SOLICITOR GENERAL V METROPOLITAN MANILA AUTHORITY
GR No. 102782
FACTS:
In Metropolitan Traffic Command, West Traffic District vs. Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong, the
Court held that the confiscation of the license plates of motor vehicles for traffic violations
was not among the sanctions that could be imposed by the Metro Manila Commission
under PD 1605 and was permitted only under the conditions laid dowm by LOI 43 in the
case of stalled vehicles obstructing the public streets. It was there also observed that
even the confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic violations was not directly prescribed
by the decree nor was it allowed by the decree to be imposed by the Commission.
However, petitioners alleged that Traffic Enforces continued with the confiscation of
driver’s licenses and removal of license plates. Dir General Cesar P. Nazareno of the
PNP assured the Court that his office had never authorized the removal of the license
plates of illegally parked vehicles.
Later, the Metropolitan Manila Authority issued Ordinance No. 11, authorizing itself "to
detach the license plate/tow and impound attended/ unattended/ abandoned motor
vehicles illegally parked or obstructing the flow of traffic in Metro Manila." The Court
issued a resolution requiring the Metropolitan Manila Authority and the SolGen to submit
separate comments in light of the contradiction between the Ordinance and the SC ruling.
The MMA defended the ordinance on the ground that it was adopted pursuant to the
power conferred upon it by EO 32 (formulation of policies, promulgation of resolutions).
The Sol Gen expressed the view that the ordinance was null and void because it
represented an invalid exercise of a delegated legislative power. The flaw in the measure
was that it violated existing law, specifically PD 1605, which does not permit, and so
impliedly prohibits, the removal of license plates and the confiscation of driver's licenses
for traffic violations in Metropolitan Manila. He made no mention, however, of the alleged
impropriety of examining the said ordinance in the absence of a formal challenge to its
validity.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance 11 is justified on the basis of the General Welfare
Clause embodied in the LGC
RULLING:
No,The Court holds that there is a valid delegation of legislative power to promulgate such
measures, it appearing that the requisites of such delegation are present. These
requisites are. 1) the completeness of the statute making the delegation; and 2) the
presence of a sufficient standard.
The measures in question are enactments of local governments acting only as agents of
the national legislature. Necessarily, the acts of these agents must reflect and conform to
the will of their principal. To test the validity of such acts in the specific case now before
us, we apply the particular requisites of a valid ordinance as laid down by the accepted
principles governing municipal corporations. According to Elliot, a municipal ordinance,
to be valid: 1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; 2) must not be unfair
or oppressive; 3) must not be partial ordiscriminatory; 4) must not prohibit but may
regulate trade; 5) must not be unreasonable; and 6) must be general and consistent with
public policy.
At any rate, the fact is that there is no statutory authority for and indeed there is a statutory
prohibition against the imposition of such penalties in the Metropolitan Manila area.
Hence, regardless of their merits, they cannot be imposed by the challenged enactments
by virtue only of the delegated legislative powers. It is for Congress to determine, in the
exercise of its own discretion, whether or not to impose such sanctions, either directly
through a statute or by simply delegating authority to this effect to the local governments
in Metropolitan Manila. Without such action, PD 1605 remains effective and continues
prohibit the confiscation of license plates of motor vehicles (except under the conditions
prescribed in LOI 43) and of driver licenses as well for traffic violations in Metropolitan
Manila.
