MMDALaw. 10

Meanwhile, on January 26, 2012, during the pendency of the case

before the CA, respondent :tvfMDA, through the Metro Manila Council
(MMC), issued Resolution No. 12-02, series of 2012 11 (MMDA Resolution

8
Rollo, p. I 0, Petition.
9
Id. at 1025.
10 Id.
11
. Titled "Adopting A Uniform Ticketing System And The Establishment Of A System oflnterconnectivity
Among Government Instrumentalities Involved In The Transport And Traffic Management In Metro
Manila."
Decision 10 G.R. No. 209479

No. 12-02) adopting a uniform ticketing system and establishing a system of

interconnectivity among government instrumentalities involved in the
transport and traffic management in Metro Manila.

Ruling of the CA

On December 17, 2012, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, 12 the

dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Petition for

Injunction and Mandamus is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Accordingly, the assailed subject Ordinances of the different Local
Government comprising the Metropolitan Manila are declared LEGAL and
CONSTITUTIONAL.

SO ORDERED.13

The CA ruled that there is no conflict between the MMDA Law and the
LGC because each of the said laws has their specific boundaries - the
MMDA Law governs the delivery of metro-wide services whereas the LGC
embodies the authority of respondent LGUs to enact the assailed ordinances
as a necessary effect of the delegation by Congress of its lawmaking power.
The CA further held that, since the Court inMMDA v. Garin 14 (Garin) did not
declare Section 5(f) of the l½MDA Law unconstitutional, it is very much still
a good law waiting to be enforced and utilized for the benefit of the general
public. The CA, however, did not rule on the issue of whether the OVR being
issued by respondent LGUs was in violation of the single ticketing system
because, as admitted by the parties, no single ticketing system had at that time
been drawn.

The CA also rejected petitioners' contention that the assailed

Ordinances conflict with Sections 29 and 62 of the LTO Law. According to
the CA, the LGC did not expressly repeal Sections 29 and 62 of the LTO Law
because only the aspect of traffic management was transferred to the LGUs
and not the entire powers of the LTO.

As regards the prayer for mandamus, the CA ruled that petitioners

failed to provide strong evidence of neglect on the part of the MMDA in the
enforcement of its duty to draw up a single ticketing system. They failed to
show that MMDA absolutely abdicated its duty to install a single ticketing
system as provided under Section 5(f) of the MMDA Law.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the
CA in its Resolution 15 dated October 3, 2013.

12
Supra note 2.
13
Id. at 1038.
14
496 Phil. 82 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division].
15
Supra note 3.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 209479

Hence, this Petition.

Petitioners argue that Section 29 of the LTO Law is explicit as to the

power of the L TO to confiscate licenses and issue traffic violation receipts;
and while, admittedly, LGUs were authorized by the LGC to regulate traffic
within their respective territorial jurisdictions, they cannot usurp the power
that is legislatively vested in the LTO. Petitioners insist that the assailed
Ordinances must yield to the LTO Law.

Petitioners further contend that the issuance of Executive Order No.

712, series of 2008 16 and MIVIDA Resolution No. 12-02 show the clear
legislative intent to have a single ticketing system installed by the MMDA.
According to petitioners, the implementation of a single ticketing system by
the MIVIDA will address the confusion, disorder, and prejudice to motorists
caused by the variance of traffic tickets and corresponding fines and penalties
separately imposed by respondents LGUs, the L TO, and the MJ\.1DA.

Moreover, petitioners assert that while MIVIDA Resolution No. 12-02

intends to implement a Uniform Ordinance Violation Receipt (UOVR), it did
not invalidate the OVRs issued by respondent LGUs, which practically
defeats the objective of a single ticketing system. In other words, allowing
respondent LGUs to continue issuing OVRs renders nugatory MMDA
Resolution No. 12-02 and undermines the single ticketing system
implemented by the MIVIDA.

Accordingly, petitioners pray that the Court: (1) annul and set aside the
assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA; (2) declare unconstitutional, null
and void the OVR provision of the assailed Ordinances, or, in the alternative,
striking down said provision from the subject Ordinances; and (3) issue a
permanent injunction against respondent LGUs enjoining them from
implementing the OVR.

Respondent LGU s, on the other hand, argue that: ( 1) they are vested by
law with the power to regulate traffic within their respective territorial
jurisdictions and legislate ordinances pertinent thereto; (2) the MIVIDA has no
authority to impose upon respondent LGUs a single ticketing system because,
as enunciated by the Court in the cases of Garin and MMDA v. Bel-Air17 (Be/-
Air), the MMDA is clothed only with administrative powers and not police
power, nor legislative power; and (3) consequently, petitioners are not entitled
to the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of Preliminary Injunction against the
implementation of the OVR provision. 18
16 Titled "Directing The Immediate Review Of Existing Orders, Rules And Regulations Issued By Local
Government Units Concerning Public Transportation, Including The Grant Of Franchises To Tricycles,
Establishment And Operation Of Transport Terminals, Authority To Issue Traffic Citation Tickets, And
Unilateral Rerouting Schemes Of Public Utility Vehicles, And For Other Purposes," March 11, 2008.
17 385 Phil. 586 (2000) [Per J. Puno, First Division].
18 See Rollo pp. 1107-1120 (Comment ofrespondent Caloocan City); 1130-1138 (Comment ofrespondent
Las Pifias City); 1140-1145 (Comment of respondent City of Manila); 1149-1161 (Comment of
respondent Taguig City); 1173-1178 (Comment of respondent Parafiaque City); 1181-1191 (Comm nt
Decision 12 G.R. No. 209479

However, respondents :MMDA, LTO, and DOTC do not share the

views of respondent LGU s. They maintain that: ( 1) by the express mandate of
the :MMDA Law, the authority to set traffic policies and to install a single
ticketing system in Metro Manila is vested with the :MMDA; 19 (2) the :MMDA
Law, a later and special enactment of Congress, prevails over the LGC in
regard to the formulation of traffic policies and installation of a single
ticketing system; 20 and (3) respondent LGUs, in the exercise of their delegated
powers, carunot pass ordinances that would contravene an existing statute
enacted by Congress. 21

Issues

1. Whether the CA erred in declaring the assailed Ordinances as

valid;

2. Whether the CA erred in ruling that respondent LGUs have

the right to issue OVRs; and

3. Whether MMDA Resolution No. 12-02 is rendered nugatory

by the continued implementation of the assailed Ordinances
with regard to the issuance of the OVR.

The Court's Ruling

The Court holds that the CA erred in declaring as valid the common
provision in the questioned Ordinances, and in ruling that the respondent
LGUs have the right to issue OVRs.

The present petition has actual

case or controversy

At the outset, it is worth pointing out that the case presents an actual
case or controversy. "An actual case or controversy is one that involves a
conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of
judicial resolution." 22 The requirement of actual case or controversy
necessitates that:

[t]he controversy must be justiciable - definite and concrete, touching on

the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. In other words,
the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on
the one hand, and a denial thereof on the other; that is, it must concern a real
and not a merely theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual

ofrespondent San Juan City); 1198-1208 (Comment ofrespondent Quezon City); 1210--1215 (Comment
ofrespondent Makati City).
19
Id. at 1229-1238, Comment ofrespondents MMDA, LTO, and DOTC filed through the OSG.
20
Id. at 1238-1239.
21
Id. at 1239-1241.
22
Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 602 Phil. 64, 74 (2009) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].
Decision 13 G.R. No. 209479

and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree

conclusive in nature, as distingnished from an opinion advising what the
law would be upon a hypothetical state offacts. 23

In this case, there is a clear assertion of opposite legal claims

susceptible of judicial resolution, shown primarily by the antagonistic
assertions of power to regulate traffic in Metro Manila by respondent LGUs,
on the one hand, and by respondents MMDA, L TO, and DOTC on the other.

The conflict of legal rights is also susceptible of judicial resolution, as

the controversy could be terminated through a "specific relief that courts can
grant." 24 The reason for this is that "[i]n cases of conflict, the judicial
department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to
determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments
[of the government] and among the integral or constituent units thereof."25
The Court, therefore, not only has the power, but it has, in fact, the duty to
decide the case at bar.

The assailed Ordinances were not

enacted in violation of the LTO
Law

As previously mentioned, petlt10ners assail the validity of the

Ordinances for allegedly being contrary to existing statutes. Specifically,
petitioners contend that the Ordinances are invalid for running afoul of
Sections 29 and 62 of the LTO Law and Section 5(f) of the MMDA Law.

To reiterate Sections 29 and 62 of the LTO Law:

CHAPTER III
Operation of Motor Vehicle

ARTICLE I
License to Drive Motor Vehicles

SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver's Licenses. - Law

enforcement and peace officers duly designated by the Commissioner shall,
in apprehending any driver for violations of this Act or of any regulations
issued pursuant thereto, or of local traffic rules and regulations, confiscate
the license of the driver concerned and issue a receipt prescribed and issued
by the Commission therefor which shall authorize the driver to operate a
motor vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy-two hours from the time
and date of issue of said receipt. The period so fixed in the receipt shall not
be extended, and shall become invalid thereafter. Failure of the driver to

23 Information Technology Foundation ofthe Philippines v. Commission on Elections, 499 Phil. 281, 304-
305 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
24 Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino Ill, 850 Phil. 1168, 1188 (2019) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
25 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 157 (1936) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
Decision 14 G.R. No. 209479

settle his [or her] case within fifteen days from the date of apprehension will
cause suspension and revocation of his [or her] license.

ARTICLE III
Final Provisions

SECTION 62. No provincial board, city or municipal board or

council shall enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution in conflict
with the provisions of this Act, or prohibiting any deputy or agent of the
Commission to enforce this Act within their respective territorial
jurisdiction and the provisions of any charter to the contrary
notwithstanding. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

On the other hand, Section 5(f) of the MMDA Law provides:

SECTION 5. Functions and Powers of the Metro Manila

Development Authority. - The MMDA shall:

(f) Install and administer a single ticketing system, fix,

impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of
violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether
moving or non-moving in nature, and confiscate and
suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the
enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, the
provisions of RA 4136 and PD 1605 to the contrary
notwithstanding. For this purpose, the Authority shall
enforce all traffic laws and regulations in Metro Manila,
through its traffic operation center, and may deputize
members of the PNP, traffic enforcers of local
government units, duly licensed security guards, or
members of non-governmental organizations to whom
may be delegated certain authority, subject to such
conditions and requirements as the Authority may
impose. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

According to petitioners' theory, Section 29 of the LTO Law explicitly

vests on the LTO the power to confiscate licenses and to issue receipts for
traffic violations. 26 In addition, they assert that the assailed Ordinances render
nugatory the mandate of the MMDA to install and administer a single
ticketing system. Thus, in accordance with the principle that a valid ordinance
must not contravene a statute, 27 the assailed Ordinances are invalid as the
LGUs arrogated upon themselves the said power through the issuance of the
OVRs.

26
Rollo, p. 13, Petition.
27
See Primicias v. Municipality of Urdaneta, 182 Phil. 42, 46 ( 1979) [Per J. De Castro, En Banc].
Decision 15 G.R. No. 209479

Petitioners also add that the "variance of traffic tickets issued by the
LTO, the MMDA, and the LGUs causes confusion and conflict among the
three bodies. The traffic tickets issued by the LTO and the MMDA are not
recognized by the LGUs, and vice versa." 28 They further point out that to
allow the LGUs to still have powers to confiscate licenses would be arbitrary
and unduly oppressive to them, as they would be subjected to "double
penalty." 29 This is due to the fact that the MMDA does not recognize the
OVRs issued by the LGUs as a temporary ticket, and hence, if they get
apprehended by the MMDA after their licenses were already confiscated by
the traffic enforcers of the LGUs, they would likewise be found guilty of
"driving without license" on top of the violation they committed.

The argument is unmeritorious.

Contrary to petitioners' claim, the assailed Ordinances were not enacted

in violation of the LTO Law. As previously mentioned, the LTO Law has
undergone numerous amendments through the years via the enactment of
Executive Order Nos. 546, 1011, and 125. Executive Order Nos. 546 and 1011
were issued under the authority given the President by Presidential Decree
No. 141630 - a law - to reorganize the national government,31 while
Executive Order No. 125 itself is considered law as it was issued under the
auspices of the Freedom Constitution when the President exercised legislative
powers.

These subsequent enactments, as discussed, did not specifically grant

the LTO the power to confiscate licenses and issue receipts. This, along with
the fact that the LGC, a subsequent law, granted cities and municipalities the
power to enact ordinances which regulate traffic and the use of streets, 32 leads
the Court to rule that the assailed Ordinances were not invalidly enacted as
they were issued under the authority of a valid delegation of legislative power
through the LGC. Between the LTO and respondent LGUs, therefore, it is the
latter who have t__l-1e power to enact ordinances relating to traffic - and to
enforce the same - in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, as
respondents pointed out, the assailed Ordinances are valid as respondent
LGUs were explicitly granted by the LGC, a statute duly enacted by the
Legislature, the said power to approve the same. Respondents thus correctly
argued, and the CA consequently correctly held, that the assailed Ordinances

28 Rollo, p. 11, Petition.

29 Id.atl9.
30 Titled "Granding Ccntinuing Authority of the President of the Philippines to Reorganize the National
Government," June 9, 1978.
31 Specifically, it gave the President the power to: a) group, coordinate, consolidate, or integrate
departments, bureaus, offices, agencies, instrumentalities, and functions of the government; b) Abolish
departments, offices, agencies, or functions which may not be necessary, or create those which are
necessary, for the efficient conduct of government functions services, and activities; c) Transfer
functions, appropriations, equipment, properties, records, and personnel from one department, bureau,
office, agency, or instrumentality to another; d) Create, classify, combine, split, and abolish positions;
and e) Standardize scilaries, materials, and equipment.
32 See LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, secs. 447(5)(v-vi) and 458(5)(v-vi).
 Decision 16 G.R. No. 209479

and the common prov1s1on therein cannot be struck down for being m
violation of the LTO Law.

But while it is untenable to hold that the assailed Ordinances are invalid
for violating the LTO Law, they are nonetheless invalid for being in violation
of the MMDA Law.

History and powers of the MMDA

Recognizing the need to treat Metro Manila as a special development

and administrative region, Republic Act No. 7924, or the MMDA Law, was
enacted and the MMDA was accordingly created to provide metro-wide
services to the area, without prejudice to the autonomy of the affected LGUs. 33
The MMDA Law provided that the MMDA should provide "those services
which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or
entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to
be provided by the individual local government units comprising Metropolitan
Manila." 34 The services to be offered by the MMDA include:

(a) Development planning which includes the preparation of medium and

long-term development plans; the development, evaluation and
packaging of projects; investments programming; and coordination and
monitoring of plan, program and project implementation.

(b) Transport and traffic .management which include the formulation,

coordination, and monitoring of policies, standards, programs and
projects to rationalize the existing transport operations,
infrastructure requirements, the use of thoroughfares, and
• promotion of safe and convenient movement of persons and goods;
provision for the mass transport system and the institution of a
system to regulate road users; administration and implementation
of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services
and traffic education programs, including the institution of a single
ticketing system in Metropolitan Manila.

(c) Solid waste disposal and management which include formulation and
implementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for proper
and sanitary waste disposal. It shall likewise include the establishment
and operation of sanitary land fill and related facilities and the
implementation of other alternative programs intended to reduce, reuse
and recycle solid waste.

(d) Flood control and sewerage management which include the formulation
and implemen~ation of policies, standards, programs and projects for an
integrated [Link], drainage and sewerage system.

(e) Urban renewal, zoning, and land use planning, and shelter services
which include the formulation, adoption and implementation of policies,

33
Republic Act No. 7924 (I 995), sec. I.
34
Id. at sec. 3.
Decision 17 G.R. No. 209479

standards, rules and regulations, programs and projects to rationalize

and optimize urban land use and provide direction to urban growth and
expansion, the rehabilitation and development of slum and blighted
areas, the development of shelter and housing facilities and the
provision of necessary social services thereof.

(f) Health and sanitation, urban protection and pollution control which
include the formulation and implementation of policies, rules and
regulations, standards, programs and projects for the promotion and
safeguarding of the health and sanitation of the region and for the
enhancement of ecological balance and the prevention, control and
abatement of environmental pollution.

(g) Public safety which includes the formulation and implementation of

programs and policies and procedures to achieve public safety,
especially preparedness for preventive or rescue operations during times
of calamities and disasters such as conflagrations, earthquakes, flood
and tidal waves, and coordination and mobilization of resources and the
implementation of contingency plans for the rehabilitation and relief
operations in coordination with national agencies concerned. 35
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

As can be gleaned from the above, one of the functions assigned to the
MMDA is "transport and traffic management" which includes the
"administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations ...
including the institution of a single ticketing system in Metropolitan Manila."
In this connection, the MMDA was granted the following powers:

SECTION 5. Functions and Powers of the Metro Manila Development

Authority. - The MMDA shall:

(e) IS)hall set the policies concerning traffic in Metro

Manila, and shall coordinate and regnlate the
implementation of all programs and projects
concerning traffic management, specifically
pertaining to enforcement, engineering and education.
Upon request, it shall be extended assistance and
cooperation, including but not limited to, assignment of
personnel, by all other government agencies and offices
concerned;

(f) Install and administer a single ticketing system, fix,

impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of
violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether
moving or non-moving in nature, and confiscate and
suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the
enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, the
provisions of RA 4136 and PD 1605 to the contrary
notwithstanding. For this purpose, the Authority shall

35 Id. at sec. 3.
 Decision 18 G.R. No. 209479

enforce all traffic laws and regulations in Metro Manila,

through its traffic operation center, and may deputize
members of the PNP, traffic enforcers of local
government units, duly licensed security guards, or
members of non-governmental organizations to whom
may be delegated certain authority, subject to such
conditions and requirements as the Authority may
impose. (Emphasis, underscoring, and italics supplied)

Thus, the enactment of the MMDA Law shows a clear legislative intent
to bestow upon the MMDA both the power to set the policies concerning
traffic in Metro Manila, and the duty to coordinate and regulate the
implementation of all programs and projects concerning traffic·
management. 36 Specifically, the MMDA was given the task of installing and
administering a "single ticketing system" and to fix, impose, and collect fines
and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, and
confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the enforcement of
such traffic laws and regulations. 37 Section 5(f) of the MMDA Law
specifically mentions that it applies, "the provisions. of RA 4136 ... to the
contrary notwithstanding." Thus, as between the MMDA and the LTO, it is
the MMDA which can exercise these powers.

In response to the said mandate, the MMDA issued Resolution No. 12-
02 on January 26, 2012 where it created a Technical Working Group that was
tasked to study the uniform ticketing system and which would submit a
corresponding recommendation to the Metro Manila Council. This led to the
signing of the Joint Metro Traffic Circular No. 12-01 titled "Guidelines on the
Implementation of the Uniform Ticketing System in Metro Manila" (Joint
Circular). The Joint Circular provides:

JOINT METRO TRAFFIC CIRCULAR NO. 12-01

TO All Traffic Heads and Operatives ofLocal Government

Units ofMetro Manila, Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority, Land Transportation Office

SUBJECT: Guidelines on the Implementation of the Uniform

Ticketing System in Metro Manila

1.0 Rationale

The Land Transportation Office (LTO) issues Temporary

Operator's Permit (TOP), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
issues Traffic Violation Receipt (TVR), and LGUs issue their respective
Ordinance Violation Receipt (OVR) for traffic violations. Moreover, the
TOP, TVR, and OVRs are being issued with varying fines and penalties for
the same traffic violation, and under different procedure in apprehension,
payment of fine, and redemption of license/plate. This multiple-ticketing
system and uncoordinated implementation of traffic laws result to confusion

36
Id. at sec. 5(e).
37
Id at sec. 5(f).
Decision 19 G.R No. 209479

of the driving public and loss of money and productive hours, and if left
unattended may create chaos to the detriment of the public in general.

To address this predicament, the Metro Manila Council, by virtue of

Section 5 (f) of Republic Act No. 7924, enacted MMDA Resolution No. 12-
02 on January 26, 2012, adopting a Uniform Ticketing System within
the Metro Manila using a uniform ticket and ticketing system, aimed at
harmonizing the existing national and local laws on traffic enforcement and
for the prevention of confusion among private and public motorists.

2.0 Purpose

To prescribe the guidelines for the implementation of the Uniform

Ticketing System adopted by the Metro Manila Council under MMDA
Resolution No. 12-02, "Adopting a Uniform Ticketing System and the
Establishment of a System of Interconnectivity among Government
Instrumentalities involved in the Transport and Traffic Management
in Metro Manila".

3.0 Coverage

This Joint Circular shall cover the implementation of the Uniform

Ticketing System within the jurisdiction of the sixteen (16) cities and one
(1) municipality in Metro Manila and the Metro Manila Development
Authority (MMDA) and Land Transportation Office (LTO).

4.0 Guidelines

4.1 Uniform Ordinance Violation Receipt. - The Uniform

Ticketing System shall be implemented using a Uniform
Ticket called Uniform Ordinance Violation Receipt
(UOVR). The UOVR contains: the MMDA, LTO and 17
LGU logos; MMDA and LGU-specific serial numbers;
and common security features to avoid the use or
proliferation of fake tickets, commonly termed as
"palipad' or "talahib". The UOVR shall be recognized
by MMDA, L TO and all LGU traffic operatives as a
valid traffic citation receipt and temporary driver's
license, if issued by an LGU.

4.2 Area of Jurisdiction. - The MMDA and LGUs have

existing arrangements on the areas of jurisdiction and
this will continue to be effective.

4.3 Payment of Fines from Apprehensions. -The payment

of fines shall be made directly to the LGU for
apprehensions made within its jurisdiction and to
MMDA for apprehensions within its jurisdiction.

4.4 Harmonization of all Traffic Law, Rules, Regulations

and Ordinances and Adoption of the Uniform Metro
Manila Traffic Code. - All traffic issuances shall be
reviewed and revised for the adoption of a Uniform
Metro Manila Traffic Code.
Decision 20 G.R. No. 209479

4.5 Adoption of a Uniform Scheme of Apprehension;

Payment of Fines; Redemption of Driver's License or
License Plate; lmpoundment; and Filing of Civil,
Criminal and Administrative Cases. - There shall be
uniform scheme of apprehension, payment of fines,
redemption of driver's license or license plate,
impoundment, and filing of cases in Metro Manila.

5.0 Validity ofExisting OVR and TVR Inventories

All existing OVR and TVR inventories shall be deemed null and
void. All traffic operatives in Metro Manila shall hereafter use the UOVR.

6.0 Oversight Committee

6.1 A Joint Oversight Committee (JOC) is hereby created to

oversee the implementation of the Uniform Ticketing
System.

6.2 The JOC shall report to the Metro Manila Council and
the Metro Manila Mayors the status of the
implementation of the Uniform Ticketing System.

6.3 All Traffic Heads of the 16 cities and I municipality

of Metro Manila, representatives of MMDA and LTO
shall be members of the JOC.

6.4 The Assistant General Management for Operations of

MMDA shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.

7.0 Separability Clause

If any of the prov1s10ns of this Joint Circular is declared

unconstitutional or invalid for whatever reason, the same shall not affect the
validity of other provisions not declared unconstitutional or invalid.

8.0 Repealing Clause

The provisions of any Circular, Order, local ordinances and other

issuances, which are inconsistent with this Circular, are hereby rescinded,
repealed and/or modified accordingly.

9.0 Miscellaneous

In order to effectively carry out and achieve the goals of the Uniform
Ticketing System, the MMDA Chairman is hereby authorized to issue
further Guidelines as may be necessary in its implementation.

10.0 Effectivity

This Circular shall take effect immediately upon signing.

Under the Joint Circular, the Uniform Ticketing System shall be

implemented within the 16 cities and one municipality in Metro Manila.
Through the Uniform Ticketing System, traffic violators shall be issued a
Decision 21 G.R. No. 209479

UOVR which shall be recognized by the J\.1:MDA, the L TO and all LGU traffic
operatives as a valid traffic citation receipt and temporary driver's license. 38

Respondents Cities of Caloocan,39 Mandaluyong, 40 Navotas, 41

[Link],42 Quezon, 43 and Valenzuela44 question the validity of the Joint
Circular because the MMDA supposedly does not have legislative power, as
held in the cases of Bel-Air and Garin. Respondent City of Manila adds that
"the MMDA cannot legally enact an ordinance imposing a single ticketing
system within Metro Manila for its function according to the Supreme Court
is only [a]dministrative in nature." 45 Respondents Cities of Caloocan46 and
Taguig47 further argue that the implementation of the single ticketing system
subject of MMDA Resolution No. 12-02 and the Joint Circular "must be
authorized by a valid law, or ordinance, or regulation arising from a legitimate
source" for it to be valid. Respondent [Link] City additionally avers that
the MMDA was not created as a political unit - and was instead created as a
mere development authority - hence it does not possess the power to enact
an "ordinance" to provide for a single ticketing system. 48

It should be noted that on June 15, 2021, the Court asked the parties in
this case to manifest any supervening events or any changes in positions they
may have taken in this case. In response, all of the parties which responded
expressed that there have been no changes in the positions they have taken in
this case, although some of the LGUs which responded, namely the cities of
Mandaluyong, 49 San Juan, 50 Manila,51 Taguig, 52 Pasig, 53 and Parafi.aque54
confirmed that they have been implementing the single ticketing system since
2012 in accordance with Resolution No. 12-02 and the Joint Circular. The
cities of San Juan, Pasig, [Link], and Taguig noted, however, that while
they have been implementing the single ticketing system, the fines, penalties,
and surcharges continuously differ because the LGUs are still implementing
their local ordinances in the exercise of their local autonomy.

Meanwhile, Caloocan City55 manifested that it still follows its own

traffic ordinance and that it issues its own OVR to persons or entities found to

38 Joint Metro Traffic Circular No. 12-01, sec. 4.1

39 Rollo, pp. 11 JO-I I 13, Comment ofrespondent Caloocan City.
40 Id. at 1301, Comment of respondent City ofMandaluyong.
41 Id. a, 1332, Compliance and Comment ofrespondent Navotas City.
42 Id. at 1175:-1176, Comment ofrespondent Parafiaque City.
43 Id. at 1203, Comment ofrespor:;dent Quezon City.
44 Id. at 1351, Comment and/or Opposition ofrespcndent Valenzuela City.
45 Id. at 1141, Comment of respondent City of Manila.
46 Id. at 1110, Commer:ct ofrespondent Caloocan City.
47 Id. at 1151-153, Comment ofrespondent Taguig City.
48 Id. at 1175, Comment ofrespondent Parai\aque City.
49 Id. at 1503-1510, Manifestation and Compliance ofrespondent City ofMandaluyong.
50 Id. at 1515-1524, Manifestation and Compliance of respondent San Juan City.
51 Id. at 1526-1530, Compliance ofrespondent City of Manila.
52 Id. at 1567-1576, Manifestation and Compliance ofrespondent Taguig City.
53 Id. at 1671-1675, Manifestation and Compliance ofrespondent Pasig City
54 id. at 1682-1690, Compliance ofrespondent Parai\aque City.
55 Id. at 1577-1588, Compliance of respondent Caloocan City.
 ..
Decision 22 G.R. No. 209479

have violated any provision of the ordinance. 56 Caloocan City also reiterated
its positions that:

a) Ordinance No. 0391 s[.] 2005 is not in contravention with Sec. 5(f) of
RA 7924 and Secs. 29 & 62 of RA 4136 citing the provision on Local
Autonomy stated in the Local Government Code and the valid
delegation of legislative authority by Congress to City Councils;

b) License to operate a motor vehicle is not a right but a mere privilege

which may be regulated or withheld in the exercise of police power;

c) As to the issue that the Ordinance is in conflict with the RA 7924

otherwise known as 'AN ACT CREATING METROPOLITAN
MANIL[A] DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ITS POWERS AND
FUNCTIONS, PROVIDING FUNDING THEREFOR AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES' we find light in the ruling laid down in the cases
of MMDA versus Bel-Air Village Association (328 SCRA 836) and
MMDA versus Dante 0. Garin (G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005)
wherein the Supreme Court ruled that MMDA functions are all
administrative in nature. [Republic Act No.] 7924 does not grant
MMDA with police nor legislative power.

Thus, MMDA may only implement traffic rules through a valid law,
ordinance or regulation arising from a legitimate source. In Caloocan
City, the valid law is the New Traffic Management Code of Caloocan
(Ordinance No. 0391 s. 2005)[.] 57

On the other hand, respondents MMDA, LTO, and DOTC, through the
OSG, merely manifested that the single ticketing system had been in place
since 2012. 58

The Court now rules on the issue of the validity of the local ordinances
vis-a-vis the MMDA Law.

Respondent LGUs' reliance on Bel-Air is misplaced, as the facts and

issues presented therein do not fall squarely with the case at bar. In Bel-Air,
the MMDA sought to open Neptune Street, a private road inside Bel-Air
Village, to public vehicular traffic believing that it had the authority to do so
under the MMDA Law. The MMDA believed that it had the power to open
Neptune Street because the MMDA Law granted it the authority to
"rationalize the use of roads and/or thoroughfares for the safe and convenient
movement of persons." 59

The Court held that the MMDA did not have the power to open Neptune
street to the public as it did not possess police power nor legislative powers.
Without an enabling ordinance enacted by Makati City, the Court held that

56
Id. at 1578.
57
Id. at 1579-1580.
58
Id. at 1692-1696, Compliance ofrespondents MMDA, LTO, and DOTC, filed through the OSG.
59
MMDA v. Bel-Air, supra note 17, at 610. See also Republic Act No. 7924 (1995), sec. 3(b).
Decision 23 G.R. No. 209479

the MMDA's attempt to open Neptune Street to the public was invalid. The
Court opined that "[t]here is no syllable in R.A. No. 7924 that grants the
MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Even the Metro Manila
Council has not been delegated any legislative power." 60

It must be pointed out, however, that it was necessary for the Court in
Bel-Air to delve into whether the MMDA possesses police power or
legislative power as the MMDA attempted to impose burdens on private
property in the said case. It bears stressing that police power is the "power of
the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of
liberty and property." 61 Stated differently, "in the exercise of police power, a
property right is impaired by regulation, or the use of property is merely
prohibited, regulated or restricted to promote public welfare." 62 Involving as
it did the imposition of burdens or limitations on the use of private property,
the Court in Bel-Air needed to answer - and it did, in the negative - the
question of whether the MMDA had police power, in light of the absence of
a law or ordinance authorizing it to open a private road to the public.

The same factual circumstances, however, do not apply in the present

case.

The question involved in this case is merely who between the MMDA
and the LGUs has the right (1) to issue receipts for traffic violations and (2)
to confiscate the licenses of the erring drivers. Unlike in the case of Bel-Air,
there is no potential burden or limitation to be imposed on any private
property. As held in the case of Garin, a case cited by respondent LGUs
themselves, "a license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege that the state
may withhold in the exercise of its police power." 63 If at all, the "burden" is
imposed on the licensees themselves like herein petitioners - who are at risk
of having their licenses confiscated - who filed this case not to question the
basis for confiscating their licenses per se, but only sought to clarify which
government entity is empowered under the law to do so.

Respondents LGUs' reliance on the Court's pronouncement in Garin

that the MMDA's exercise of"the power to confiscate and suspend or revoke
driver's licenses without need of any other legislative enactment ... is an
unauthorized exercise of police power" 64 is also untenable as a closer reading
of the ruling in Garin reveals that this pronouncement was merely obiter
dictum. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay, 65 the Court explained an
obiter dictum in this wise:

60 MMDA v. Bel-Air, id. at 607.

61 Didipio Earth-Savers Multi-Purpose Association v. Gozun, 520 Phil. 457, 476 (2006) [Per J. Chico-
Nazario, First Division]. •
62 Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v. Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, 722
Phil. 538,576 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].
63 MMDA v. Garin, supra note 14, at 89.
64
Id. at 94. Italics supplied.
65 678 Phil. 879(2011) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
 Decision 24 G.R. No. 209479

An obiter dictum has been defined as an opinion expressed by a

court upon some question of law that is not necessary in the determination
of the case before the court. It is a remark made, or opinion expressed, by a
judge, in his [or her] decision upon a cause by the way, that is, incidentally
or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before him [or her], or
upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or
introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument. It does not
embody the resolution or determination of the court, and is made without
argument, or full consideration of the point. It lacks the force of an
adjudication, being a mere expression of an opinion with no binding force
for purposes of res judicata. 66 (Italics in the original)

In Garin, a traffic violation receipt was issued by the MMDA to Dante

0. Garin (Garin), and his driver's license was confiscated, for illegally
parking at a street in the City of Manila. Garin wrote a letter to the MMDA
requesting the return of his license, but his request went unheeded. Garin thus
filed a complaint "contending that, in the absence of any implementing rules
and regulations, Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 grants the MMDA unbridled
discretion to deprive erring motorists of their licenses, pre-empting a judicial
determination of the validity of the deprivation, thereby violating the due
process clause of the Constitution." 67 Garin further contended that "the
provision violates the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of
legislative authority, allowing as it does the MMDA to fix and impose
unspecified - and therefore unlimited - fines and other penalties on erring·
motorists." 68 Branch 60, Regional Trial Court of Parafiaque ruled that "[t]he
summary confiscation of a driver's license without first giving the driver an
opportunity to be heard; depriving him of a property right (driver's license)
without [due process] cannot be justified by any legislation (and is) hence
unconstitutional." 69

Thus, the issue presented before the Court in Garin was a question of
due process: that is, at a time when there were as yet no implementing rules
and regulations issued by the MMDA, whether a driver's license may be
summarily confiscated without a judicial proceeding instituted for the
purpose. In this regard, it is significant to note that the Court in Garin
recognized that subsequent events had already made the issue moot and
academic:

Meanwhile, on 12 August 2004, the MMDA, through its Chairman

Bayani Fernando, implemented Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of
2004, outlining the procedures for the use of the Metropolitan Traffic Ticket
(MTT) scheme. Under the circular, erring motorists are issued an MTT,
which can be paid at any Metrobank branch. Traffic enforcers may no
longer confiscate drivers' licenses as a matter of course in cases of traffic
violations. All motorists with unredeemed TVRs were given seven days
from the date of implementation of the new system to pay their fines and
redeem their license or vehicle plates.
66
Id. at 913-914.
67
MMDA v. Garin, supra note 14, at 86.
68
Id.
69
Id. at 88.
Decision 25 G.R. No. 209479

It would seem, therefore, that insofar as the absence of a prima facie

case to enjoin the petitioner from confiscating drivers' licenses is
concerned, recent events have overtaken the Court's need to decide this
case, which has been rendered moot and academic by the
implementation of Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 2004. 70
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Despite this recognition, the Court unfortunately still went on to rule

that the :M:MDA possesses neither police power nor legislative power. Relying
on the case of Bel-Air, the Court in Garin ruled that the :M:MDA may only
enforce traffic laws or ordinances passed by LGUs, but may not itself enact
such rules:

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-botmd-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.

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 agencies, people's
organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector,
which may enforce, but not enact, ordinances. 71 (Italics in the original)

The pronouncement of the Court relied upon by respondent LGUs is,

therefore, obiter dictum as the Court decided the case (1) when the issue was
not presented by the parties, as shown above, and (2) the issue, if at all raised,
had become fanctus officio and therefore moot, in violation of the rule that
courts should decide actual cases and controversies, and not to render advisory
opinions. 72

The above interpretation of the import of the cases of Bel-Air and Garin
is consistent with the Court En Bane's recent ruling in Pantaleon v. MMDA 73
(Pantaleon), which dealt with the :M:MDA's implementation of the number
coding scheme. According to Pantaleon:

Bel Air, Viron and Trackworks involved the outright deprivation of

private property under the pretext of traffic regulation and promotion of safe
and convenient movement of motorists. On the other hand, Garin was
mooted by supervening events.

In the present case, there is no outright deprivation of property but

merely a restriction [- through the number coding scheme] in the operation

70
Id. at 88-89.
71
Id. at 95.
72 See Ticzon v. Video Post Manila, 389 Phil. 20, 23 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
73 890 Phil. 453 (2020) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
 Decision 26 G.R. No. 209479

of public utility buses along the major roads of Metro Manila through the
number coding scheme. 74

In any event, even if the pronouncements in Garin are to be considered

binding - and hence, that the principle of stare decisis applies - the Court
now holds that the same are nevertheless incorrect and must perforce be
abandoned.

It is well-settled that the principle of stare decisis is not absolute. It is

likewise not a principle that mandates blind adherence to precedents. 75 A
doctrine or rule laid down, which has been followed for years, no matter how
sound it may be, if found to be contrary to law, must be abandoned. 76 In
Carpio-Morales v. Court ofAppeals,11 for instance, the Court did not hesitate
to abandon the "condonation doctrine" despite its applicability having been
reaffirmed by the Court numerous times in the five decades prior to its
abandonment, especially after finding that the doctrine had no statutory
anchor. In the said case, the Court explained:

Therefore, the ultimate analysis is on whether or not the condonation

doctrine, as espoused in Pascual, and carried over in numerous cases after,
can be held up against prevailing legal norms. Note that the doctrine of
stare decisis does not preclude this Court from revisiting existing
doctrine. As adjudged in the case of Belgica, the stare decisis rule should
not operate when there are powerful countervailing considerations against
its application. In other words, stare decisis becomes an intractable rule only
when circumstances exist to preclude reversal of standing precedent. As the
Ombudsman correctly points out, jurisprudence, after all, is not a rigid, a
temporal abstraction; it is an organic creature that develops and devolves
along with the society within which it thrives. In the words of a recent US
Supreme Court Decision, "[w]hat we can decide, we can undecide." 78
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Further, the principle of stare decisis does not and should not apply
when there is conflict between the precedent and the law. 79 The duty of this
Court is to forsake and abandon any doctrine or rule found to be in
violation of the law in force. 80

Thus, assuming that Garin is a valid precedent, the same must now be
abandoned for it was error to apply the principles enunciated in Bel-Air therein
when, as illustrated, the factual circumstances were different. To reiterate,
Bel-Air dealt with the imposition of burdens and limitations on private
property - which concededly the MMDA could not do - whereas Garin
dealt with the general power of the MMDA regarding traffic management in

74
Id. at 484.
75
Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor, 79 Phil. 249, 257 (I 947) [Per J. Padilla, First Division].
76
Id.
77
772 Phil. 672 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
78
Id. at 759-760.
79
Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor, supra note 75.
'° Id.
Decision 27 G.R. No. 209479

Metro Manila. The actions of the MMDA subject of Garin were different from
that in Bel-Air, in that traffic management and enforcement of traffic rules are
explicitly within the domain of the MMDA's powers as laid down in the
MMDALaw.

That the MMDA has the power to set policies, fix, and impose
penalties, and to enforce the same is fully supported by the text of the MMDA
Law, which is quoted anew for emphasis:

SECTION 3. Scope of MMDA Services. - Metro-wide services

under the jurisdiction of the MMDA are those services which have metro-
wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge
expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided
by the individual local govermnent units (LGUs) comprising Metropolitan
Manila. These services shall include:

(a) Development planning which includes the preparation of

medium and long-term development plans; the
development, evaluation and packaging of projects;
investments programming; and coordination and
monitoring of plan, program and project
implementation.

(b) Transport and traffic management which include the

formulation, coordination, and monitoring of policies,
standards, programs and projects to rationalize the
existing transport operations, infrastructure
requirements, the use of thoroughfares, and promotion of
safe and convenient movement of persons and goods;
provision for .the mass transport system and the
institution cif a system to regulate road users;
administration and implementation of all traffic
enforcement operations, traffic engineering services
and traffic education programs, including the
institution of a single ticketing system in
Metropolitan Manila.

SECTION 5. Functions and Powers of the Metro Manila

Development Authority. - The MMDA shall:

(e) IS)et the policies concerning traffic in Metro Manila,

and shall coordinate and regulate the implementation
of all programs and projects concerning traffic
management, specifically pertaining to enforcement,
engineering and education. Upon request, it shall be
extended assistance and cooperation, including but not
limited to, assignment of personnel, by all other
government agencies and offices concerned;
 Decision 28 G.R. No. 209479

(f) Install and administer a single ticketing system, [IX,

impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of
violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether
moving or non-moving in nature, and confiscate and
suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the enforcement
ofsuch traffic laws and regulations, the provisions of
RA 4136 and PD 1605 to the contrary notwithstanding.
For this purpose, the Authority shall enforce all traffic
laws and regulations in Metro Manila, through its traffic
operation center, and may deputize members of the
PNP, traffic enforcers of local government units, duly
licensed security guards, or members of non-
governmental organizations to whom may be delegated
certain authority, subject to such conditions and
requirements as the Authority may impose; (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)

From the letter of the statute alone, the legislative intent is already clear
that the MMDA should be the central policymaking body in Metro Manila on
matters relating to traffic management, and the entity charged with the
enforcement of the same policies. The law is replete with provisions granting
the MMDA rule-making powers, such as the power to "formulate policies,
standards, and programs" and "fix, impose, and collect fines and penalties for
all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations." The law is thus clear
and unambiguous. As the Court held in Pantaleon, "Republic Act No. 7924
clearly confers upon the MMDA, through the Metro Manila Council, the
power to issue regulations that provide for a system to regulate traffic in the
major thoroughfares of Metro Manila for the safety and convenience of the
public." 81

The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words

and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be
determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean
exactly what it says. 82 Verba legis non est recedendum, or, from the words of
a statute there should be no departure. 83 The rule is derived from the
maxim index animo sermo est- meaning, speech is the index of intention -
- which rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the
legislature in a statute correctly express its intent by the use of such words as
are found in the statute. 84 Bearing in mind that the first and fundamental duty
of the Court is to apply the law, 85 then the Court must thus see to it that the
mandate of the clear letter of the law is obeyed. 86

81
Pantaleon v. MMDA, supra note 73, at 485.
82
Baranda v. Gustilo, 248 Phil. 205,219 (1988) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division].
83
Social Security Commission v. Fcrvila, 662 Phil. 25, 39(2011) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
84
Id.
85
See Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 378 Phil. I 0, 22 (I 999) [Per J.
Melo, En Banc].
86
Id., citing Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Opie, 222 Phil. 570 (1985) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En
Banc].
Decision 29 G.R. No. 209479

Beyond the letter of the MMDA Law, the legislative deliberations also
reveal the intent to lodge in the MMDA all the rule-making powers relative to
traffic management in Metro Manila. The deliberations of the Committee on
Local Government on House Bill No. 14170/11116, the progenitor of the
MMDA Law, reveal that indeed the intent of the legislature was for the
MMDA to have rule-making powers in relation to traffic management in
Metro Manila:

COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

(October 27, I 994)

THE CHAIRMAN (Feliciano M. Belmonte, Jr.)[:] Ang point kasi

ni Mayor Mathay is that, the number one problem of Metro Manila that is
toothless to address the number one problem of the metropolis, then it might
be perneived as being toothless in other areas as well. I think that is what
the Mayor is saying here, because he was quite adamant about this single
ticketing system eh. So we see that it is not just a single ticketing system,
but just a whole lot of other provisions here. 87

THE CHAIRMAN[:] Mayor Mathay has recommended the addition

of two sub-sections here - 5-e and 5-f. 5-e - do you have a copy there?
Pakibasa mo nga iyong tungkol sa traffic.

MR. CAYTON[:] Ito ba iyong "install and administer"?

THE CHAIRMAN[:] Yes. Yes, oo.

MR. CAYTON[:] Have you read that?

THE CHAIRMAN[:] What do you think of that? What is the

rationale for that?

MR. CAYTON: I think he just simply wants to make it clear that it

will be the MMDA that will issue the laws, rules, and regulations
throughout Metro Manila as a change from today's situation that ...

THE CHAIRMAN: Which is ... ?

MR. CAYTON[:] ... Well, it is not coordinated in the sense that

rules and regulations and ordinances come in different forms. There is no
one body that will adopt a singular system of...

THE CHAIRMAN[:] So, you are in fact in favor of that?

87 Rollo, p. 1232, Comment of respondents MMDA, LTO, and DOTC, filed through the OSG, citing
Deliberations of the Committee on Local Government, House of Representatives, Congress of the
Philippines, November I 0, 1993.
Decision 30 G.R. No. 209479

MR. CAYTON[:] Sir- I am.

THE CHAIRMAN[:] You're in favor?

MR. CAYTON[:] Yes, sir.

HON. BUNYE[:] Mr. Chairman, actually most of the amendments

are clarificatory in nature. They did not change the sense of the provisions
to which they relate. They nearly clarified and made very clear exactly what
the MMDA can do because there were some vagueness in the original text.
The new provisions that is placed here is on page 4, "d) coordinate and
monitor the implementation of such plan,["] "e) with respect to traffic.["]
Traffic is the number 1 problem in MMDA, in the Metro Manila region
today. Your Honor, and one of the reasons is everybody is a driver here
and nobody is really calling the shots. So, here we have this new
provisions {sic) "e" with respect to the power of the MMDA concerning
traffic, and secondly. the installation and administration of a single
ticketing system. You will find, Your Honor, that the different
component LGUs have their own rules and respective penalties with
respect to ticketing and it creates havoc among those who are subject
to these rules. So these are the two new items that have been placed. All
the others are really by way of clarifying the authority of the MMA. For
instance, where the MMA originally, where the original text merely says to
set down policies, we have made it clear here that it can also lay down
rules and regulations to implement those policies. I think that is
necessary, otherwise, we are going to perpetuate the ambiguities that exist
now with respect to the powers of the present MMA. So those are the
provisions, Your Honor. This is not yet a perfect document, but if we ever
wanted to come out in this session, it should come out of this committee
already.

THE CHAIRMAN[:] Okay, on this particular paragraph, letter "f',

on "confiscate and suspend or revoke driver's licenses in the enforcement
of traffic laws and regulations ... ", I think, Mr. Cayton, you had a Supreme
Court case where a case was filed against the MMA, where questioning the
powers, for the MMA to confiscate licenses.

HON. BELMONTE[:] Well, that may very well be so, Your Honor,
because it's not clear in the present laws. We want to clarify it now, it will
be put in a law, and the Supreme Court will have to yield to this law.
Right now[,] we don't know what the powers of the MMA are, and that's a
source of our problems.

THE CHAIR.t\1:AN[:] Okay, I think this was already studied by the

technical group. There would be no legal impediment, Mr. Cayton, in
case we give the MMDA the power to confiscate, revoke licenses of
drivers.

MR. CAYTON[:] We don't foresee any such problem, Mr.

Chairman. In fact, this will only give life to what has already been in1plied
under P.D .. 1605, where even the Justice Department opined that in the
Decision 31 G.R. No. 209479

Metro Manila Authority, it would be the MMC then who should implement
such laws within this region. And under that same 'P.D. delineated the
powers of the MMC then and the LTO, LTO being on the national level and
as on the ... only on the Metropolitan region.

THE CHAIRMAN[:] Because it says here, "shall set up rules and

regulations on fines and penalties".

MR. CAYTON[:] Mr. Chairman, because of the ambiguity as the

Chairman of this committee said, it was unclear whether the MMA, then
MMC could really undertake such rules and regulations. This became
more apparent after 1986 when there was more power given to the local
units, and because of the ambiguity, there was no such central system
of coordination then existing. It was rather difficult to impose a uniform
system throughout the region, this bill is trying to correct.

THE CHAIRMAN[:] Okay, is there objection on this amendment?

HON. LOPEZ[:] Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's an objection.

In fact[,] I ask that we now go to the previous question. There is a pending
motion for approving this bill which I seconded.

THE CHAIRMAN[:] Yeah, but we have to go over the suggested

revision. I think that this was already approved before, but it was
reconsidered in view that there are proposals, setup, to make the MMA
stronger. Okay, so if there is no objection on paragraph "f' ... And then next
is paragraph "b", under Section 6. It shall approve metro-wide plans,
programs and projects and issue ordinances or resolutions deem (sic) by the
MMDA to carry out the purposes of this act. Do you have the powers? Does
the MlVlDA ... because that takes to form a local government unit, a political
subdivision.

HON. BELMONTE[:] Yes, I believe so, Your Honor. When we say

that it has the policies, it's very clear that those policies must be followed.
Otherwise, what's the use of empowering it to come out with policies. Now,
the policies maybe in the form of a resolution or it maybe in the form of an
ordinance. The term "ordinance" in this case really gives it more teeth, Your
Honor. Otherwise we are going to see a situation where you have the power
to adopt the policy but you cannot really make it stick as in the case now,
and I think here is Chairman Bunye. I think he will agree that is, the case
now. You've got the power to set a policy, the body wants to follow your
policy, then we say let's call it an ordinance and see if they will not follow
it.

THE CHAIRMAN[:] That's very nice, I like that. However, there is

a constitutional impediment. You are making MMDA as a political
subdivision. The creation of the MMDA would be subject to a plebiscite.
That is what I'm trying to avoid. I've been trying to avoid this kind of
predicament. Under the Constitution, it states "ifit is a political subdivision,
once it is created it has to be subject to a plebiscite. I'm trying to make this
as administrative. That's why we place the Chairman as a cabinet rank.
Decision 32 G.R. No. 209479

HON. BELMONTE[:] All right, Mr. Chairman, okay what you are
saying there is ...

THE CHAIRMAN[:] In setting up ordinances, is a political

exercise. Believe me.

HON. LOPEZ[:] Mr. Chairman, it can be changed into issuances of

rules and regulations. That would be ... its shall also be enforced ...

HON. BELMONTE[:] Okay, I will. ..

HON. LOPEZ: And you can also say that violation of such rule, you
impose a sanction. But you know, ordinance has a different legal
connotation.

HON. BELMONTE[:] All right, I defer to that opinion, Your Honor.

THE CHAIRMAN[:] So, instead of ordinances, say rules and

regulations.

HON. BELMONTE[:] Or resolutions. Actually, they are actually

considering resolutions now.

THE CHAIRMAN[: ]Rules and resolution.

HON. BELMONTE[:] Rules and regulations and resolutions. 88

(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

From the foregoing, it is indisputable that the legislative intent was to

lodge in the MMDA all the rule-making powers relative to traffic
management in Metro Manila.

This grant of rule-making powers to administrative agencies is not

novel. The Court has long recognized that due to the growing complexity of
human activities, some delegation of legislative power in the form of
administrative rule-making is not just allowable, but is even necessary. As
early as 1988, in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration, 89 the Court already made the following
observations:

The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the

three major powers of the Government but is especially important in the
case of the legislative power because of the many instances when its
delegation is permitted. The occasions are rare when executive or judicial
powers have to be delegated by the authorities to which they legally pertain.
In the case of the legislative power, however, such occasions have
become more and more frequent, if not necessary. This had led to the

88
Id. at 1233-1237.
89
248 Phil. 762 (1988) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
Decision 33 G.R. No. 209479

observation that the delegation of legislative power has become the rule
and its non-delegation the exception.

The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government

and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad
problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its
activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the
legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend. Specialization
even in legislation has become necessary. To many of the problems
attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not have the
competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say,
specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its
delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned
to them.

The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in

general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the
proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar
problems, the national legislature has found it more and more
necessary to entrust to. administrative agencies the authority to issue
rules to carrv out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the
"power of subordinate legislation."

With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad

policies laid down in a statute by "filling in" the details which the
Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. This
is effected by their promulgation of what are known as supplementary
regulations, such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of
Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations have the force and effect
oflaw. 90 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

For the grant of rule-making powers to be constitutional, jurisprudence

provides that the delegation must be complete, and there is a standard laid
down by which the administrative agency concerned determines the metes and
bounds of it powers. In Edu v. Ericta, 91 the Court said:

To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard,

which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters
of principle an.d lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of
complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines
legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the
public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the
legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative
purpose may be carried out. 92

The standards set for subordinate legislation in the exercise of rule-

making authority by an administrative agency are necessarily broad and
highly abstract. 93

90 Id. at 772-773.
91 146 Phil. 469 (1970) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
92 Id. at 486.
93 See Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 236 Phil. 768, 780 (1987) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc].
Decision 34 G.R. No. 209479

A review of jurisprudence reveals that the Court has found the

following, despite being broad principles, to be sufficient standards to
constitute a valid delegation of legislative power: "the standardization and
regulation of medical education," 94 "safe transit upon the roads," 95 "public
welfare,"% "interest of law and order," 97 "public interest," 98 "public
convenience and welfare," 99 and "promote simplicity, economy and
efficiency." 100

In the present case, the Court finds the standard of efficiency and
effectiveness in the delivery of metro-wide services found in Section 1101 of
the MMDA Law as a sufficient standard to constitute a valid delegation.

Thus, despite the power granted by Sections 447(5)(v-vi) and 458(5)(v-

vi) of the LGC to the Sangguniang Bayan of the municipalities and the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of the cities, respectively, to "[a]pprove ordinances
... to ... (v) [r]egulate the use of streets ... [and] (vi) [r]egulate traffic on all
streets and bridges," this power does not exist for the cities and the lone
municipality in Metro Manila because of Sections 5(e) and (f) of the MMDA
Law.

The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that Sections 5(e) and 5(£) of

the MMDA Law have primacy over Sections 447(5)(v-vi) and 458(5)(v-vi) of
the LGC in that the latter provisions empower the cities and the lone
municipality in Metro Manila to regulate traffic only to the extent that they do
not conflict with the regulations issued by the MMDA. From the foregoing,
the Court thus construes Sections S(e) and S(f) of the MMDA Law, being
the later expression of legislative will, as partially impliedly modifying the
aforementioned sections of the LGC.

94
Id. at 781.
95
Edu v. Ericta, supra note 91, at 486.
96
Municipality of Cardona v. Municipality ofBinangonan, 36 Phil. 547,548 (1917) [Per J. Moreland, En
Banc].
97
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660, 702 (I 919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
98
Peoplev. Rosenthal, 68 Phil. 328, 341-342 (1939) [Per J. Laurel, First Division].
99
Cala!ang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726, 733 (I 940) [Per J. Laurel, First Division].
10
101
° Cervantes v. Auditor General, 91 Phil. 359,364 (1952) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
Republic Act No. 7924 (1995), sec. 1 provides:
SECTION I. Declaration of Policy. ~ It is hereby declared to be the policy of
the State to treat Metropolitan Manila as a special development and administrative
region and certain basic services affecting or involving Metro Manila as metro-wide
services more efficiently and effectively planned, supervised and coordinated QY.j!
development authority as created herein, without prejudice to the autonomy of the
affected local government units.
Pursuant to this policy, Metropolitan Manila, as a public corporation created under
Presidential Decree No. 824, embracing the cities of Caloocan, Manila, Mandaluyong,
Makati, Pasay, Pasig, Quezon, and Muntinlupa, and the municipalities of Las Pifias,
Malabon, Marikina, Navotas, Parafiaque, Pateros, San Juan, [Taguig], and Valenzuela, is
hereby constituted into a special development and administrative region subject to direct
supervision of the President of the Philippines.
Decision 35 G.R. No. 209479

Invalidity of the common provision

in the assailed Ordinances for being
contrary to existing law

The Court does not lose sight of the fact that the MMDA Law created
the MMDA "without prejudice to the autonomy of the affected local
government units." 102 It is clear from the same law, however, that the MMDA
shall perform its functions "without diminution of the autonomy of the local
government units concerning purely local matters." 103 And, in this regard,
the Court observes that the legislature, in the exercise of its wisdom, deemed
traffic management as a matter that transcends local political boundaries, 104
thereby taking the same out of the matters over which the LGUs in Metro
Manila have exclusive authority.

All things considered, the Court hereby abandons the pronouncements

in Garin, and so holds that the MMDA possesses rule-making powers with
regard specifically to traffic management in Metro Manila. To be clear, the
Court maintains that Bel-Air was correct, in that the MMDA does not exercise
police power or legislative power, unlike LGUs which are given ordinance
powers by the LGC under its relevant sections. The Court only clarifies in this
case that, as an exception therein, the MMDA has the primary rule-making
powers relating to traffic management in Metro Manila because Sections
5(e) and (f) of the MMDA Law specifically grant it such powers. The power
of the LGUs to regulate the streets are valid only insofar as they pertain to
"purely local matters" such as, but are not limited to, determination of one-
way streets, regulation of alleys and inner streets, prohibiting the putting up
of encroachments and obstacles, and authorizing the removal of such
encroachments, etc. And even as that power continues to inhere in the LGUs,
that power is circumscribed and limited by the regulations that may be issued
bytheMMDA.

Furthermore, the Court holds that the MMDA has exclusive authority
to enforce traffic laws, rules and regulations, and declares that the LGUs in
Metro Maniila may participate in such functions only when their traffic
enforcers are deputized by the MMDA, in consonance with Section 5(f)
of the MMDA Law. That this should be the relationship between the MMDA
and the LGUs is further confirmed by the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the M11IDA Law. 105 Section 20 of which provides:

SECTION 20. Linkage with DOTC and DPWH on Transport and

Traffic. - The Authority shall undertake transport and traffic
management and enforcement operation in Metropolitan Manila in
coordination with the Department of Transportation and Communications.
It shall formulate a uniform set of rules and regulations for traffic in

102 Id.
103 Id. at sec. 2. Emphasis supplied.
i0 4 Id. at sec. 3, in relation to sec. 3(b).
105 Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 7924. The Law Creating The Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority, May 9, 1996.
Decision 36 G.R. No. 209479

Metropolitan [M]anila and establish any regulation thereof, in

coordination with DOTC and DPWH and in consultation with all other
agencies concerned.

H shall deputize LGU traffic enforcers, duly licensed security

guards, members of the Philippine National Police and non-
governmental organizations and personnel of national agencies
concerned to implement a single ticketing system.

The Authority shall likewise formulate standards for route capacity

and volume of motor vehicles for main thoroughfares.

The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board of the

DOTC shall evaluate, approve and [issue] franchise applications using the
standards on route measured capacity, and prescribe and regulate
transportation routes and areas of operation of public land transportation of
public land transportation services, pursuant to the Metro Manila transport
plan.

The Land Transportation Office of the DOTC shall be responsible

for the registration of motor vehicles aod licensing of drivers, conductors
and dealers.

The DPWH may effect the gradual traosfer of the operation,

maintenaoce and improvement of the Traffic Engineering Center facilities
to the Authority, subject to mutual agreement of the parties concerned.
(Emphasis aod underscoring supplied)

Well-established is the rule that for an ordinance to be valid, the

following requisites must be met: the ordinance (i) must not contravene the
Constitution or any statute; (ii) must not be unfair or oppressive; (iii) must not
be partial or discriminatory; (iv) must not prohibit, but may regulate trade; (v)
must be general and consistent with public policy; and (vi) must not be
unreasonable. 106

Having established that the common prov1s10n of the assailed

Ordinances is inconsistent with the MMDA Law, the said provision
accordingly fails to hurdle the test as laid down above. Consequently, the
common provision found in each of the Ordinances of the LGUs in Metro
Manila shall unavoidably be considered stricken off and deemed inoperative.

While the Court recognizes that LGUs possess delegated legislative

powers, and thus may enact regulations to promote the general welfare of the
people, 107 the fact remains that as agents of the State, it is incumbent upon
them to act in conformity to the will of their principal. 108 Necessarily,

106
See Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Atienza, Jr., 568 Phil. 658, 699-700 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First
Division].
107
See LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, sec. 16,
108
City ofBatangas v. Philippine Sheil Petroleum Corporation, 8 IO Phil. 566, 584 (2017) [Per.I. Caguioa,
'"" DM,,oo]. ~
Decision 37 G.R. No. 209479

therefore, ordinances enacted pursuant to the general welfare clause of the

LGC may not subvert the State's will by contradicting national statutes. 109 As
held by the Court in the case of Magtajas v. Pryce Properties: 110

The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not

contravene a statute is obvious. Municipal governments are only agents of
the national government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative
powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body.
The delegate cannot be superior to the principa.1 or exercise powers higher
than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government
units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their
power in the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the
statute.

Municipal corporations owe their ongm to, and

derive their powers and rights wholly from the legislature. It
breathes into them the breath of life, without which they
cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. As it may
destroy, it may abridge and control. Unless there is some
constitutional limitation on the right, the legislature might,
by a single act, and if we can suppose it capable of so great
a folly arid so great a wrong, sweep from existence all of the
municipa.1 corporations in the State, and the corporation
could not prevent it. We know of no limitation on the right
so far as to the corporation themselves are concerned. They
are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature.

This basic relationship between the nationa.1 legislature and the loca.1
government units has not been enfeebled by the new provisions in the
Constitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy. Without meaning
to detract from_that policy, we here confirm that Congress retains control of
the loca.1 government units although in significantly reduced degree now
than under our previous Constitutions. The power to create still includes the
power to destroy. The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or
reca.11. True, there are certain notable innovations in the Constitution, like
the direct conferment on the loca.1 government units of the power to tax,
which cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large, however,
the national legislature is still the principal of the local government units,
which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it. 111 (Citations omitted)

It bears stressing that the policy of ensuring the autonomy of local

governments was not intended to create an imperium in imperio and install
intra-sovereign political subdivisions independent of the sovereign state. 112 As
agents of the State, LGUs should bear in mind that the police power devolved
to them by law must be, at all times, exercised in a manner consistent with the
will of their principal. 113

109 Id.
110
304 Phil. 428 (1994) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
111
Id. at 446-447.
112 City of Batangas v. Philippine Shell Petroleum Corporation, supra note I 08, at 569.
113
Id.
Decision 38 G.R. No. 209479

Enforcement of the Single Ticketing

System

Finally, considering that the MMDA Law lodged in the MMDA both
the duty and the power to install and administer a single ticketing system, 114
the Court hereby directs respondent LGUs, particularly those who have not
manifested that they have been complying with the Joint Circular, (1) to desist
from continuing to implement the common provision in the Ordinances in
their respective territorial jurisdictions, and (2) to bar their respective traffic
enforcers from issuing OVRs and from confiscating the driver's licenses of
erring motorists, unless they have been deputized by the MMDA.

It bears emphasis that the MMDA has already issued the Joint Circular
implementing the single ticketing system in Metro Manila. It was issued
bearing in mind precisely the predicament that petitioners faced in this case.
As the Joint Circular itself states:

1.0 Rationale

The Land Transportation Office (LTO) issues Temporary

Operator's Permit (TOP), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
issues Traffic Violation Receipt (TVR), and LGUs issue their respective
Ordinance Violation Receipt (OVR) for traffic violations. Moreover, the
TOP, TVR, and OVRs are being issued with varying fines and penalties for
the same traffic violation, and under different procedure in apprehension,
payment of fine, and redemption of license/plate. This multiple-ticketing
system and uncoordinated implementation of traffic laws result to confusion
of the driving public and loss of money and productive hours, and if left
unattended may create chaos to the detriment of the public in general.

To address this predicament, the Metro Manila Council, by virtue of

Section 5(f) of Republic Act No. 7924, enacted MMDA Resolution No. 12-
02 on January 26, 2012, adopting a Uniform Ticketing System within
the Metro Manila using a uniform ticket and ticketing system, aimed at
harmonizing the existing national and local laws on traffic enforcement and
for the prevention of confusion among private and public motorists.

As a necessary consequence of the foregoing discussion on the MMDA •

possessing the necessary powers to implement the single ticketing system as
provided for by the MMDA Law, the Court so holds that the Joint Circular is
valid and must thus be implemented with full force and effect so as to
accomplish the intent of the legislature in enacting the MMDA Law. As the
CA held in its Decision, which was made prior to the issuance of the Joint
Circular, "Section 5(f) of RA [7924] is very much still a good law waiting to
be enforced and utilized." 115 The Joint Circular was precisely enacted to
enforce the l\1MDA Law, and must accordingly be fully implemented.

114
Republic Act No. 7924 (l 995), sec. 5(f).
115
Rollo, p. 1035.
Decision 39 G.R. No. 209479

At this juncture, the Court takes judicial notice 116 as well that the MMC
has recently adopted MMDA Resolution No. 23-02, or the "Metro Manila
Traffic Code" (Code), which not only reiterated the implementation of the
single ticketing system through the use of the UOVRs 117 but also explicitly
provided for the interoperability of citation tickets issued within Metro
Manila. 118 Notably, apart from providing for the single ticketing system, the
Code also provided standard penalties for most traffic violations, such as
disregarding traffic signs, 119 illegal parking, 120 violation of the number coding
scheme, 121 reckless driving, 122 illegal counterflow, 123 and overspeeding, 124 to
name a few. The adoption of the Code confirms that the Court's disquisition
in this Decision is the correct interpretation of the MMDA Law's provisions.

While it was argued during the deliberations of this case that the
adoption of the Code has rendered the issue in this case moot due to this
supervening event, 125 this is not so. The adoption of the Code does not render
the issue academic as the Code did not repeal the provisions in the respective
ordinances of the LGUs pertaining to the issuance of OVRs. 126 In fact, the
Code merely "encouraged" the LGUs to adopt "this Code through a legislation
by their respective Sanggunian and ensure that all traffic laws, rules and
regulations inconsistent with this Code are amended in accordance

116 RULES OF EVIDENCE, Rule 129, sec. 1, provides:

SECTION 1. Judicial Notice, When Mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states. their
political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the
admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and
history of the Philippines, official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments
of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and
the geographical divisions.
117
See METRO MANILA TRAFFIC CODE, sec. 31, which provides:
... Unified Ordinance Violation Receipt (UO VR) - The Uniform Ticketing System shall
be implemented using a Uniform Ticket called Uniform Ordinance Violation Receipt
(UOVR) for physical apprehension. The UOVR contains the following features: the
MMDA, LTO and 17 LGU logos, MMDA and LGUs specific and distinctive serial
numbers; and common security features to avoid the use or proliferation of fake tickets,
commonly termed as "palipad' or "talahib". The UOVR shall be recognized by MMDA,
LTO and all LGUs' deputized or authorized traffic personnel as a valid traffic citation
receipt and temporary driver' license within Metro Manila pursuant to Section 34 of this
Code.
118
See id. at sec. 34, which provides:
... Interoperability of Citation Tickets within Metro Manila - The operability of the
citation ticket, as a temporary license, within the jurisdictional bounds of Metro Manila
while operating a motor vehicle in cases the Driver's License is confiscated, or upon
citation of continuing traffic violations; or violations that transcend the territorial
jurisdictions shall be recognized and acknowledged by the MMDA, LG Us in Metro Manila
and LTO notwithstanding who effected the apprehension or issued the citation ticket within
ten (10) working days from the issuance thereof.
119
Id. at sec. 10.
120
Id. at sec. 11.
121
id. at sec. 12.
122
Id. at sec. 15.
123
Id. atsec.24.
124
Id. at sec. 25.
125
Dissent of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, p. 2.
126
l\1ETRO MANJ:LA TRAFFIC CODE,.sec. 55. Repealing Clause - All rules, issuances and regulations or
parts thereof pr~mulgated through the Metro Manila Council that are inconsistent with this Code are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Decision 40 G.R. No. 209479

herewith." 127 It is thus clear that even with the passage of the Code, and
following its language in the final provisions, the MMDA and the LGUs still
operate on the understanding that the LGUs' ordinances remain supreme even
in matters pertaining to traffic which, as discussed, is not the intent of the
MMDALaw.

All told, the Court thus declares as invalid the common provision in the
said traffic codes or ordinances of the LGUs in Metro Manila empowering
each of them to issue OVRs to erring drivers and motorists. The other
provisions of the traffic codes or ordinances remain valid and unaffected by
this Decision.

Final Word

The Court is not unmindful of the mandate of the State to ensure the
autonomy of local govemments. 128 While the Court acknowledges the
importance of local autonomy, the Court similarly recognizes that its
primordial duty is to apply the law as it is written. To do otherwise - even if
another interpretation is more logical or wise - would be an encroachment
upon legislative prerogatives to define the wisdom of the laws. 129 Such would
be a case of judicial legislation - an act which the Court could not, and must
not, do.

In this connection, the Court also finds that the autonomy of the LGUs
will not be unduly undermined by the ruling in this case, as their interests are
amply protected by the very structure of the MMDA as established by the
MMDA Law. With the exception of the MMDA Chairperson who is
appointed by the President, the membership of the MMC - which is the.
governing board and policy making body of the MMDA- is composed of
all the mayors of the 16 cities and the lone municipality in Metro Manila, as
well as the Presidents of the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors League and the Metro
Manila Councilors League. While the national government has
representatives in the MMC, these representatives sit as non-voting members.

This structure breathes life to the avowed objectives of the MMDA Law
which is to promote efficiency, cohesion, harmony, and order, in the delivery
of metro-wide services such as traffic management in Metro Manila -
without undermining local autonomy, as its decisions are reached through a
governing body composed primarily of the local chief executives themselves.

ACCORDiNIGLY, premises considered, the Petition for Review on

Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated December 7, 2012 and
Resolution dated October 3, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
97308 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

127
Id. at sec. 54.
128
CONST., art. II, sec. 25 and art. X, sec. 2.
129
Rizal Commercial Banking_Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra note 85.
Decision 41 G.R: No. 209479

The following provisions - and only the following - are henceforth

declared NULL and VOID:

1. Section 124 of Ordinance No. 2003-89 series of 2003 of

Makati City titled "AN ORDINANCE ENACTING THE
[Link] CITY TRAFFIC CODE SUBJECT TO ALL
LAWS AND EXISTING LEGAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS·"
'
2. Section 124 of Ordinance No. 103 series of2003 ofTaguig
titled "AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG;"

3. Section 124 of Ordinance No. 05-04 series of 2004 of

Paraiiaque City titled "AN ORDINANCE ENACTING
THE PARANAQUE CITY TRAFFIC CODE SUBJECT
TO EXISITING LAWS AND APPLICABLE RULES
AND REGULATIONS."

4. Section 124 of Ordinance No. 2916 series of2004 of Pasay

City titled "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A TRAFFIC
l'vIANAGEMENT CODE OF PASAY CITY;"

5. Section 124 of Ordinance No. SP-1444 series of 2004 of

Quezon City titled "AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CODE OF QUEZON CITY;"

6. Section 124 of Ordinance No. 37 series of2004 of San Juan

titled "MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE KNOWN AND
CITED AS THE MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE
l\11UNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA;"

7. Section 123 of Ordinance No. 2004-14 series of 2004 of

Navotas titled "TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CODE OF
THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS, METRO
MAJ\1ILA·"
'
8. Section 120 of Ordinance No. 652-04 series of 2004 of Las
Pifias titled "LAS PINAS TRAFFIC CODE;"

9. Section 124 of Ordinance No. 01 series of 2004 of Pasig

City titled "AN ORDINANCE ENACTING THE 2004
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF
PASIG·"
'
 ' .
Decision 42 G.R. No. 209479

10. S,ection 124 of Ordinance No. 04-022 series of 2005 of

Muntinlupa City titled "AN ORDINANCE ENACTING
THE MUNTINLUPA CITY TRAFFIC CODE, SUBJECT
TO ALL LAWS AND EXISTING LEGAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS;"

11. Section 145 of Ordinance No. 358 senes of 2005 of

Mandaluyong City titled "THE TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF
:tv1ANDALUYONG·'',

12. Section 138 of Ordinance No. 019 series of 2005 of

Valenzuela titled "AN ORDINANCE ENACTING THE
LAND TRANSPORTATION CODE OF THE CITY OF
VALENZUELA·" ,

13. Section 129 of Ordinance No. 0391 series of 2005 of

Caloocan City titled "AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING
FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT CODE OF CALOOCAN CITY;"

14. Section 124 of Ordinance No. 8092 series of 2005 of the

City of Manila titled "ORDINANCE REVISING THE
TRAFFIC CODE OF THE CITY OF MANILA BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 121 OF THE COMPILATION
OF THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MANILA
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;" and

15. Section 124 of Ordinance No. 2005-19 series of 2005 of

Pateros titled "ORDINANCE APPROVING THE
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CODE OF THE
~v1UNICIPALITY OF PATEROS, PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATORS AND FOR OTHER
LEGAL PURPOSES."

A permanent injunction is hereby issued to enjoin respondent local

government units from: (1) further issuing Ordinance Violation Receipts; and
(2) confiscating licenses through their own traffic enforcers, unless they are
deputized by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority.

SO ORDERED.

;
I

AL,DO Til=xT \,\~Tu S. CAGUIOA

Ass ci te Justice
Decision 43 G.R. No. 209479

WE CONCUR:

[Link]
Associate Justice Associate Justice

ROSARIO
"l'-V'-'•
Associate Justice Asso iate Justice

(No part)
JHOSEP Y. LOPEZ .DIMAAMP:
Associate Justice Associate Justice .
\

t'-~
J ~
ASP. MARQUEZ ,...,.- - r
-~""" • ?✓-
~~ IO T. KHO, JR.
~
ciate Justice Associate Justice ,,

'
Associate Justice
 . '

Decision 44 G.R. No. 209479

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

~1',A..1-\n"JY-£-r •GESMUNDO
hief Justice