LOCGOV_Digest14

7/28/2019 LOCGOV_Digest14

1/4

Ordillo vs. COMELEC

December 4, 1990 | Gutierrez, Jr.

Facts: The people of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain

Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao and the city of

Baguio cast their votes in a plebiscite held pursuant to RA

6766 entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the

Cordillera Autonomous Region."

The results showed that the creation of the Region

was approved by a majority of 5,889 votes in only the Ifugao

Province and was overwhelmingly rejected by 148,676 votes

in the rest of the provinces and city above-mentioned.

Consequently, the COMELEC issued Resolution No.

2259 stating that the Organic Act for the Region has been

approved and/or ratified by majority of the votes cast only in

the province of Ifugao.

As a result of this, on March 8, 1990, Congress

enacted RA 6861 setting the elections in the CAR of Ifugao on

the first Monday of March 1991.

Affairs of the Cordillera Executive Board and the

Cordillera Regional Assembly were wound up. Both offices

were eventually abolished by the President.

The petitioner filed a petition with COMELEC to

declare the non-ratification of the Organic Act for the Region.The petitioners maintain that there can be no valid Cordillera

Autonomous Region in only one province as the Constitution

and Republic Act No. 6766 require that the said Region be

composed of more than one constituent unit.

Issue: WON the province of Ifugao, being the only province

which voted favorably for the creation of the Cordillera

Autonomous Region can, alone, legally and validly constitute

such Region (NO)

Held: The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute

the Cordillera Autonomous Region. It is explicit in Article X,

Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.The said provision uses words such as provinces,

cities, municipalities and geographical areas which connote

that "region" is to be made up of more than one constituent

unit. The term "region" used in its ordinary sense means two

or more provinces.

Ifugao is a province by itself. To become part of a

region, it must join other provinces, cities, municipalities, and

geographical areas. It joins other units because of their

common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage,

economic and social structures and other relevant

characteristics. The Constitutional requirements are not

present in this case.

Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Statute providethat the Cordillera Autonomous Region is to be administered

by the Cordillera government consisting of the Regional

Government and local government units.

If we follow the respondent's position, the members

of such Cordillera Assembly shall then be elected only from

the province of Ifugao creating an awkward predicament of

having two legislative bodies the Cordillera Assembly and

the Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercising their legislative

powers over the province of Ifugao. And since Ifugao is one

of the smallest provinces in the Philippines, population-wise,

it would have too many government officials for so few

people.

The entirety of Republic Act No. 6766 creating the

Cordillera Autonomous Region is infused with provisions

which rule against the sole province of Ifugao constituting the

Region.

The Abbas case is not applicable in the case at bar.

the issue in this case is whether the sole province of Ifugao

can validly and legally constitute the Cordillera Autonomous

Region. The issue is not whether the province of Ifugao is to

be included in the Cordillera Autonomous Region. It is the

first issue which the Court answers in the instant case.

Cordillera Board Coalition vs. COA

January 29, 1990 | Cortes

Facts:. EO No. 220, issued by the President in the exercise of

her legislative powers under Art. XVIII, sec. 6 of the 1987

Constitution, created the Cordillera Administrative Region

(CAR), which covers the provinces of Abra, Benguet, Ifugao

Kalinga-Apayao and Mountain Province and the City of

Baguio [secs. 1 and 2]. It was created to accelerate economic

and social growth in the region and to prepare for the

establishment of the autonomous region in the Cordilleras

During the pendency of this case, RA No. 6766

entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for theCordillera Autonomous Region," was enacted and signed into

law. The Act recognizes the CAR and the offices and agencies

created under E.O. No. 220 and its transitory nature.

Issue:(1) WON E.O. No. 220 pre-empts the enactment of an organic

act by the Congress and the creation of' the autonomous

region in the Cordilleras conditional on the approval of the act

through a plebiscite (NO)

(2) WON the creation of the CAR contravenes the

constitutional guarantee of the local autonomy for the

provinces (Abra, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao and

Mountain Province) and city (Baguio City) which composethe CAR (NO)

Held:

(1) A reading of E.O. No. 220 will easily reveal that what it

actually envisions is the consolidation and coordination of the

delivery of services of line departments and agencies of the

National Government in the areas covered by the

administrative region as a step preparatory to the grant of

autonomy to the Cordilleras. It does not create the

autonomous region contemplated in the Constitution. It

merely provides for transitory measures in anticipation of the

enactment of an organic act and the creation of an autonomous

region. The creation of the autonomous will take time(procedure is outlined in Art. X, sec. 18). The Court cannot

inquire into the wisdom of the measures taken by the

President.

E.O. No. 220 did not establish an autonomous

regional government. CAR is a mere transitory coordinating

agency that would prepare the stage for political autonomy for

the Cordilleras. It fills in the resulting gap in the process of

transforming a group of adjacent territorial and political

subdivisions already enjoying local or administrative

autonomy into an autonomous region vested with political

autonomy.


2/4

It created a region, covering a specified area, for

administrative purposes with the main objective of

coordinating the planning and implementation of programs

and services. They merely constitute the mechanism for an

"umbrella" that brings together the parties involved.

(2) CAR is not a public corporation or a territorial and

political subdivision. It does not have a separate juridical

personality, unlike provinces, cities and municipalities. As

stated earlier, the CAR was created primarily to coordinate the

planning. Its an administrative region for the purpose of

expediting the delivery of services.

The constitutional guarantee of local autonomy in the

Constitution [Art. X, sec. 2] refers to

the administrative autonomy of local government units or, cast

in more technical language, the decentralization of

government authority.

On the other hand, the creation of autonomous

regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras, which is

peculiar to the 1987 Constitution contemplates the grant

ofpoliticalautonomy and not just administrative autonomy

these regions. Thus, the provision in the Constitution for an

autonomous regional government with a basic structure

consisting of an executive department and a legislativeassembly and special courts with personal, family and

property law jurisdiction in each of the autonomous regions.

MMDA vs. Bel Air Village Association Inc.

March 27, 2000 | Puno

Facts:Neptune Street is owned by respondent BAVA. It is a

private road inside Bel-Air Village, a private residential

subdivision in the heart of the financial and commercial

district of Makati City. It runs parallel to Kalayaan Avenue, a

national road open to the general public. Dividing the two (2)

streets is a concrete perimeter wall approximately fifteen (15)

feet high. The western end of Neptune Street intersectsNicanor Garcia, formerly Reposo Street, a subdivision road

open to public vehicular traffic, while its eastern end intersects

Makati Avenue, a national road. Both ends of Neptune Street

are guarded by iron gates.

Respondent Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA)

received from petitioner MMDA, through its Chairman, a

notice requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public

vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996. On the same day,

respondent was apprised that the perimeter wall separating the

subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be

demolished.

Respondent instituted against petitioner before the

RTC of Makati City an action for injunction, enjoining theopening of Neptune Street and the demolition of the perimeter

wall. The lower court denied issuance of a preliminary

injunction.

Respondent questioned the denial before the

appellate court, which conducted an ocular inspection of

Neptune Street. The CA issued a preliminary injunction and

thereafter rendered a decision finding that the MMDA has no

authority to order the opening of Neptune Street, a private

subdivision road and cause the demolition of its perimeter

walls. The MR of the decision was denied, hence, this petition

for review.

Citing the Sangalang cases, petitioner MMDA

claimed that it has the authority to open Neptune Street to

public traffic because it is an agent of the state endowed with

police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila

One of these basic services is traffic management which

involves the regulation of the use of thoroughfares to insure

the safety, convenience and welfare of the general public.

Issue: WON the MMDA, in the exercise of its mandate, has

the power to open a private road to public traffic (NO)

Held:The MMDA is not a local government unit or a public

corporation endowed with legislative power. It is not even a

special metropolitan political subdivision as contemplated

in Section 11, Article X of the Constitution. Metropolitan or

Metro Manila is a body composed of several local government

unitsi.e., twelve (12) cities and five (5) municipalities

namely, the cities of Caloocan, Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati,

Pasay, Pasig, Quezon, Muntinlupa, Las Pinas, Marikina,

Paranaque and Valenzuela, and the municipalities of Malabon,

Navotas, Pateros, San Juan and Taguig.With the passage of

Republic Act (R. A.) No. 7924 in 1995, Metropolitan Manila

was declared as a "special development and administrative

region" and the Administration of "metro-wide" basic servicesaffecting the region placed under "a development

authority" referred to as the MMDA.

"Metro-wide services" 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

government units comprising Metro Manila."26There are

seven (7) basic metro-wide services and the scope of these

services cover the following: (1) development planning; (2)

transport and traffic management; (3) solid waste disposal and

management; (4) flood control and sewerage management; (5)

urban renewal, zoning and land use planning, and shelter

services; (6) health and sanitation, urban protection andpollution control; and (7) public safety.

The implementation of the MMDA's plans, programs

and projects is undertaken by the local government units,

national government agencies, accredited people's

organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the

private sector as well as by the MMDA itself. For this

purpose, the MMDA has the power to enter into contracts

memoranda of agreement and other arrangements with these

bodies for the delivery of the required services Metro Manila.

The governing board of the MMDA is the Metro

Manila Council. The Council is composed of the mayors of

the component 12 cities and 5 municipalities, the president of

the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors' League and the president ofthe Metro Manila Councilors' League. The Council is headed

by Chairman who is appointed by the President and vested

with the rank of cabinet member. As the policy-making body

of the MMDA, the Metro Manila Council approves metro-

wide plans, programs and projects, and issues the necessary

rules and regulations for the implementation of said plans; it

approves the annual budget of the MMDA and promulgate the

rules and regulations for the delivery of basic services,

collection of service and regulatory fees, fines and penalties.

Metropolitan Manila was created as a response to the

finding that the rapid growth of population and the increase of

social and economic requirements in these areas demand a call
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_135962_2000.html#fnt26


3/4

for simultaneous and unified development; that the public

services rendered by the respective local governments could

be administered more efficiently and economically if

integrated under a system of central planning.

The scope of the MMDAs function is limited to the

delivery of the seven basic services. Its powers are limited to

the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation,

implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting

of policies, installation of a system and administration. There

is nothing 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. No

provision in R.A. No. 7924 empowers the MMDA or its

Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions appropriate

funds for the general welfare" of the inhabitants of Metro

Manila. It is an agency 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 for the

efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast

metropolitan area.

Sangalang is not applicable to the case at bar because it

involved zoning ordinances passed by the municipal council

of Makati. In the letter-notice of MMDA, there was no citedordinance or law either by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of

Makati City or by the MMDA, as the legal basis for the

proposed opening of Neptune Street. Also, MMDA is not the

same entity as the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) in

Sangalang. MMCs charter shows that it possessed greater

powers, which were not bestowed on the present MMDA.

Moreover, the character of the MMDA as a mere

administrative body is affirmed by the debate in Congress

when the H.B. from which R.A. No. 7924 originated was first

taken up by the Committee on Local Governments in the

HOR. Said Hon. Ciriaco Alfelor, the committee chairman, the

MMDA will not elect the Governor nor have the power to tax.

In short, it will not possess any political power.Unlike the MMC which was considered as the

central government of Metro Manila. As a "central

government" it had the power to levy and collect taxes and

special assessments, the power to charge and collect fees; the

power to appropriate money for its operation, and at the same

time, review appropriations for the city and municipal units

within its jurisdiction. It was bestowed the power to enact or

approve ordinances, resolutions and fix penalties for violation

of such ordinances and resolutions. It also had the power to

review, amend, revise or repeal all ordinances, resolutions and

acts of any of the four (4) cities and thirteen (13)

municipalities comprising Metro Manila.

Constitution itself expressly provides that Congressmay, by law, create "special metropolitan political

subdivisions" which shall be subject to approval by a majority

of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly

affected; the jurisdiction of this subdivision shall be limited to

basic services requiring coordination; and the cities and

municipalities comprising this subdivision shall retain their

basic services requiring coordination; and the cities and

municipalities comprising this subdivision shall retain their

basic autonomy and their own local executive and legislative

assemblies.

The Committee deliberations would show that

clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The

power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro

Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and

regulations in the implementation of the MMDA's functions.

There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and

regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the

metropolis.

Also, it is to be noted that R. A. No. 7924 was not

submitted to the inhabitants of Metro Manila in a plebiscite

The Chairman of the MMDA is not an official elected by the

people, but appointed by the President with the rank and

privileges of a cabinet member.

MMDA vs. Garin

April 15, 2005 | Chico-Nazario

Facts: Dante Garin was issued a traffic violation receipt

(TVR) and his drivers license confiscated for parking

illegally in Binondo. The TVR served as a temporary drivers

license for 7 days from date of apprehension and it directed

Garin to report to the MMDA otherwise a criminal case shall

be filed for failure to redeem the license after 30 days.

Garin wrote a letter to MMDA Chairman Oreta

requesting the return of his license and expressing his

preference for his case to be filed in court.Garin filed with the RTC a complaint with

preliminary injunction saying that in the absence of any IRR,

Sec 5(f) of RA 7924 grants MMDA unbridled discretion to

deprive erring motorists of their licenses, pre-empting a

judicial determination of the validity of the deprivation thus

violating the due process clause of the Constitution. It also

violates the constitutional prohibition against undue

delegation of legislative authority because it allows MMDA to

fix and impose fines and penalties on motorists.

MMDA says that the powers granted by Sec 5(f) are

limited to fixing, collecting and imposition of fines and

penalties for traffic violations which powers are legislative

and executive in nature and that the judiciary retains the rightto determine the validity of the penalty imposed.

MMDA presented MMDA Memo Circular No. TT-

95-001 which was allegedly the implementing rules of RA

7924. However, Garin said that this was passed without the

quorum of the Metro Manila Council.

RTC issued a TRO extending the validity of the

TVR. Later on, a preliminary mandatory injunction was

granted and MMDA was directed to return Garins license.

RTC held that indeed there was no quorum when the MMDA

memo circular was passed and that the summary confiscation

deprived Garin of a property right without due process.

MMDA argues that a license to operate a motor

vehicle is neither a contract nor a property right but is aprivilege subject to reasonable regulation. It also argues that

the revocation or suspension of this privilege does not

constitute taking without due process as long as the licensee is

given the right to appeal the revocation. It MMDA also argues

that Sec 5(f) of RA 7924 is self-executory and doesnt require

the issuance of any IRR.

Issue: WON Sec. 5(f) of RA 7924 which authorizes the

MMDA to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses

in the enforcement of traffic laws and regulations is valid

(NO, it grants MMDA with the duty to enforce existing traffic

rules and regulations)


4/4

Held: [Recent events have overtaken the Courts need to

decide this case, which has been rendered moot and academic

by the implementation of a memo circular outlining the

procedure for the use of the Metropolitan Traffic Ticket

(MTT) scheme.]

The Court held that a license to operate a motor

vehicle is a privilege that the state may withhold in the

exercise of police power, subject to the procedural due process

requirements.

MMDA however is not vested with police power.

MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village: RA 7924 does not grant the

MMDA with police power, let alone legislative power, and

that all its functions are administrative in nature.

Tracing the legislative history of Rep. Act No. 7924

creating the MMDA, we concluded that the MMDA is not a

local government unit or a public corporation endowed with

legislative power, and, unlike its predecessor, the Metro

Manila Commission, it has no power to enact ordinances for

the welfare of the community. Thus, in the absence of an

ordinance from the City of Makati, its own order to open the

street was invalid.

Therefore, insofar as Sec. 5(f)1 of Rep. Act No. 7924 is

understood by the lower court and by the petitioner to grantthe MMDA thepowerto confiscate and suspend or revoke

drivers licenseswithout need of any other legislative

enactment, such is an unauthorized exercise of police power.

Sec 5(f) grants the MMDA with the duty to enforce

existing traffic rules and regulations. Thus, where there is a

traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or

those agencies to whom legislative powers have been

delegated, MMDA is not precluded to confiscate and suspend

or revoke drivers licenses in the exercise of its mandate of

transport and traffic management.

1 The MMDA shall 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 nonmoving in nature, and confiscate

and suspend or revoke drivers licensesin the enforcement of such traffic laws

and regulations, the provisions of Rep. Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 tothe contrary notwithstanding.

Documents

LOCGOV_Digest14