SC: MMDA has Exclusive Authority to Enforce Traffic Rules in Metro Manila
March 5, 2024
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) has exclusive authority to enforce traffic laws, rules and regulations, declaring that the local government units (LGUs) in Metro Manila may participate in such functions only when their traffic enforcers are deputized by the MMDA.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Supreme Court En Banc granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by several groups of transport organizations with public utility transport operators and/or drivers of public utility vehicles for their members (petitioners). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) upholding the traffic ordinances by Metro Manila LGUs.
In 2003, 2004, and 2005, the legislative bodies of Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela City, Caloocan City, San Juan, Navotas, Las Piñas, Taguig, Pasay City, Muntinlupa City, Mandaluyong City, Makati City, Pasig City, and Pateros (respondent LGUs), respectively, passed ordinances providing traffic codes for their respective LGUs.
The said ordinances have a common provision authorizing respondent LGUs to confiscate driver’s licenses and issue ordinance violation receipts (OVRs) to erring drivers.
This prompted the petitioners to file before the CA a petition for injunction and mandamus against respondent LGUs assailing the common OVR provision, arguing that it violates Republic Act No. (RA) 4136, the law creating the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and giving it authority to confiscate driver’s licenses (LTO Law), as well as RA 7924 creating the MMDA (MMDA Law), which authorizes the MMDA 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.”
The CA upheld the assailed ordinances, ruling that there is no conflict between the MMDA Law and the Local Government Code (LGC), which gives LGUs the authority to enact ordinances as a necessary effect of the delegation by Congress of its lawmaking power.
The petitioners hence sought redress before the Court, seeking to: (1) enjoin respondent LGUs from implementing their OVR system, and (2) compel the MMDA to enforce the single ticketing system under the MMDA Law.
The Court ruled that the MMDA Law clearly bestowed upon the MMDA all the rule-making powers relative to traffic management in Metro Manila.
Under the MMDA Law, the MMDA was tasked to provide metro-wide services to Metro Manila, without prejudice to the autonomy of the affected LGUs. Such services are those with “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 [LGUs] comprising [Metro] Manila.”
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 [Metro] Manila.”
The Court hence ruled that the enactment of the MMDA Law shows a clear legislative intent to make the MMDA the central and policymaking body in Metro Manila on matters relating to traffic management, with 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, as provided under Section 5(e) of the law.
The MMDA was also given the task under Section 5(f) 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 driver’s licenses in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, said the Court.
Thus, despite the power granted by Sections 447(5)(v-vi) and 458(5)(V-vi) of the LGC to the legislative bodies of LGUs to approve ordinances, regulate the use of streets, and regulate traffic on all streets and bridges,” this power does not exist for the cities and the lone municipality in Metro Manila because of the MMDA Law.
“The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that Sections 5(e) and 5(f) 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 5(e) and 5(f) of the MMDA Law, being the later expression of legislative will, as partially impliedly modifying the aforementioned sections of the LGC,” ruled the Court.
While the Court recognizes that LGUs possess delegated legislative powers, and this may enact regulations to promote the general welfare of the people, the fact remains that as agents of the State, it is incumbent upon them to act in conformity to the will of their principal.
The Court further clarified that 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 by the MMDA.”
The Court also ruled it is accordingly abandoning the pronouncements in the 2005 case MMDA v. Garin, and so holds that the MMDA possesses rule-making powers with regard specifically to traffic management in Metro Manila.
It, however, clarified that its 2000 ruling MMDA v. 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, 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.
Having established that the common provision of the assailed Ordinances is inconsistent with the MMDA Law, the common provision found in each of the Ordinances of the LGUs in Metro Manila shall unavoidably be considered stricken off and deemed inoperative, concluded the Court.
While the Court acknowledges the importance of local autonomy, it 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,” stressed the Court.
It added 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 [Metro Manila Council] – which is composed of 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,” the Court held.
The Court also took judicial notice that the Metro Manila Council 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 unified OVRs but also explicitly provided for the interoperability of citation tickets issued within Metro Manila.
The Court thus directed respondent LGUs, particularly those who have not manifested that they have been complying with the MMDA Joint Circular implementing the single ticketing system in Metro Manila, (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.
A permanent injunction was thus issued to enjoin respondent LGUs from: (1) further issuing OVRs; and (2) confiscating licenses through their own traffic enforcers, unless they are deputized by the MMDA. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT of G.R. No. 209479, Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines, et al. v. Government of Manila City, et al.(2023) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/209479-federation-of-jeepney-operators-and-drivers-association-of-the-philippines-fejodap-et-al-vs-government-of-manila-city-et-al/
Full text of the Separate Concurring Opinion of Acting Chief Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/209479-separate-concurring-opinion-saj-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/
Full text of the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/209479-dissent-justice-amy-c-lazaro-javier/