1HL ML1ROPOLI1AN MANILA

DLVLLOPMLN1 AU1HORI1Y, et al. v. VIRON 1RANSPOR1A1ION

CO.,INC., et al.
G.R. No. J706S6-J706S7, JS August 2007, Carpio Morales, J. (Ln Banc)


t i. tbe DO1C, ava vot tbe MMD., rbicb i. avtboriea to e.tabti.b ava ivtevevt a ro;ect
.vcb a. tbe va.. trav.ort .,.tev. , ae.igvativg tbe MMD. a. ivtevevtivg agevc, of tbe Creater
1rav.ort Mavita Pro;ect, tbe Pre.iaevt cteart, orer.teea tbe tivit. of tbe avtborit, covferrea b, tar,
revaerivg .O. 1 vttra rire.. Moreorer, iv tbe ab.evce of a .ecific gravt of avtborit, to it vvaer R...
21, MMD. cavvot i..ve oraer for tbe cto.vre of ei.tivg bv. tervivat. vor cav it ;v.tif, it. act a. a ratia
eerci.e otice orer.

1o sole the worsening traic congestions problem in Metro Manila, the President
issued Lxecutie Order ,L.O., 19, Proiding or the Lstablishment o Greater Manila
Mass 1ransportation System.` As determined in L.O. 19, the primary cause o traic
congestion in Metro Manila has been the numerous buses plying the streets that impede the
low o ehicles and commuters and the ineicient connectiity o the dierent transport
modes. 1o decongest traic, petitioner Metropolitan Manila Deelopment Authority
,MMDA, came up with a recommendation, proposing the elimination o bus terminals
located along major Metro Manila thoroughares, and the construction o mass transport
terminal acilities to proide a more conenient access to mass transport system to the
commuting public. 1he project proided or under this L.O. was called Greater Manila
1ransport System` ,Project, wherein the MMDA was designated as the implementing
agency. Accordingly, the Metro Manila Council, the goerning board o the MMDA issued a
resolution, expressing ull support o the project.

1he respondents, which are engaged in the business o public transportation with a
proincial bus operation, Viron 1ransport Co., Inc. and Mencorp 1ransportation System,
Inc., assailed the constitutionality o L.O. 19 beore the Regional 1rial Court o Manila.
1hey alleged that the L.O., insoar as it permitted the closure o existing bus terminal,
constituted a depriation o property without due process, that it contraened the Public
Serice Act which mandates public utilities to proide and maintain their own terminals as a
requisite or the priilege o operating as common carriers, and that Republic Act 924,
which created MMDA, did not authorize the latter to order the closure o bus terminals.
1he trial court declared the L.O. unconstitutional.

1he MMDA argued beore the Court that there was no justiciable controersy in the
case or declaratory relie iled by the respondents, that L.O. 19 was only an administratie
directie to goernment agencies to coordinate with the MMDA, and as such did not bind
third persons, that the President has the authority to implement the Project pursuant to L.O.
125, and that L.O. 19 was a alid exercise o police power.

ISSUL:

\hether or not LO 19 is constitutional

HLLD:

Petition DLNILD. Lxecutie Order 19 is declared null and oid or being vttra
rire..

By designating the MMDA as implementing agency of the Greater Manila
1ransport System, the President clearly overstepped the limits of the authority
conferred by law, rendering L.O. J79 ultra vires.

Lxecutie Order 125, inoked by the MMDA, was issued by ormer President
Aquino in her exercise o legislatie powers. 1his executie order reorganized the Ministry
,now Department, o 1ransportation and Communications ,DO1C,, and deined its powers
and unctions. It mandated the DO1C to be the primary policy, planning, programming,
coordinating, implementing, regulating and administratie entity to promote, deelop and
regulate networks o transportation and communications. 1he grant o authority to the
DO1C includes the power to establish and administer comprehensie and integrated
programs or transportation and communications. Accordingly, it is the DO1C Secretary
who is authorized to issue such orders, rules, regulations and other issuances as may be
necessary to ensure the eectie implementation o the law. 1he President may also exercise
the same power and authority to order the implementation o the mass transport system
project, which admittedly is one or transportation. Such authority springs rom the
President`s power o control oer all executie departments as well as or the aithul
execution o the laws under the Constitution.

1hus, the President, although authorized to establish or cause the implementation o
the Project, must exercise the authority through the instrumentality o the DO1C, which, by
law, is the primary implementing and administratie entity in the promotion, deelopment
and regulation o networks o transportation. It is the DO1C, and not the MMDA, which is
authorized to establish and implement a project such as the mass transport system. By
designating the MMDA as implementing agency o the Project, the President clearly
oerstepped the limits o the authority conerred by law, rendering L.O. 19 vttra rire..

In the absence of a specific grant of authority to it under R.A. 7924, MMDA cannot
issue order for the closure of existing bus terminals.

Republic Act ,R.A., 924 authorizes the MMDA to perorm planning, monitoring
and coordinatie unctions, and in the process exercises regulatory and superisory authority
oer the deliery o metro-wide serices, including transport and traic management. \hile
traic decongestion has been recognized as a alid ground in the exercise o police power,
MMDA is not granted police power, let alone legislatie power. Unlike the legislatie bodies
o the local goernment units, there is no proision in R.A. 924 that empowers the MMDA
or the Metro Manila Council to enact ordinances, approe resolutions and appropriate unds
or the general welare o the inhabitants o Metro Manila.

In light o the administratie nature o its powers and unctions, the MMDA is
deoid o authority to implement the Greater Manila 1ransport System as enisioned by
L.O. 19, hence, it could not hae been alidly designated by the President to undertake the
project. It ollows that the MMDA cannot alidly order the elimination o respondents`
terminals.

Len assuming argvevao that police power was delegated to the MMDA, its exercise
o such power does not satisy the two sets o a alid police power measure: ,1, the interest
o the public generally, as distinguished rom that o a particular class, requires its exercise,
and ,2, the means employed are reasonably necessary or the accomplishment o the
purpose and not unduly oppressie upon indiiduals.

In arious cases, the Court has recognized that traic congestion is a public, not
merely a priate concern. Indeed, the L.O. was issued due to the elt need to address the
worsening traic congestion in Metro Manila which, the MMDA so determined, is caused by
the increasing olume o buses plying the major thoroughares and the ineicient
connectiity o existing transport system.

\ith the aowed objectie o decongesting traic in Metro Manila, the L.O. seeks to
eliminate the bus terminals now located along major Metro Manila thoroughares and
proide more conenient access to the mass transport system to the commuting public
through the proision o mass transport terminal acilities. Common carriers with terminals
along the major thoroughares o Metro Manila would thus be compelled to close down
their existing bus terminals and use the MMDA-designated common parking areas. 1he
Court ails to see how the prohibition against respondents` terminals can be considered a
reasonable necessity to ease traic congestion in the metropolis. On the contrary, the
elimination o respondents` bus terminals brings orth the distinct possibility and the equally
harrowing reality o traic congestion in the common parking areas, a case o transerence
rom one site to another.

Moreoer, an order or the closure o bus terminals is not in line with the proisions
o the Public Serice Act. 1he establishment, as well as the maintenance o ehicle parking
areas or passenger terminals, is generally considered a necessary serice by proincial bus
operators, hence, the inestments they hae poured into the acquisition or lease o suitable
terminal sites.