Lgc Cases Lgus

8/12/2019 Lgc Cases Lgus

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lgc-cases-lgus 1/47

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995

APOLNARO MU!E", complainant,vs.JU#$E CRACO AR!O, MCTC, Sa% Fra%&'(&o, A)u(a% *e+ Sur, responent.

MEN#O"A, J.:

!his is an aministrative complaint 1 a"ainst responent #u"e Ciriaco C. $ri%o of the MunicipalCircuit !rial Court of San &rancisco, $"usan el Sur for 'no(in"l) renerin" an un*ust *u"mentas efine an penali+e uner $rticle - of the Revise Penal Coe. !he complaint (asori"inall) file (ith the Office of the Ombusman (hich, after ismissin" the case for lac' ofprobable cause for filin" in court, nevertheless referre the case to this Court /for possibleaministrative action a"ainst responent./

It appears that on December 0, 1232, Ma)or Irisari of 4oreto, $"usan el Sur summone tohis office herein complainant $polinario S. Mu%e+ for conference respectin" a lan ispute(hich Mu%e+ ha (ith one !irso $mao. $s complainant faile to atten the conference,Ma)or Irisari issue a (arrant of arrest a"ainst him on December 5, 1232. 2

!he (arrant (as serve on complainant b) C&C Reelio Caballes an Cpl. Rolano4ima)an an b) virtue of it complainant (as brou"ht before Ma)or Irisari, althou"h noinvesti"ation (as later conucte.

Complainant file a complaint a"ainst Ma)or Irisari for "rave misconuct an usurpation of *uicial function (ith the Office of the Ombusman as (ell as aministrative complaint 4 forviolation of the Constitution, misconuct in office an abuse of authorit) (ith the San""unian"Panlala(i"an of $"usan el Sur.

$fter preliminar) investi"ation, the investi"atin" officer of the Office of the Ombusman filea case 5 for usurpation of *uicial function a"ainst Ma)or $suero Irisari in the Municipal Circuit!rial Court of 4oreto, $"usan el Sur. Ori"inall) raffle to the *u"e of that court, the criminal case

(as later assi"ne to responent #u"e Ciriaco $ri%o on account of the inhibition of the first *u"e.

$ccuse Irisari move to 6uash the information on the "roun that the acts complaine ofi not constitute a crime uner the la(. 7e contene that uner 8 19:9; of the former4ocal <overnment Coe :=atas Pambansa =l". 995;, ma)ors (ere authori+e to issue(arrants of arrest.

On #ul) 3, 122, responent #u"e $ri%o enie the motion to 6uash on the "roun that



the po(er of ma)ors to issue (arrants of arrest ha cease to e>ist as of &ebruar) , 1235(hen the Constitution too' effect.

&or its part the San""unian" Panlala(i"an, actin" on the aministrative complaint a"ainstthe ma)or, foun him "uilt) of misconuct in office an abuse of authorit) an accorin"l)orere him suspene for ei"ht :3; months (ithout pa). On appeal, ho(ever, the

Department of Interior an 4ocal <overnment :DI4<; reverse on the "roun that (hat thema)or ha issue to the complainant, althou"h enominate /?arrant of $rrest,/ (asactuall) *ust an invitation or a summons.

On September 1, 122, Ma)or Irisari file a motion for reconsieration of the orer of enialof responent *u"e, invo'in" the resolution of the DI4<.

In an orer ate &ebruar) 1@, 1229, responent #u"e $ri%o reconsiere his previousorer an ismisse the case. Responent sai in his orerA

!he accuse, in his Motion for Reconsieration, asserts that since the6uestion about the (arrant of arrest issue a"ainst $polinario Mu%e+ has

been resolve in an aministrative proceein"s as not the (arrant of arrestcontemplate b) la(, it (oul follo( then that this case no( before this Courta"ainst the accuse be ismisse. !he Court fins that the sub*ect matter inthis case an that in the aministrative complaint arose from one an thesame incient an it involve the same parties.

Courts are not boun b) the finin"s of aministrative a"encies li'e the DI4<as in this case if such finin"s are tainte (ith unfairness an there isarbitrar) action or palpable serious error.

. . . !he Court believes that the resolution b) the aministrative a"enc) inD4<B$CB0-B21 is not tainte (ith unfairness an arbitrariness neither it

sho(s arbitrar) action or palpable an serious error, therefore, it must berespecte :Man"ubat vs. e Castro, <.R. 9932 #ul) 3, 1233 =lue =arCoconut Philippines vs. !antuico, #r., et al., <.R. 5-@1, #ul) 2, 1233,Cuero vs. Commission on $uit, <.R. 3@2, October 5, 1233;.

pon receipt of this orer, complainant Mu%e+ sent t(o letters ate #ul) @ an 1, 1299 tothe Presiential $ntiBCrime Commission char"in" responent #u"e Ciriaco C. $ri%o (ith'no(in"l) renerin" an un*ust *u"ment for ismissin" the case a"ainst Ma)or Irisari. !hematter (as inorse to the Office of the Ombusman (hich, as alrea) state, referre it tothis Court for possible isciplinar) action a"ainst responent *u"e.

?e a"ree (ith the Office of the Ombusman that (hile responent *u"e ma) have acte in"oo faith, he shoul nevertheless be aministrativel) hel liable.

!he acts alle"e in the information constitute a crime. ner $rt. 1 of the Revise PenalCoe, the crime of usurpation of *uicial authorit) involves the follo(in" elementsA :1; thatthe offener is an officer of the e>ecutive branch of the "overnment an :; that he assumes

*uicial po(ers, or obstructs the e>ecution of an) orer or ecision renere b) an) *u"e(ithin his *urisiction. !hese elements (ere alle"e in the information. Ma)or Irisari (as anofficer of the e>ecutive branch.



It is not true that (hat he ha issue a"ainst the complainant (as not a (arrant of arrest. It(as. In plain terms it stateA

Republic of the PhilippinesPROVINCE O& $<S$N DE4 SR

MNICIP$4I! O& 4ORE!O

Office of the Ma)or

5 Decemb

WARRANT OF ARREST

!OA $N O&&ICE O& !7E 4$?!his Municipalit)

< R E E ! I N < SA

ou are hereb) re6uesteForere to effect the arrest of $polinario Mu%e+ of

Poblacion, 4oreto, $"usan el Sur, for his refusal to ac'no(le"e theSummons ate December 0, 1232, an brin" him before the Office of theMunicipal Ma)or to ans(er an in6uir)Finvesti"ation in connection (ith thecomplaint of one !irso $mao hel penin" before this Office.

&OR COMP4I$NCE.

:S"; $SEMunicipal M

&or an in the absence of the Municipal Circuit #u"e

$n) one reain" the (arrant coul not have been mista'en that it (as a (arrant for thearrest of the complainant $polinario Mu%e+. $s a matter of fact Ma)or Irisari *ustifie hisorer on the basis of 8 19:9; of the former 4ocal <overnment Coe :=atas Pambansa =l".995; (hich e>pressl) provie that in cases (here the ma)or ma) conuct preliminar)investi"ation, the ma)or shall, upon probable cause after e>amination of (itnesses, have theauthorit) to orer the arrest of the accuse./ !his provision ha, ho(ever, been repeale b)

$rt. III, 8 of the 1235 Constitution, as this Court hel in Ponsica v . Ignalaga, 8 in (hich it (ase>plaineA

No lon"er oes the ma)or have at this time the po(er to conuct preliminar)investi"ations, much less issue orers of arrest. Section 19 of the 4ocal

<overnment Coe, conferrin" this po(er on the ma)or has been abro"ate,renere functus officio b) the 1235 Constitution (hich too' effect on&ebruar) , 1235, the ate of its ratification b) the &ilipino people. Section ,

$rticle III of the 1235 Constitution pertinentl) provies that /no search (arrantor (arrant of arrest shall issue e>cept upon probable cause to be eterminepersonall) b) the *u"e after e>amination uner oath or affirmation of thecomplainant an the (itnesses he ma) prouce, an particularl) escribin"the place to be searche an the person or thin"s to be sei+e./ !heconstitutional proscription has thereb) been manifeste that thenceforth, the



function of eterminin" probable cause an issuin", on the basis thereof,(arrants of arrest or search (arrants, ma) be valil) e>ercise onl)b) judges, this bein" evience b) the elimination in the present Constitutionof the phrase, /such other responsible officer as ma) be authori+e b) la(/foun in the counterpart provision of sai 1259 Constitution G (ho, asiefrom *u"es, mi"ht conuct preliminar) investi"ation an issue (arrants of

arrest or search (arrants.

!hat there (as no penin" criminal case a"ainst the complainant i not ma'e the orera"ainst him an) less an orer of arrest, contrar) to the opinion of DI4<.

On the other han, the issuance of the (arrant (hen there (as before him no criminal case,but onl) a lan ispute as it is no( bein" mae to appear, onl) mae it (orse for the ma)or,for it (oul then appear that he assume a *uicial function (hich even a *u"e coul nothave one. $ll the more, therefore, responent *u"e shoul not have ismisse the criminalcase a"ainst the ma)or.

It cannot be pretene that Ma)or Irisari merel) intene to invite or summon Mu%e+ to his

office because he ha precisel) one this the a) before he issue the (arrant of arrest, anhe orere the arrest of complainant because the latter ha refuse to appear before him.!he summons issue b) Ma)or Irisari sho(s clearl) that he unerstoo the ifferencebet(een a summons an a (arrant of arrest. !he summons reaA

Republic of the PhilippinesPROVINCE O& $<S$N DE4 SR

MNICIP$4I! O& 4ORE!OOffice of the Ma)or

0 Decemb

S M M O N

!OA Mr. $polinario Mu%e+4oreto, $"usan el Sur

< R E E ! I N < SA

ou are hereb) emane to appear before the Office of the MunicipalMa)or on 5 December 1232 at aroun 2A9- $.M. then an there to ans(erin an in6uir)Finvesti"ation in connection (ith a certain complaint of Mr. !irso

$mao lo"e in this office.

P4E$SE &$I4 NO! uner the penalt) of the la(.

4oreto, $"usan el Sur, Philippines.

:S"; $SEIRIS$RIMunicipal M

Inee, responent ha previousl) enie the motion to ismiss (hich the accuse Ma)or



Irisari ha file on the "roun that the authorit) :=.P. =l". 995, 8 19H9; invo'e b) him asbasis for his (arrant of arrest ha been abro"ate b) the Constitution. 7e subse6uentl)reverse himself on the "roun that the ecision of the DI4<, finin" Ma)or Irisari not "uilt),/must be respecte./ 7e sai, /Courts are not boun b) finin"s of aministrative a"enciesli'e the DI4< as in this case if such finin"s are tainte (ith unfairness an there is arbitrar)action or palpable serious error./ Since the DI4< ecision (as not so tainte, /therefore, it

must be respecte./

Responent #u"e Ciriaco $ri%o shoul have 'no(n that the case of Ma)or Irisari (as notbefore him on revie( from the ecision of an aministrative a"enc) an, therefore, there (asno basis for appl)in" the rule on substantialit) of evience. ?hat (as before him (as acriminal case an he shoul have consiere solel) the facts alle"e in the information inresolvin" the motion to ismiss of the accuse. $t the ver) least, he sho(e poor *u"mentan "ross i"norance of basic le"al principles, for (hich he shoul be remine of (hat thisCourt sai inLibarios v . DabalosA 9

In the absence of frau, ishonest) or corruption, the acts of a *u"e one inhis *uicial capacit) are not sub*ect to isciplinar) action, even thou"h such

acts ma) be erroneous. =ut, (hile *u"es shoul not be iscipline forinefficienc) on account merel) of occasional mista'es or errors of *u"ment,)et, it is hi"hl) imperative that the) shoul be conversant (ith basic le"alprinciples.

In ever) case, a *u"e shoul eneavor ili"entl) to ascertain the facts anthe applicable la( uns(a)e b) partisan or personal interests, public opinionor fear of criticism. . . . $ *u"e o(es it to the public an the aministration of

*ustice to 'no( the la( he is suppose to appl) to a "iven controvers). 7e iscalle upon to e>hibit more than *ust a cursor) ac6uaintance (ith the statutesan proceural rules. !here (ill be faith in the aministration of *ustice onl) ifthere be a belief on the part of liti"ants that the occupants of the benchcannot *ustl) be accuse of a eficienc) in their "rasp of le"al principles. 1/

=ut there is more than *ust "ross i"norance of le"al principles sho(n here. $lthou"h heenies it, (hat the responent *u"e appears to have actuall) one in this case (as to rel)on the opinion of the DI4< (hich foun the ma)or not "uilt) of serious misconuct in officeon the "roun that he ha not reall) issue a (arrant of arrest a"ainst the complainant butonl) an invitation or a summons. !o *ustif) his reliance on the opinion of the DI4<,responent *u"e invo'e the rule in aministrative la( that the finin"s of facts ofaministrative a"encies (hen supporte b) substantial evience, are binin" on the courtsin the absence of a sho(in" of frau, imposition or ishonest). ?e have alrea) state (h)that is "rossl) erroneous. ?hat (e are here concerne is that b) rel)in" on the opinion ofthe DI4<, isre"arin" a previous rulin" he ha mae (hich (as in accorance (ith la(,responent *u"e sho(e lac' of capacit) for inepenent *u"ment.

?7ERE&ORE, a &INE of P@,---.-- is impose on responent #u"e Ciriaco $ri%o. 7e isen*oine to e>ercise "reater care an ili"ence in the performance of his uties as a *u"ean (arne that a repetition of the similar offense (ill be ealt (ith more severel).

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa !"#" $idin Regalado and Puno ##" concur"



Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

&IRS! DIVISION

$.R. No. 898 #e&e0ber 2, 1994

$REATER ALAN$A #EELOPMENT CORPORATON, petitioner,vs.MUNCPALT3 OF ALAN$A, ATAAN SAN$$UNAN$ A3AN OF ALAN$A,ATAAN ON. MELANO S. AN"ON, JR. ON. #OMN$O #. #"ON ON.A$RPNO C. AN"ON ON. E#UAR#O P. TUA"ON ON. $AREL J. NSA3 ON.LOREN"O P. TAPAN ON. FE#ERCO S. USTAMANTE ON. ROLAN#O . #A#ON. E#LERTO 6. #E $U"MAN ON. ALFRE#O C. $ULA a%* ON. $ANO S.SANTA$O,responents.

Ricardo !" %al&onte and Re'naldo L" $agatsing for (etitioner"

6UASON, J.:

!his a a petition for certiorari , prohibition an &anda&us uner Rule 0@ of the Revise Rulesof Court to annul E>ecutive Orer No. 1, sB33 an Resolution No. 1, sB33 issue,

respectivel), b) the Ma)or an the San""unian" =a)an of =alan"a, =ataan.

I

!his case involves a parcel of lan, 4ot 01B=B0B$B9 of the subivision plan Ps -9B--509,situate in =arrio San #ose, Municipalit) of =alan"a, Province of =ataan. !he lot has an areaof 3,05 s6uare meters. It is re"istere uner !ransfer Certificate of !itle No. 1-1@ issueon #anuar) 11, 1233 b) the Re"ister of Dees of the Province of =ataan in the name ofpetitioner <reater =alan"a Development Corporation. Petitioner is a omestic corporationo(ne an controlle b) the Camacho famil), (hich onate to the Municipalit) of =alan"athe present site of the =alan"a Public Mar'et. !he lot in ispute lies behin the =alan"aPublic Mar'et.

In 1235, petitioner conucte a relocation surve) of the area. It iscovere that certainportions of the propert) ha been /unla(full) usurpe an invae/ b) the Municipalit) of=alan"a, (hich ha /allo(eFtolerateFabette/ the construction of shanties an mar'etstalls (hile char"in" mar'et fees an mar'et entrance fees from the occupants an users ofthe area. $ portion of the lot ha also been utili+e as an unloain" site :/ba"sa'an/; oftransient ve"etable venors, (ho (ere char"e mar'et an entrance fees b) themunicipalit).



On #anuar) 11, 1233, petitioner applie (ith the Office of the Ma)or of =alan"a for abusiness permit to en"a"e in business in the sai area. On the same a), Ma)or Melanio S.=an+on, #r. issue Ma)orJs Permit No. 52, "rantin" petitioner the privile"e of a /real estateealerFprivatel)Bo(ne public mar'et operator/ uner the trae name of =alan"a PublicMar'et. !he permit (as to e>pire on December 91, 1233. Petitioner li'e(ise re"istere/=alan"a Central Mar'et/ as a trae name (ith the =ureau of !rae Re"ulations an

Consumer Protection.

On &ebruar) 12, 1233, ho(ever, the San""unian" =a)an of =alan"a passe Resolution No.1, sB33 annullin" the Ma)orJs permit issue to petitioner an avisin" the Ma)or to revo'ethe permit /to operate a public mar'et./

Pursuant to sai Resolution, Ma)or =an+on, on March 5, 1233, issue E>ecutive Orer No.1, sB33 revo'in" the permit insofar as it authori+e the operation of a public mar'et.

On #ul) 19, 1233, petitioner file the instant petition (ith a pra)er for the issuance of a (rit ofpreliminar) manator) an prohibitor) in*unction or restrainin" orer aime at thereinstatement of the Ma)orJs permit an the curtailment of the municipalit)Js collection of

mar'et fees an mar'et entrance fees. !he Court i not issue the preliminar) reliefs pra)efor.

Responent asserte that as the local chief e>ecutive, the Ma)or ma) issue, en) or revo'emunicipal licenses an permits. !he) contene that Resolution No. 1, sB33 of theSan""unian" =a)an, the basis of E>ecutive Orer No. 1, sB33, (as a le"itimate e>ercise oflocal le"islative authorit) an, as such, the revocation of petitionerJs permit (as not tainte(ith an) "rave abuse of iscretion.

Petitioner replie that since it ha not violate an) la( or orinance, there (as no reason forresponents to revo'e the Ma)orJs permit issue to it. On the contrar), petitioner assertethat the e>ecutive orer an the resolution in 6uestion (ere 6uasiB*uicial acts an not meree>ercises of police po(er. It 6uestione responentsJ failure to observe ue process inrevo'in" the permit an challen"e the le"alit) of the collection of the mar'et an entrancefees b) the municipalit).

In their Re*oiner, responents pointe out that petitioner ha violate an e>istin" municipalorinance (hen it faile to isclose the true status of the area involve in the permit an(hen it i not secure separate permits for its t(o businesses, i"e", one as /real estateealer/ an another as /privatel)Bo(ne public mar'et operator./ Responents referre toSection 9$B-0:b; of the =alan"a Revenue Coe (hich, inter alia, en*oins an applicant for aMa)orJs permit from ma'in" a false statement in his application an provies for thepenalties for violation of an) e>istin" orinance re"ulatin" business establishments.

II

Ma)orJs Permit No. 52 (as revo'e b) E>ecutive Orer No. 1, sB33, (hich reas asfollo(sA

=) virtue of the authorit) veste upon me b) la( as Ma)or of the Municipalit)of =alan"a, an as per Resolution No. 1, sB33 of the San""unian" =a)an of=alan"a, the Ma)orJs Permit in the latter portion of its purpose, i.e., /tooperate a public mar'et,/ issue to the <reater =alan"a DevelopmentCorporation, is hereb) REVOKED, effective immeiatel).



IN ?I!NESS ?7EREO&, I hereunto have set m) han this 5th a) of March1233, at =alan"a, =ataan.

:S<

D.; ME4

$NIO S. =

$NLON, #R

.

Municipal M

a)or

:Rollo, p. 90;

!he authorit) of the Ma)or to revo'e a permit he issue is premise on a violation b) the"rantee of an) of the conitions for (hich the permit ha been "rante. Responents



claime that petitioner ha violate the provisions of Section 9$B-0:b; of the =alan"aRevenue Coe (hen it faile to inform the Ma)or that the lot in controvers) (as the sub*ectof averse claims for (hich a civil case (as file.

Section 9$B-0:b; of the =alan"a Revenue Coe reasA

>>> >>> >>>

:b; !he application for a Ma)orJs permit shall state the name, resience anciti+enship of :sic; the applicantJs full escription of the business, theparticular place (here :sic; the same shall be conucte, an such otherpertinent information an ate :sic; as an) :sic; be re6uire. If the applicanteliberatel) ma'es a false statement in the application form, the MunicipalMa)or ma) revo'e the permit an the applicant ma) be prosecute anpenali+e in accorance (ith the pertinent provisions of penal la(s.

In case a person esires to conuct the same 'in or line of business inanother place (ithin the Municipalit), in aition to or asie from the

establishment specifie in his permit, he shall secure a separate permit foreach business an pa) the corresponin" fee impose in this article. If aperson esires to en"a"e in more than one 'in or line of business, he shallpa) the fee impose on each separate business, not(ithstanin" the fact thathe ma) conuct or operate all istinct business :sic;, traes or occupation inone place onl).

>>> >>> >>>

:h; Revocation of Per&it . G !he Municipal Ma)or ma) revo'e a permit, ineffect close the establishment, upon a violation of e>istin" orinancere"ulatin" business establishments or an) provisions of this article, in

aition to the fine an imprisonment that the) :sic; ma) be impose b) thecourt for violation of this article :Memoranum of the Solicitor <eneral, pp.10B15 Rollo, p. 9;.

Responents claim that petitioner :1; eliberatel) mae a false statement in the applicationform (hen it faile to provie the information that their place of business is the sub*ect ofaverse claims an :; faile to appl) for t(o separate permits for the t(o lines of businessit propose to en"a"e in.

!he application for Ma)orJs permit in the case at bench re6uires the applicant to state (hatt)pe of /business/, profession, occupation anFor callin" privile"es/ is bein" applie for.Petitioner left this entr) ban' in its application form :Rollo, p. 9;. It is onl) in the Ma)orJspermit itself that petitionerJs lines of business appear, (hich in this case are t(o separate

t)pes, one as real estate ealer an another as public mar'et operator.

!he permit shoul not have been issue (ithout the re6uire information "iven in theapplication form itself. Revo'in" the permit, ho(ever, because of a false statement in theapplication form cannot be *ustifie uner the aforementione provision. !here must be proofof (illful misrepresentation an eliberate intent to ma'e a false statement. <oo faith isal(a)s presume, an as it happene, petitioner i not ma'e an) false statement in thepertinent entr).



Neither (as petitionerJs appl)in" for t(o businesses in one permit a "roun for revocation.!he secon para"raph of Section 9$B-0:b; oes not e>pressl) re6uire t(o permits for theirconuct of t(o or more businesses in one place, but onl) that separate fees be pai for eachbusiness. !he po(ers of municipal corporations are to be construe in strictissi&i juris anan) oubt or ambi"uit) must be construe a"ainst the municipalit) :Cit) of O+ami+ v.4umapas, 0@ SCR$ 99 H125@;. <rantin", ho(ever, that separate permits are actuall)

re6uire, the application form oes not contain an) entr) as re"ars the number ofbusinesses the applicant (ishes to en"a"e in.

Responents insinuate ba faith on the part of petitioner in failin" to suppl) the pertinentinformation in the application form an for ta'in" avanta"e of the fact that Ma)or =an+on(as then ne(l) installe as Ma)or of =alan"a. !he absence of the material information inthe application form (as nonetheless supplie in the face of the permit si"ne an issue b)Ma)or =an+on himself :Rollo, p. 15;.

ner the la(, the San""unian" =a)an has the po(er to provie for the establishment anmaintenance of public mar'ets in the municipalit) an /to re"ulate an) business sub*ect tomunicipal license ta> or fees an prescribe the conitions uner (hich a municipal license

ma) be revo'e/ :=.P. =l". 995, Sec. 12 H1 Hf r;. It (as this authorit) (hich responentSan""unian" =a)an invo'e (hen it issue Resolution No. 1, sB33.

!he sai Resolution state that the lan sub*ect of this case (as earmar'e for thee>pansion of the =alan"a Public Mar'et that this lan (as o(ne not b) petitioner but b)the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 93-9 entitle /4eoncia Di+on, et. al. v. $urora =. Camacho/that the Municipalit) of =alan"a (as not apprise of the e>istence of the civil case that theecision a(arin" the lot to the plaintiffs an the issuance of the Ma)orJs permit to petitioner(ho (as not the ri"htful o(ner ha cause /an>iet), uncertaint) an restiveness/ amon" thestallholers an traers in the sub*ect lot an that the San""unian" =a)an thereforeresolve to annul the sai Ma)orJs permit insofar as it concerns the operation of a publicmar'et.

$s ma) be "leane from sai Resolution, the main reason for the revocation of the Ma)orJspermit (as the controvers) en"enere b) the filin" of Civil Case No. 93-9 before theRe"ional !rial Court, =alan"a, =ataan involvin" the o(nership of certain portions of 4ot 01B=, the lan from (hich 4ot 01B=B0B$B9 (as erive.

4ot 01B= (as ori"inall) o(ne an re"istere in the name of $urora !. =an+on Camacho,(ho subivie the lan into nine lots uner 4RCPsB55-@- an esi"nate them as 4ots 01B=B1 to 01B=B2. She enote some of the lotsto the Municipalit) of =alan"a (hich no( comprise the =alan"a Public Mar'et, an solothers to thir persons.

On #anuar) 9-, 125, five bu)ers of certain portions of 4ot 01B= file Civil Case No. 93-9

a"ainst Camacho for partition an eliver) of titles. Camacho (as eclare in efault anthe plaintiffs forth(ith presente their evience. On December -, 125, the trial courtrenere a ecision orerin" the efenant to se"re"ate the efinite portions sol to theplaintiffs an eliver to them the corresponin" titles thereto. !his ecision (as affirme b)the Court of $ppeals on #anuar) 9-, 1231 in C$B<.R. No. @213BR :<.R. No. 09, Rollo,pp. @-B@3;.

!he efenant elevate the matter to this Court. In a Resolution ate March 1, 1239, (eenie the petition for lac' of merit :<.R. No. 09, Rollo, p. 1--;.



!he 6uestion no( is (hether 4ot 01B=B0B$B9 is a part of the lan a*u"e b) the trial courtin Civil Case No. 93-9 to the plaintiffs, or an) one of them.

4ot 01B=B0B$B9 (as ori"inall) re"istere in the name of Camacho uner !C! No. !B1-93.She enote the lan to her au"hter, $urora &e :Rollo,p. 92;. !C! No. 1-93 (as then cancelle an !C! No. !B1-01 issue in the oneeJs

name, (ho in turn, transferre the lan to herein petitioner. !C!No. 1-01 of $urora &e (as cancelle an !C! No. 1-1@ (as issue in petitionerJsname on #anuar) 11, 1233. On the same a), the Ma)orJs permit to operate the lot as apublic mar'et (as also "rante.

It is the position of responents that the series of transfers of the sub*ect lot reveals ascheme to avoi the application of the ecision in Civil CaseNo. 93-9.

!here is no 6uestion that 4ot 01B=B0B$B9 is a portion of 4ot 01B=B0, an the claims of theplaintiffs in the civil case (ere on 4ots 01B=B0 an01B=B5 :Rollo, p. 95;. $s to (hether plaintiffsJ claims embrace specificall) 4ot 01B=B0B$B

9 coul not be etermine from the face of the ecision in the civil case. !here is no sho(in"that 4ot 01B=B0B$B9 (as a(are b) the court to one of the plaintiffs therein. !here is noproof either that the *u"ment in sai case ha alrea) been e>ecute an the titleselivere to the plaintiffs.

!he 6uestion of o(nership over 4ot 01B= ha alrea) been settle (ith finalit) b) theSupreme Court in 1239 in <.R. No. 09. Entr) of *u"ment (as li'e(ise, mae in thesame )ear. ?hen the Ma)orJs permit (as revo'e on &ebruar) 12, 1233, five )ears haalrea) elapse since the case (as ecie. Petitioner (as able to surve) the lan anhave the surve) approve on March 1, 123 :Rollo, pp. 1@B10;, an on #anuar) 11, 1233,petitioner obtaine in its name !C! No. 1-1@ /(ithout an) memoranum of encumbranceor encumbrances pertainin" to an) ecision renere in an) civil case/ :Rollo,p. 122;. Clearl), for all intents an purposes, petitioner appeare to be the true o(ner of 4ot

01B=B0B$B9 (hen responents revo'e its permit to en"a"e in business on its o(n lan.

$ssumin" arguendo that 4ot 01B=B0B$B9 (as actuall) one of those a(are to the plaintiffsin Civil Case No. 93-9 an the !ransfer Certificate of !itle of petitioner is spurious, this stilloes not *ustif) the revocation of the Ma)orJs permit.

$ close scrutin) of the recors reveals that the San""unian" =a)an i not establish ormaintain an) public mar'et on the sub*ect lot. !he resolution merel) mentione the plan toac6uire the lot for e>pansion of the public mar'et a*acent thereto. ntil e>propriationproceein"s are institute in court, thelano(ner cannot be eprive of its ri"ht over the lan :Province of Ri+al v. San Die"o, 1-@Phil. 99 H12@2Re(ublic v" $a'losis, 20 Phil. 01 H12@@;. Of course, the San""unian" =a)an

has the ut) in the e>ercise of its police po(ers to re"ulate an) business sub*ect tomunicipal license fees an prescribe the conitions uner (hich a municipal license alrea)issue ma) be revo'e :=.P. =l". 995, Sec. 12 H1 Hr;. =ut the /an>iet), uncertaint),restiveness/ amon" the stallholers an traers cannot be a vali "roun for revo'in" thepermit of petitioner. $fter all, the stallholers an traers (ere oin" business on propert)not belon"in" to the Municipal "overnment. Inee, the claim that the e>ecutive orer anresolution (ere measures /esi"ne to promote peace an orer an protect the "eneral(elfare of the people of =alan"a/ is too amorphous an convenient an e>cuse to *ustif)responentsJ acts :Villacorta v. =ernaro, 19 SCR$ 3- H1230;.



Moreover, (e fin that the manner b) (hich the Ma)or revo'e the permit trans"ressepetitionerJs ri"ht to ue process :<oron v. Veriiano II, 105 SCR$ @1 H1233;. !he alle"eviolation of Section 9$B-0:b; of the =alan"a Revenue Coe (as not state in the orer ofrevocation, an neither (as petitioner informe of this specific violation until the Re*oiner(as file in the instant case. In fact, (ith all the more reason shoul ue process have beenobserve in vie( of the 6uestione Resolution of the San""unian" =a)an.

!he 'no(le"e of the penenc) of Civil Case No. 93-9 coul not i(so facto nullif) an) claimpetitioner ha on the lot. !his necessitate first an foremost a etermination of the e>actparameters of the lot an a finin" that petitioner is not the true o(ner thereof. !he finin"that Civil Case No. 93-9 (as alrea) settle b) the Supreme Court shoul have appriseresponents of the possibilit) that the ecision therein ma) have alrea) been e>ecute.

Inee, the cases of Austin )ard*are !o" Inc" v" !ourt of A((eals, 02 SCR$ @0 :1250;an Enri+ue, v" $idin, 5 SCR$ 139 :125; are in point. In these cases, the revocation ofthe Ma)orJs permit (as uphel b) this Court because the "rouns for revocation (ereamitte an not ispute.

If onl) for the violation of ue process (hich is manifest from E>ecutive Orer No. 1, sB33an Resolution No. 1, sB33, the Ma)orJs arbitrar) action can be annulle.

In vie( of the unispute fact that the responent Municipalit) is not the o(ner of 4ot 01B=B0B$B9, then there is no le"al basis for it to impose an collect mar'et fees an mar'etentrance fees. Onl) the o(ner has the ri"ht to o so.

=e that as it ma), the Ma)orJs permit issue on #anuar) 11, 1233 cannot no( be reinstateespite the nullit) of its revocation. !he permit e>pire on December 91, 1233.

?7ERE&ORE, :1; the petition for certiorari an prohibition is <R$N!ED an E>ecutiveOrer No. 1, sB33 an Resolution No. 1, sB33 issue, respectivel), b) responents Ma)or

an San""unian" =a)an of =alan"a, =ataan are N44I&IED for havin" been issue in "raveabuse of iscretion an :; the petition for &anda&us is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla Davide #r" $ellosillo and -a(unan ##" concur"

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

!7IRD DIVISION

$.R. No. 1119 Au)u(7 12, 2//2

ON. ALFRE#O LM a%* RAFAELTO $ARA3LAS, petitioners,vs.TE COURT OF APPEALS, ON. LFRE#O RE3ES a%* STRO P$ALLE,



NC., responents.

CARPO, J .

T:e Ca(e

=efore us is a petition for revie( on certiorari1 of the Decision of the Court of $ppeals ateMarch @, 1229,an its Resolution ate #ul) 19, 12299 (hich enie petitioners motion forreconsieration. !he assaile Decision sustaine the orers ate December 2, 122,#anuar) -, 1229 an March , 1229, issue b) =ranch 90 of the Re"ional !rial Court ofManila. !he trial courts orers en*oine petitioner $lfreo 4im :/4im/ for brevit);, then Ma)orof Manila, from investi"atin", impein" or closin" o(n the business operations of the Ne(=an"'o' Club an the E>otic <aren Restaurant o(ne b) responent =istro Pi"alle Inc.:/=istro/ for brevit);.

T:e A%7e&e*e%7 Fa&7(

On December 5, 122 =istro file before the trial court a petition@ for manamus an

prohibition, (ith pra)er for temporar) restrainin" orer or (rit of preliminar) in*unction,a"ainst 4im in his capacit) as Ma)or of the Cit) of Manila. =istro file the case becausepolicemen uner 4ims instructions inspecte an investi"ate =istros license as (ell as the(or' permits an health certificates of its staff. !his cause the stoppa"e of (or' in =istrosni"ht club an restaurant operations.0 4im also refuse to accept =istros application for abusiness license, as (ell as the (or' permit applications of =istros staff, for the )ear 1229. 5

In its petition, =istro ar"ue that 4ims refusal to issue the business license an (or' permitsviolate the octrine lai o(n this Court in De la !ru, vs" Paras3 to (itA

/Municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of ni"htclubs. !he) ma) bere"ulate, but not prevente from carr)in" on their business./

$ctin" on =istros application for in*unctive relief, the trial court issue the first assailetemporar) restrainin" orer on December 2, 122, the ispositive portion of (hich reasA

/?7ERE&ORE, responent anFor his a"ents an representatives are orere torefrain from inspectin" or other(ise interferin" in the operation of the establishmentsof petitioner :=istro Pi"alle, Inc.;./2

$t the hearin", the parties submitte their evience in support of their respective positions.On #anuar) -, 1229, the trial court "rante =istros application for a (rit of prohibitor)preliminar) in*unction. !he ispositive portion of the trial courts orer eclareA

/?7ERE&ORE, in vie( of all the fore"oin", Petitioners application for a (rit ofprohibitor) preliminar) in*unction is "rante, an Responent, an an)Fall personsactin" uner his authorit), are an :sic; orere to cease an esist from inspectin",investi"atin" an other(ise closin" or impein" the business operations of PetitionerCorporations establishments (hile the petition here is penin" resolution on themerits.

Consierin" that the Responent is a "overnment official an this in*unction relatesto his official uties, the postin" of an in*unction bon b) the Petitioners is not



re6uire.

On the other han, Petitioners application for a (rit of manator) in*unction is hereb)enie, for to "rant the same (oul amount to "rantin" the (rit of manamus pra)efor. !he Court reserves resolution thereof until the parties shall have been hear onthe merits./1-

7o(ever, espite the trial courts orer, 4im still issue a closure orer on =istros operationseffective #anuar) 9, 1229, even senin" policemen to carr) out his closure orer.

On #anuar) @, 1229, =istro file an /r"ent Motion for Contempt/ a"ainst 4im an thepolicemen (ho stoppe =istros operations on #anuar) 9, 1229. $t the hearin" of themotion for contempt on #anuar) 2, 1229, =istro (ithre( its motion on conition that 4im(oul respect the courts in*unction.

7o(ever, on &ebruar) 1, 19, 1@, 0 an 5, an on March 1 an , 1229, 4im, actin"throu"h his a"ents an policemen, a"ain isrupte =istros business operations.

Mean(hile, on &ebruar) 15, 1229, 4im file a motion to issolve the in*unctive orer of#anuar) -, 1229 an to ismiss the case. 4im insiste that the po(er of a ma)or to inspectan investi"ate commercial establishments an their staff is implicit in the statutor) po(er ofthe cit) ma)or to issue, suspen or revo'e business permits an licenses. !his statutor)po(er is e>pressl) provie for in Section 11 :l;, $rticle II of the Revise Charter of the Cit)of Manila an in Section @@, para"raph 9 :iv; of the 4ocal <overnment Coe of 1221.

!he trial court enie 4ims motion to issolve the in*unction an to ismiss the case in anorer ate March , 1229, the ispositive portion of (hich stateA

/?7ERE&ORE, premises consiere, the Court hereb) orersA

:1; !he enial of responents motion to issolve the (rit of preliminar) prohibitor)in*unction or the ismissal of the instant case

:; PetitionerBcorporation is authori+e to remove the (ooen crossBbars or an)other impeiments (hich (ere place at its establishments, namel), Ne( =an"'o'Club an E>otic <aren Restaurant on &ebruar) 1, 1229 an &ebruar) 1@, 1229,respectivel), an thereafter sai establishments are allo(e to resume theiroperations

:9; $ll the other petitioners are allo(e to continue (or'in" in the aforenameestablishments of petitionerBcorporation if the) have not )et reporte an

:; !he hearin" on the contempt proceein"s is eferre to "ive sufficient time toresponent to elevate the matters assaile herein to the Supreme Court./11

On March 1-, 1229, 4im file (ith the Court of $ppeals a petition for certiorari, prohibitionan manamus a"ainst =istro an #u"e ?ilfreo Re)es. 4im claime that the trial *u"ecommitte "rave abuse of iscretion amountin" to lac' of *urisiction in issuin" the (rit ofprohibitor) preliminar) in*unction.

On March @, 1229, the Court of $ppeals renere the assaile ecision. 1 In a resolution



ate #ul) 19, 1229, the Court of $ppeals enie 4ims motion for reconsieration.19

On #ul) 1, 1229, Manila Cit) Orinance No. 55391 too' effect. On the same a), 4imorere the ?estern Police District Comman to permanentl) close o(n the operations of=istro, (hich orer the police implemente at once.1@

T:e Ru+'%) o; 7:e Cour7 o; A<<ea+(

In en)in" 4ims petition, the Court of $ppeals hel that the trial court i not commit "raveabuse of iscretion since it issue the (rit after hearin" on the basis of the evienceauce.

!he Court of $ppeals reasone thusA

/> > >. $ (rit of preliminar) in*unction ma) issue if the act sou"ht to be en*oine (illcause irreparable in*ur) to the movant or estro) the status 6uo before a full hearin"can be ha on the merits of the case.

$ (rit of preliminar) in*unction, as an ancillar) or preventive reme), ma) onl) beresorte to b) a liti"ant to protect or preserve his ri"hts or interests an for no otherpurpose urin" the penenc) of the principal action. It is primaril) intene tomaintain the status 6uo bet(een the parties e>istin" prior to the filin" of the case.

In the case at bar, ?e fin that the responent #u"e i not act improvientl) inissuin" the assaile orers "rantin" the (rit of preliminar) in*unction in orer tomaintain the status 6uo, (hile the petition is penin" resolution on the merits. !heprivate responent correctl) points out that the 6uestione (rit (as re"ularl) issueafter several hearin"s, in (hich the parties (ere allo(e to auce evience, anar"ue their respective positions.

!he issuance of a (rit of preliminar) in*unction is (ithin the limits of the soune>ercise of iscretion of the court an the appellate court (ill not interfere, e>cept, ina clear case of abuse thereof. > > >.

?7ERE&ORE, the petition is DENIED DE CORSE an is accorin"l)DISMISSED./10

7ence, this petition.

T:e ((ue(

In their Memoranum, petitioners raise the follo(in" issuesA

1. /DID RESPONDEN! #D<E COMMI! <R$VE $=SE O& DISCRE!ION $MON!IN< !O 4$CK OR ECESS O& #RISDIC!ION IN ISSIN< 7IS S$ID $SS$I4ED ORDERS O& DECEM=ER 2, 122, #$N$R -, 1229 $ND M$RC7, 1229/

. /DID RESPONDEN! COR! O& $PPE$4S COMMI! REVERSI=4E ERRORS INRENDERIN< I!S $SS$I4ED DECISION O& M$RC7 @, 1229 $ND I!S $SS$I4EDRESO4!ION O& #4 19, 1229/



9. /DID S$ID CIVI4 C$SE NO. 2B0951 $ND S$ID C$B<.R. SP NO. 9-931=ECOME MOO! $ND $C$DEMIC ?7EN !7E NE? =$N<KOK C4= $ND !7EEO!IC <$RDEN RES!$R$N! O& PRIV$!E RESPONDEN! ?ERE C4OSEDON #4 1, 1229 PRS$N! !O ORDIN$NCE NO. 5539/

T:e Ru+'%) o; 7:e Cour7

!he petition is (ithout merit.

Consierin" that the constitutionalit) of Orinance No. 5539 (as not raise before the trialcourt or the Court of $ppeals, an this issue is still uner liti"ation in another case,15 theCourt (ill eal onl) (ith the first t(o issues raise b) petitioner.

Validity of the Preliminary Injunction

=istros cause of action in the &anda&us an prohibition proceein"s before the trial court isthe violation of its propert) ri"ht uner its license to operate. !he violation consists of the(or' isruption in =istros operations cause b) 4im an his suborinates as (ell as 4ims

refusal to issue a business license to =istro an (or' permits to its staff for the )ear 1229.!he primar) relief pra)e for b) =istro is the issuance of (rits of manator) an prohibitor)in*unction. !he manator) in*unction see's to compel 4im to accept =istros 1229 businesslicense application an to issue =istros business license. $lso, the manator) in*unctionsee's to compel 4im to accept the applications of =istros staff for (or' permits. !he (rit ofprohibitor) in*unction see's to en*oin 4im from interferin", impein" or other(ise closin"o(n =istros operations.

!he trial court "rante onl) the prohibitor) in*unction. !his en*oine 4im from interferin",impein" or other(ise closin" o(n =istros operations penin" resolution of (hether 4imcan valil) refuse to issue =istros business license an its staffs (or' permits for the )ear1229.

4im contens that the Court of $ppeals erre in upholin" the prohibitor) in*unction. 4imrelies primaril) on his po(er, as Ma)or of the Cit) of Manila, to "rant an refuse municipallicenses an business permits as e>pressl) provie for in the 4ocal <overnment Coe anthe Revise Charter of the Cit) of Manila. 4im ar"ues that the po(ers "rante b) these la(simplicitl) inclue the po(er to inspect, investi"ate an close o(n =istros operations forviolation of the conitions of its licenses an permits.

On the other han, =istro asserts that the le"al provisions relie upon b) 4im o not appl) tothe instant case. =istro maintains that the 4ocal <overnment Coe an the Revise Charterof the Cit) of Manila o not e>pressl) or impliel) "rant 4im an) po(er to prohibit theoperation of ni"ht clubs. 4im faile to specif) an) violation b) =istro of the conitions of itslicenses an permits. In refusin" to accept =istros business license application for the )ear

1229, =istro claims that 4im enie =istro ue process of la(.

!he Court of $ppeals hel that the trial court i not commit "rave abuse of iscretion inissuin" the prohibitor) preliminar) in*unction.

?e uphol the finin"s of the Court of $ppeals.

!he authorit) of ma)ors to issue business licenses an permits is be)on 6uestion. !he la(



e>pressl) provies for such authorit). Section 11 :l;, $rticle II of the Revise Charter of theCit) of Manila, reasA

/Sec. 11. General duties and powers of the mayor . !he "eneral uties an po(ersof the ma)or shall beA

> > >.

:l; To )ra%7 a%* re;u(e 0u%'&'<a+ +'&e%(e( or <er0'7( o; a++ &+a((e( a%* 7ore=o>e 7:e (a0e ;or ='o+a7'o% o; 7:e &o%*'7'o%( u<o% ?:'&: 7:ey ?ere )ra%7e*,or if acts prohibite b) la( or municipal orinances are bein" committe uner theprotection of such licenses or in the premises in (hich the business for (hich thesame have been "rante is carrie on, or for an) other reason of "eneral interest./:Emphasis supplie;

On the other han, Section @@ :9; :iv; of the 4ocal <overnment Coe proviesA

/Sec. @@. Chief Executive Powers !uties and CompensationA >>>.

:b; &or efficient, effective an economical "overnance the purpose of (hich is the"eneral (elfare of the Cit) an its inhabitants pursuant to Section 10 of this Coe,the Cit) Ma)or shallA

:9; > > >.

:iv; ((ue +'&e%(e( a%* <er0'7( a%* (u(<e%* or re=o>e 7:e (a0e ;or a%y='o+a7'o% o; 7:e &o%*'7'o% u<o% ?:'&: (a'* +'&e%(e( or <er0'7( :a* bee%'((ue*, <ur(ua%7 7o +a? or or*'%a%&e./ :Emphasis supplie;

&rom the lan"ua"e of the t(o la(s, it is clear that the po(er of the ma)or to issue business

licenses an permits necessaril) inclues the corollar) po(er to suspen, revo'e or evenrefuse to issue the same. 7o(ever, the po(er to suspen or revo'e these licenses anpermits is e>pressl) premise on the violation of the conitions of these permits anlicenses. !he la(s specificall) refer to the /violation of the conition:s;/ on (hich the licensesan permits (ere issue. Similarl), the po(er to refuse to issue such licenses an permits ispremise on nonBcompliance (ith the prere6uisites for the issuance of such licenses anpermits. !he ma)or must observe ue process in e>ercisin" these po(ers, (hich means thatthe ma)or must "ive the applicant or licensee notice an opportunit) to be hear.

!rue, the ma)or has the po(er to inspect an investi"ate private commercial establishmentsfor an) violation of the conitions of their licenses an permits. 7o(ever, the ma)or has nopo(er to orer a police rai on these establishments in the "uise of inspectin" or

investi"atin" these commercial establishments. 4im acte be)on his authorit) (hen heirecte policemen to rai the Ne( =an"'o' Club an the E>otic <aren Restaurant. Suchact of 4im violate Orinance No. 551013 (hich e>pressl) prohibits police rais aninspections, to (itA

/Section 1. No member of the ?estern Police District shall conuct inspection of fooan other business establishments for the purpose of enforcin" sanitar) rules anre"ulations, inspectin" licenses an permits, anFor enforcin" internal revenue ancustoms la(s an re"ulations. !his responsibilit) shoul be properl) e>ercise b)



4ocal <overnment $uthorities an other concerne a"encies./ :Emphasis supplie;

!hese local "overnment officials inclue the Cit) 7ealth Officer or his representative,pursuant to the Revise Cit) Orinances of the Cit) of Manila,12 an the Cit) !reasurerpursuant to Section 5- of the 4ocal <overnment Coe.-

4im has no authorit) to close o(n =istros business or an) business establishment inManila (ithout ue process of la(. 4im cannot ta'e refu"e uner the Revise Charter of theCit) of Manila an the 4ocal <overnment Coe. !here is no provision in these la(se>pressl) or impliel) "rantin" the ma)or authorit) to close o(n private commercialestablishments (ithout notice an hearin", an even if there is, such provision (oul bevoi. !he ue process clause of the Constitution re6uires that 4im shoul have "iven =istroan opportunit) to rebut the alle"ations that it violate the conitions of its licenses anpermits.

!he re"ulator) po(ers "rante to municipal corporations must al(a)s be e>ercise inaccorance (ith la(, (ith utmost observance of the ri"hts of the people to ue process ane6ual protection of the la(.1 Such po(er cannot be e>ercise (himsicall), arbitraril) or

espoticall). In the instant case, (e fin that 4ims e>ercise of this po(er violate =istrospropert) ri"hts that are protecte uner the ue process clause of the Constitution.

4im i not char"e =istro (ith an) specific violation of the conitions of its business licenseor permits. Still, 4im close o(n =istros operations even before the e>piration of itsbusiness license on December 91, 122. 4im also refuse to accept =istros licenseapplication for 1229, in effect en)in" the application (ithout e>aminin" (hether it complies(ith le"al prere6uisites.

4ims +eal in his campai"n a"ainst prostitution is commenable. !he presumption is that heacte in "oo faith an (as motivate b) his concern for his constituents (hen heimplemente his campai"n a"ainst prostitution in the ErmitaBMalate area. 7o(ever, there isno e>cusin" 4im for arbitraril) closin" o(n, (ithout ue process of la(, the businessoperations of =istro. &or this reason, the trial court properl) restraine the acts of 4im.

Conse6uentl), the Court of $ppeals i not err in upholin" the trial courts orers. !he soleob*ective of a (rit of preliminar) in*unction is to preserve the status +uo until the merits of thecase can be hear full). It is "enerall) availe of to prevent actual or threatene acts, untilthe merits of the case can be ispose of. In the instant case, the issuance of the (rit ofprohibitor) preliminar) in*unction i not ispose of the main case for &anda&us. !he trialcourt issue the in*unction in vie( of the isruptions an stoppa"e in =istros operations as aconse6uence of 4ims closure orers. !he in*unction (as intene to maintain the status+uo (hile the petition has not been resolve on the merits.

?7ERE&ORE, the petition is enie for lac' of merit. !he assaile Decision of the Court of

$ppeals in C$B<.R. SP NO. 9-931 is AFFRME# in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Puno and Panganiban ##" concur.Sandoval./utierre, #" on leave.




SUPREME COURTManila

EN =$NC

$.R. No. 149848 No=e0ber 25, 2//4

ARSA# M. #SOMAN$COP a%* RAMR M. #MALOTAN$, petitioners,vs.TE SECRETAR3 OF TE #EPARTMENT OF PULC OR@S AN# $A3SSMEON A. #ATUMANON$ a%* TE SECRETAR3 OF U#$ET a%* MANA$EMENTEMLA T. ONCO#N, responents.

D E C I S I O N

TN$A, J .

$t sta'e in the present case is the fate of re"ional autonom) for Muslim Minanao (hich isthe epochBma'in", ConstitutionBbase pro*ect for achievin" national unit) in iversit).

Challen"e in the instant petition for certiorari, prohibition an manamus (ith pra)er for atemporar) restrainin" orer anFor (rit of preliminar) in*unction 1 :Petition; are theconstitutionalit) an valiit) of Republic $ct No. 3222 :R.$. 3222;, entitle /$n $ctEstablishin" $n En"ineerin" District in the &irst District of the Province of 4anao el Sur an

$ppropriatin" &uns !herefor,/ an Department of Public ?or's an 7i"h(a)s :DP?7;Department Orer No. 112 :D.O. 112;9 on the sub*ect, /Creation of Mara(i SubBDistrictEn"ineerin" Office./

T0e $ac1ground

!he unconteste le"al an factual anteceents of the case follo(.

&or the first time in its histor) after three Constitutions, the Philippines oraine theestablishment of re"ional autonom) (ith the aoption of the 1235 Constitution. Sections1 an 1@, $rticle manate the creation of autonomous re"ions in Muslim Minanao an inthe Corilleras. Section 1@ specificall) provies that /Hthere shall be create autonomous

re"ions in Muslim Minanao an in the Corilleras consistin" of provinces, cities,municipalities, an "eo"raphical areas sharin" common an istinctive historical an culturalherita"e, economic an social structures, an other relevant characteristics (ithin theframe(or' of this Constitution an the national soverei"nt) as (ell as territorial inte"rit) ofthe Republic of the Philippines./ !o effectuate this manate, the Charter evotes a numberof provisions uner $rticle .@

Pursuant to the constitutional manate, Republic $ct No. 059 :R.$. 059;, entitle /$n $ctProviin" for $n Or"anic $ct for the $utonomous Re"ion in Muslim Minanao,/ (as enacte

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_149848_2004.html#fnt1













an si"ne into la( on 1 $u"ust 1232. !he la( calle for the holin" of a plebiscite in theprovinces of =asilan, Cotabato, Davao el Sur, 4anao el Norte, 4anao el Sur,Ma"uinanao, Pala(an, South Cotabato, Sultan Kuarat, Sulu, !a(iB!a(i, Lamboan"a elNorte, an Lamboan"a el Sur, an the cities of Cotabato, Dapitan, Dipolo", <eneralSantos, Ili"an, Mara(i, Pa"aian, Puerto Princesa an Lamboan"a.0 In the ensuin"plebiscite hel on 12 November 1232, onl) four :; provinces vote for the creation of an

autonomous re"ion, namel)A 4anao el Sur, Ma"uinanao, Sulu an !a(iB!a(i. !heseprovinces became the $utonomous Re"ion in Muslim Minanao :$RMM;.5 !he la( containselaborate provisions on the po(ers of the Re"ional <overnment an the areas of *urisiction(hich are reserve for the National <overnment.3

In accorance (ith R.$. 059, then Presient Cora+on C. $6uino issue on 1 October122-, E>ecutive Orer No. 0 :E.O. 0;, entitle /Placin" the Control an Supervision ofthe Offices of the Department of Public ?or's an 7i"h(a)s (ithin the $utonomous Re"ionin Muslim Minanao uner the $utonomous Re"ional <overnment, an for other purposes./Sections 1 to 92 of the E>ecutive Orer are its operative provisions.

$RMM (as formall) or"ani+e on 0 November 122-. Presient Cora+on C. $6uino fle( to

Cotabato, the seat of the Re"ional <overnment, for the inau"uration. $t that point, she haalrea) si"ne seven :5; E>ecutive Orers evolvin" to $RMM the po(ers of seven :5;cabinet epartments, namel)A :1; local "overnment :; labor an emplo)ment :9; sciencean technolo") :; public (or's an hi"h(a)s :@; social (elfare an evelopment :0;tourism an :5; environment an national resources.1-

Nearl) nine :2; )ears later, on - Ma) 1222, then Department of Public ?or's an 7i"h(a)s:DP?7; Secretar) <re"orio R. Vi"ilar issue D.O. 112 (hich reas, thusA

Sub*ectA Creation of Mara(i SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office

Pursuant to Sections 0 an @ of E>ecutive Orer No. 1 ate 9- #anuar) 1235,there is hereb) create a DP?7 Mara(i SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office (hich shallhave *urisiction over all national infrastructure pro*ects an facilities uner theDP?7 (ithin Mara(i Cit) an the province of 4anao el Sur. !he hea6uarters ofthe Mara(i SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office shall be at the former 6uarters of theMara(i Cit) En"ineerin" Office.

Personnel of the aboveBmentione SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office shall be mae upof emplo)ees of the National <overnment Section of the former Mara(i Cit)En"ineerin" Office (ho are no( assi"ne (ith the Ili"an Cit) SubBDistrictEn"ineerin" Office as ma) be etermine b) the DP?7 Re"ion II Re"ionalDirector. :Emphasis supplie;

$lmost t(o :; )ears later, on 15 #anuar) --1, then Presient #oseph E. Estraa approve

an si"ne into la( R.$. 3222. !he te>t of the la( reasA

$N $C! ES!$=4IS7IN< $N EN<INEERIN< DIS!RIC! IN !7E &IRS! DIS!RIC!O& !7E PROVINCE O& 4$N$O DE4 SR $ND $PPROPRI$!IN< &NDS!7ERE&OR

=e it enacte b) the Senate an 7ouse of Representatives of the Philippines inCon"ress assembleA















SEC!ION 1. !he Cit) of Mara(i an the municipalities comprisin" the &irst District ofthe Province of 4anao el Sur are hereb) constitute into an en"ineerin" istrict tobe 'no(n as the &irst En"ineerin" District of the Province of 4anao el Sur.

SEC. . !he office of the en"ineerin" istrict hereb) create shall be establishe inMara(i Cit), Province of 4anao el Sur.

SEC. 9. !he amount necessar) to carr) out the provisions of this $ct shall beinclue in the <eneral $ppropriations $ct of the )ear follo(in" its enactment intola(. !hereafter, such sums as ma) be necessar) for the maintenance an continueoperation of the en"ineerin" istrict office shall be inclue in the annual <eneral

$ppropriations $ct.

SEC. . !his $ct shall ta'e effect upon its approval. :Emphasis supplie;

Con"ress later passe Republic $ct No. 2-@ :R.$. 2-@;, entitle /$n $ct to Stren"thenan E>pan the Or"anic $ct for the $utonomous Re"ion in Muslim Minanao, $menin" forthe Purpose Republic $ct No. 059, entitle $n $ct Proviin" for the $utonomous Re"ion in

Muslim Minanao, as $mene./ 4i'e its forerunner, R.$. 2-@ contains etaile provisionson the po(ers of the Re"ional <overnment an the retaine areas of "overnance of theNational <overnment.11

R.$. 2-@ lapse into la(1 on 91 March --1. It (as ratifie in a plebiscite hel on 1 $u"ust --1. !he province of =asilan an the Cit) of Mara(i also vote to *oin $RMM on thesame ate. R.$. 059 an R.$. 2-@ are collectivel) referre to as the $RMM Or"anic $cts.

On 9 #ul) --1, petitioners $rsai M. Disoman"cop :Disoman"cop; an Ramir M.Dimalotan" :Dimalotan"; aresse a petition to then DP?7 Secretar) Simeon $.Datumanon", see'in" the revocation of D.O. 112 an the nonBimplementation of R.$. 3222.No action, ho(ever, (as ta'en on the petition.19

Conse6uentl), petitioners Disoman"cop an Dimalotan" file the instant petition, in theircapacit) as OfficerBinBChar"e an District En"ineerFEn"ineer II, respectivel), of the &irstEn"ineerin" District of the Department of Public ?or's an 7i"h(a)s, $utonomous Re"ionin Muslim Minanao :DP?7B$RMM; in 4anao el Sur.

Petitioners see' the follo(in" principal reliefsA :1; to annul an set asie D.O. 112 :; toprohibit responent DP?7 Secretar) from implementin" D.O. 112 an R.$. 3222 anreleasin" funs for public (or's pro*ects intene for 4anao el Sur an Mara(i Cit) to theMara(i SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office an other aministrative re"ions of DP?7 an :9; tocompel the Secretar) of the Department of =u"et an Mana"ement :D=M; to release allfuns for public (or's pro*ects intene for Mara(i Cit) an the &irst District of 4anao elSur to the DP?7B$RMM &irst En"ineerin" District in 4anao el Sur onl) an to compel

responent DP?7 Secretar) to let the DP?7B$RMM &irst En"ineerin" District in 4anao elSur implement all public (or's pro*ects (ithin its *urisictional area.1

!he petition inclues an ur"ent application for the issuance of a temporar) restrainin" orer:!RO; an, after hearin", a (rit of preliminar) in*unction, to en*oin responent D=MSecretar) from releasin" funs for public (or's pro*ects in 4anao el Sur to entities otherthan the DP?7B$RMM &irst En"ineerin" District in 4anao el Sur, an also to restrain theDP?7 Secretar) from allo(in" others besies the DP?7B$RMM &irst En"ineerin" Districtin 4anao el Sur to implement public (or's pro*ects in 4anao el Sur.1@













!o support their petition, petitioners alle"e that D.O. 112 (as issue (ith "rave abuse ofiscretion an that it violates the constitutional autonom) of the $RMM. !he) point out thatthe challen"e Department Orer has tas'e the Mara(i SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office (ithfunctions that have alrea) been evolve to the DP?7B$RMM &irst En"ineerin" District in4anao el Sur.10

Petitioners also conten that R.$. 3222 is a piece of le"islation that (as not intelli"entl) anthorou"hl) stuie, an that the e>planator) note to 7ouse =ill No. 22@ :7.=. 22@; from(hich the la( ori"inate is 6uestionable. Petitioners assert as (ell that prior to thesponsorship of the la(, no public hearin" nor consultation (ith the DP?7B$RMM (as mae.!he 7ouse Committee on Public ?or's an 7i"h(a)s :Committee; faile to invite a sin"leofficial from the affecte a"enc). &inall), petitioners ar"ue that the la( (as s'illfull) time forsi"nature b) former Presient #oseph E. Estraa urin" the penenc) of the impeachmentproceein"s.15

In its resolution of 3 October --1, the Court re6uire responents to file their comment.13 Incompliance, responents DP?7 Secretar) an D=M Secretar), throu"h the Solicitor<eneral, file on 5 #anuar) --, their Comment.

In their Comment,12 responents, throu"h the Office of the Solicitor <eneral, maintain thevaliit) of D.O. 112, ar"uin" that it (as issue in accorance (ith E>ecutive Orer No. 1:E.O. 1;.- In efense of the constitutionalit) of R.$. 3222, the) submit that the po(ers ofthe autonomous re"ions i not iminish the le"islative po(er of Con"ress. 1 Responentsalso conten that the petitioners have no locus stani or le"al stanin" to assail theconstitutionalit) of the la( an the epartment orer. !he) note that petitioners have nopersonal sta'e in the outcome of the controvers).

$ssertin" their locus stani, petitioners in their Memoranum9 point out that the) (ill sufferactual in*ur) as a result of the enactments complaine of.

#urisictional Consierations

&irst, the *urisictional preicates.

!he 1235 Constitution is e>plicit in efinin" the scope of *uicial po(er. It establishes theauthorit) of the courts to etermine in an appropriate action the valiit) of acts of the politicalepartments. It spea's of *uicial prero"ative in terms of ut).@

#urispruence has lai o(n the follo(in" re6uisites for the e>ercise of *uicial po(erA &irst,there must be before the Court an actual case callin" for the e>ercise of *uicial revie(.Secon, the 6uestion before the Court must be ripe for a*uication. !hir, the personchallen"in" the valiit) of the act must have stanin" to challen"e. &ourth, the 6uestion ofconstitutionalit) must have been raise at the earliest opportunit). &ifth, the issue of

constitutionalit) must be the ver) lis mota of the case.0

In see'in" to nullif) acts of the le"islature an the e>ecutive epartment on the "roun thatthe) contravene the Constitution, the petition no oubt raises a *usticiable controvers). $shel in !a%aa v. $n"ara,5 /(here an action of the le"islative branch is seriousl) alle"e tohave infrin"e the Constitution, it becomes not onl) the ri"ht but in fact the ut) of the

*uiciar) to settle the ispute./ =ut in eciin" to ta'e *urisiction over this petition6uestionin" acts of the political epartments of "overnment, the Court (ill not revie( the(isom, merits, or propriet) thereof, but (ill stri'e them o(n onl) on either of t(o "rounsA





























:1; unconstitutionalit) or ille"alit) an :; "rave abuse of iscretion.3

&or an abuse to be "rave, the po(er must be e>ercise in an arbitrar) or espotic manner b)reason of passion or personal hostilit). !he abuse of iscretion must be patent an "ross asto amount to an evasion of a positive ut), or a virtual refusal to perform the ut) en*oine orto act in contemplation of la(. !here is "rave abuse of iscretion (hen responent acts in a

capricious or (himsical manner in the e>ercise of its *u"ment as to be e6uivalent to lac' of *urisiction.2

!he challen"e to the le"al stanin" of petitioners cannot succee. 4e"al stanin" or locusstani is efine as a personal an substantial interest in the case such that the part) hassustaine or (ill sustain irect in*ur) as a result of the "overnmental act that is bein"challen"e. !he term /interest/ means a material interest, an interest in issue affecte b) theecree, as istin"uishe from a mere interest in the 6uestion involve, or a mere incientalinterest.9-

$ part) challen"in" the constitutionalit) of a la(, act, or statute must sho( /not onl) that thela( is invali, but also that he has sustaine or is in immeiate, or imminent an"er of

sustainin" some irect in*ur) as a result of its enforcement, an not merel) that he suffersthereb) in some inefinite (a)./ 7e must sho( that he has been, or is about to be, eniesome ri"ht or privile"e to (hich he is la(full) entitle, or that he is about to be sub*ecte tosome burens or penalties b) reason of the statute complaine of.91

=ut follo(in" the ne( tren, this Court is incline to ta'e co"ni+ance of a suit althou"h itoes not satisf) the re6uirement of le"al stanin" (hen paramount interests are involve. Inseveral cases, the Court has aopte a liberal stance on the locus stani of a petitioner(here the petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcenental si"nificance to the people.9

In the instant case, petitioner Disoman"cop hols the position of En"ineer IV. ?hen he filethis petition, he (as the OfficerBinBChar"e, Office of the District En"ineer of the &irstEn"ineerin" District of DP?7B$RMM, 4anao el Sur. On the other han, petitionerDimalotan" is an En"ineer II an Presient of the ran' an file emplo)ees also of the &irstEn"ineerin" District of DP?7B$RMM in 4anao el Sur. =oth are char"e (ith the ut) anresponsibilit) of supervisin" an implementin" all public (or's pro*ects to be unerta'en anbein" unerta'en in 4anao el Sur (hich is the area of their *urisiction.99

It is thus not farBfetche that the creation of the Mara(i SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office unerD.O. 112 an the creation of an appropriation of funs to the &irst En"ineerin" District of4anao el Sur as irecte uner R.$. 3222 (ill affect the po(ers, functions anresponsibilities of the petitioners an the DP?7B$RMM. $s the t(o offices have apparentl)been eno(e (ith functions almost ientical to those of DP?7B$RMM &irst En"ineerin"District in 4anao el Sur, it is li'el) that petitioners are in imminent an"er of bein" ease outof their uties an, not remotel), even their *obs. !heir material an substantial interests (ill

efinitel) be pre*uice b) the enforcement of D.O. 112 an R.$. 3222. Such in*ur) is irectan immeiate. !hus, the) can le"itimatel) challen"e the valiit) of the enactments sub*ectof the instant case.

Points of Contention

In the petition before us, petitioners conten that R.$. 3222 an D.O. 112 areunconstitutional an (ere issue (ith "rave abuse of iscretion.
















?e a"ree in part.

Republic $ct No. 3222

$t the outset, let it be mae clear that it is not necessar) to eclare R.$. No. 3222unconstitutional for the a*uication of this case. !he accepte rule is that the Court (ill not

resolve a constitutional 6uestion unless it is the lis mota of the case, or if the case can beispose of or settle on other "rouns.9

!he plain truth is the challen"e la( never became operative an (as supersee orrepeale b) a subse6uent enactment.

!he $RMM Or"anic $cts are eeme a part of the re"ional autonom) scheme. ?hile the)are classifie as statutes, the Or"anic $cts are more than orinar) statutes because the)en*o) affirmation b) a plebiscite.9@7ence, the provisions thereof cannot be amene b) anorinar) statute, such as R.$. 3222 in this case. !he amenator) la( has to be submitte toa plebiscite.

?e 6uote e>cerpts of the eliberations of the Constitutional CommissionA

&R. =ERN$S. es, that is the reason I am brin"in" this up. !his thin" involves somerather farBreachin" conse6uences also in relation to the issue raise b)Commissioner Romulo (ith respect to feeralism. $re (e, in effect, creatin" ne(cate"ories of la(s <enerall), (e have statutes an constitutional provisions. Is thisor"anic act e6uivalent to a constitutional provision If it is "oin" to be e6uivalent to aconstitutional provision, it (oul seem to me that the formulation of the provisions ofthe or"anic act (ill have to be one b) the le"islature, actin" as a constituentassembl), an therefore, sub*ect to the provisions of the $rticle on $menments.!hat is the point that I am tr)in" to brin" up. In effect, if (e opt for feeralism, it (oulreall) involve an act of the National $ssembl) or Con"ress actin" as a constituent

assembl) an present amenments to this Constitution, an the en prouct itself(oul be a constitutional provision (hich (oul onl) be amenable accorin" to theprocesses inicate in the Constitution.

MR. OP4E. Maam Presient, ma) I e>press m) personal opinion in this respect.

I thin' to re6uire Con"ress to act as a constituent bo) before enactin" an or"anicact (oul be to raise an autonomous re"ion to the same level as the soverei"npeople of the (hole countr). $n I thin' the po(ers of the Con"ress shoul be 6uitesufficient in enactin" a la(, even if it is no( e>alte to the level of an or"anic act forthe purpose of proviin" a basic la( for an autonomous re"ion (ithout havin" totransform itself into a constituent assembl). ?e are ealin" still (ith one suborinatesubivision of the State even if it is no( veste (ith certain autonomous po(ers on

(hich its o(n le"islature can pass la(s.

&R. =ERN$S. So the 6uestions I have raise so far (ith respect to this or"anic actareA ?hat se"ment of the population (ill participate in the plebiscite In (hatcapacit) (oul the le"islature be actin" (hen it passes this ?ill it be a constituentassembl) or merel) a le"islative bo) ?hat is the nature, therefore, of this or"anicact in relation to orinar) statutes an the Constitution &inall), if (e are "oin" toamen this or"anic act, (hat process (ill be follo(e







MR. NO44EDO. Ma) I ans(er that, please, in the li"ht of (hat is no( appearin" inour report.

&irst, onl) the people (ho are resiin" in the units composin" the re"ions shoul beallo(e to participate in the plebiscite. Secon, the or"anic act has the character of acharter passe b) the Con"ress, not as a constituent assembl), but as an orinar)

le"islature an, therefore, the or"anic act (ill still be sub*ect to amenments in theorinar) le"islative process as no( constitute, unless the <entlemen has anotherpurpose.

&R. =ERN$S. =ut (ith plebiscite a"ain.

MR. NO44EDO. !hose (ho (ill participate in the plebiscite are those (ho areirectl) affecte, the inhabitants of the units constitutive of the re"ion. :Emphasissupplie;90

$lthou"h R.$. 2-@ (as enacte later, it reaffirme the imperativeness of the plebiscitere6uirement.95 In fact, R.$. 2-@ itself, bein" the secon or later $RMM Or"anic $ct, (as

sub*ecte to an ratifie in a plebiscite.

!he first $RMM Or"anic $ct, R.$. 0-5, as implemente b) E.O. 0, evolve the functionsof the DP?7 in the $RMM (hich inclues 4anao el Sur :minus Mara(i Cit) at the time;93 tothe Re"ional <overnment. =) creatin" an office (ith previousl) evolve functions, R.$.3222, in essence, sou"ht to amen R.$. 0-5. !he amenator) la( shoul therefore firstobtain the approval of the people of the $RMM before it coul valil) ta'e effect. $bsentcompliance (ith this re6uirement, R.$. 3222 has not even become operative.

&rom another perspective, R.$. 3222 (as repeale an supersee b) R.$. 2-@. ?here astatute of later ate clearl) reveals an intention on the part of the le"islature to abro"ate aprior act on the sub*ect, that intention must be "iven effect.

Of course, the intention to repeal must be clear an manifest.92 Implie repeal b)irreconcilable inconsistenc) ta'es place (hen the t(o statutes cover the same sub*ectmatter the) are clearl) inconsistent an incompatible (ith each other that the) cannot bereconcile or harmoni+e an both cannot be "iven effect, that is, that one la( cannot beenforce (ithout nullif)in" the other.-

!he Court has also hel that statutes shoul be construe in li"ht of the ob*ective to beachieve an the evil or mischief to be suppresse, an the) shoul be "iven suchconstruction as (ill avance the ob*ect, suppress the mischief an secure the benefitsintene.1

R.$. 2-@ is anchore on the 1235 Constitution. It avances the constitutional "rant ofautonom) b) etailin" the po(ers of the $R< coverin", amon" others, 4anao el Sur anMara(i Cit), one of (hich is its *urisiction over re"ional urban an rural plannin". R.$. 3222,ho(ever, ventures to reestablish the National <overnmentJs *urisiction over infrastructurepro"rams in 4anao el Sur. R.$. 3222 is patentl) inconsistent (ith R.$. 2-@, an it estro)sthe latter la(Js ob*ective.

Clearl), R.$. 3222 is anta"onistic to an cannot be reconcile (ith both $RMM Or"anic $cts, R.$. 059 an R.$. 2-@. !he 'ernel of the anta"onism an isharmon) lies in the















re"ional autonom) (hich the $RMM Or"anic $cts orain pursuant to the Constitution. Onthe other han, R.$. 3222 contravenes true ecentrali+ation (hich is the essence of re"ionalautonom).

Re"ional $utonom) ner

R.$. 059 an R.$. 2-@

!he 1235 Constitution manates re"ional autonom) to "ive a bol an une6uivocal ans(erto the cr) for a meanin"ful, effective an forceful autonom). $ccorin" to Commissioner#ose Nolleo, Chairman of the Committee (hich rafte the provisions, it /is an inictmenta"ainst the status 6uo of a unitar) s)stem that, to m) min, has ineluctabl) tie the hans ofpro"ress in our countr) . . . our var)in" re"ional characteristics are factors to capitali+e on toattain national stren"th throu"h ecentrali+ation./9

!he iea behin the Constitutional provisions for autonomous re"ions is to allo( theseparate evelopment of peoples (ith istinctive cultures an traitions. !hese cultures, asa matter of ri"ht, must be allo(e to flourish.@

$utonom), as a national polic), reco"ni+es the (holeness of the Philippine societ) in itsethnolin"uistic, cultural, an even reli"ious iversities. It strives to free Philippine societ) ofthe strain an (asta"e cause b) the assimilationist approach.0 Policies emanatin" from thele"islature are invariabl) assimilationist in character espite channels bein" open for minorit)representation. $s a result, emocrac) becomes an iron) to the minorit) "roup.5

Several commissioners echoe the pervasive sentiment in the plenar) sessions in their o(ninimitable (a). !hus, Commissioner =las Ople referre to the reco"nition that the MuslimMinanao an the Corilleras /o not belon" to the ominant national communit)/ as the

*ustification for conferrin" on them a /measure of le"al selfBsufficienc), meanin" selfB"overnment, so that the) (ill flourish politicall), economicall) an culturall),/ (ith the hope

that after achievin" parit) (ith the rest of the countr) the) (oul /"ive up their o(nautonomous re"ion in favor of *oinin" the national mainstream./3 &or his part, the Muslimele"ate, Commissioner $hma $lonto, spo'e of the iversit) of cultures as the frame(or'for nationBbuilin".2 &inall), e>cerpts of the poi"nant plea of Commissioner Ponciano=enna"en eserve to be 6uote verbatimA

. . . !he) see re"ional autonom) as the ans(er to their centuries of stru""le a"ainstoppression an e>ploitation. &or so lon", their names an ientities have beenebase. !heir ancestral lans have been ransac'e for their treasures, for their(ealth. !heir cultures have been efile, their ver) lives threatene, an (orse,e>tin"uishe, all in the name of national evelopment all in the name of publicinterest all in the name of common "oo all in the name of the ri"ht to propert) allin the name of Re"alian Doctrine all in the name of national securit). !hese phrases

have meant nothin" to our ini"enous communities, e>cept for the violation of theirhuman ri"hts.

. . .

7onorable Commissioners, (e (ish to impress upon )ou the "ravit) of the ecisionto be mae b) ever) sin"le one of us in this Commission. ?e have the over(helmin"support of the =an"sa Moro an the Corillera Constitution. =) this (e meanmeanin"ful an authentic re"ional autonom). ?e propose that (e have a separate





















$rticle on the autonomous re"ions for the =an"sa Moro an Corillera people clearl)spelle out in this Constitution, instea of prolon"in" the a"on) of their vi"il an theirstru""le. !his, too is a plea for national peace. 4et us not pass the buc' to theCon"ress to ecie on this. 4et us not (ash our hans of our responsibilit) to attainnational unit) an peace an to settle this problem an rectif) past in*ustices, oncean for all.@-

!he nee for re"ional autonom) is more pressin" in the case of the &ilipino Muslims an theCorillera people (ho have been fi"htin" for it. !heir political stru""le hi"hli"hts their uni6uecultures an the unresponsiveness of the unitar) s)stem to their aspirations.@1 !he MorosJstru""le for selfBetermination ates as far bac' as the Spanish con6uest in the Philippines.Even at present, the stru""le "oes on. @

Perforce, re"ional autonom) is also a means to(ars solvin" e>istin" serious peace anorer problems an secessionist movements. Parentheticall), autonom), ecentrali+ationan re"ionali+ation, in international la(, have become politicall) acceptable ans(ers tointractable problems of nationalism, separatism, ethnic conflict an threat of secession. @9

7o(ever, the creation of autonomous re"ions oes not si"nif) the establishment of asoverei"nt) istinct from that of the Republic, as it can be installe onl) /(ithin theframe(or' of this Constitution an the national soverei"nt) as (ell as territorial inte"rit) ofthe Republic of the Philippines./@

Re"ional autonom) is the e"ree of selfBetermination e>ercise b) the local "overnmentunit visBQBvis the central "overnment.

In international la(, the ri"ht to selfBetermination nee not be unerstoo as a ri"ht topolitical separation, but rather as a comple> net of le"alBpolitical relations bet(een a certainpeople an the state authorities. It ensures the ri"ht of peoples to the necessar) level ofautonom) that (oul "uarantee the support of their o(n cultural ientit), the establishmentof priorities b) the communit)Js internal ecisionBma'in" processes an the mana"ement ofcollective matters b) themselves.@@

If selfBetermination is vie(e as an en in itself reflectin" a preference for homo"eneous,inepenent nationBstates, it is incapable of universal application (ithout massive isruption.7o(ever, if selfBetermination is vie(e as a means to an enGthat en bein" aemocratic, participator) political an economic s)stem in (hich the ri"hts of iniviuals anthe ientit) of minorit) communities are protecteGits continuin" valiit) is more easil)perceive.@0

Re"ional autonom) refers to the "rantin" of basic internal "overnment po(ers to the peopleof a particular area or re"ion (ith least control an supervision from the central"overnment.@5

!he ob*ective of the autonom) s)stem is to permit etermine "roups, (ith a commontraition an share socialBcultural characteristics, to evelop freel) their (a)s of life anherita"e, e>ercise their ri"hts, an be in char"e of their o(n business. !his is achievethrou"h the establishment of a special "overnance re"ime for certain member communities(ho choose their o(n authorities from (ithin the communit) an e>ercise the *urisictionalauthorit) le"all) accore to them to ecie internal communit) affairs.@3

In the Philippine settin", re"ional autonom) implies the cultivation of more positive means for





















national inte"ration. It (oul remove the (ariness amon" the Muslims, increase their trust inthe "overnment an pave the (a) for the unhampere implementation of the evelopmentpro"rams in the re"ion.@2 $"ain, even a "limpse of the eliberations of the ConstitutionalCommission coul len a sense of the ur"enc) an the ine>orable appeal of trueecentrali+ationA

MR. OP4E. . . . ?e are (ritin" a Constitution, of course, for "enerations to come, notonl) for the present but for our posterit). !here is no harm in reco"ni+in" certain vitalpra"matic nees for national peace an soliarit), an the (ritin" of this Constitution

*ust happens at a time (hen it is possible for this Commission to help the cause ofpeace an reconciliation in Minanao an the Corilleras, b) ta'in" avanta"e of aheavenBsent opportunit). . . . 0-

. . .

MR. $==$K$R. . . . So in orer to foreclose an convince the rest of the of thePhilippines that Minanao autonom) (ill be "rante to them as soon as possible,more or less, to issuae these arme men from "oin" outsie (hile Minanao (ill

be uner the control of the national "overnment, let us establish an autonomousMinanao (ithin our effort an capacit) to o so (ithin the shortest possible time.!his (ill be an ans(er to the Misuari clamor, not onl) for autonom) but forinepenence.01

. . .

MR. OP4E. . . . !he reason for this abbreviation of the perio for the consieration ofthe Con"ress of the or"anic acts an their passa"e is that (e live in abnormal times.In the case of Muslim Minanao an the Corilleras, (e 'no( that (e eal (ith6uestions of (ar an peace. !hese are momentous issues in (hich the territorialinte"rit) an the soliarit) of this countr) are bein" put at sta'e, in a manner ofspea'in".

?e are (ritin" a peace Constitution. ?e hope that the $rticle on Social #ustice cancontribute to a climate of peace so that an) civil strife in the countr)sie can be more6uic'l) an more *ustl) resolve. ?e are proviin" for autonomous re"ions so that(e "ive constitutional permanence to the *ust emans an "rievances of our o(nfello( countr)men in the Corilleras an in Minanao. One hunre thousan lives(ere lost in that stru""le in Minanao, an to this a), the Corilleras is bein"sha'en b) an arme stru""le as (ell as a peaceful an militant stru""le.

. . .

Rather than "ive opportunit) to forei"n boies, no matter ho( s)mpathetic to the

Philippines, to contribute to the settlement of this issue, I thin' the ConstitutionalCommission ou"ht not to fore"o the opportunit) to put the stamp of this Commissionthrou"h efinitive action on the settlement of the problems that have na""e us anour forefathers for so lon".0

$ necessar) prere6uisite of autonom) is ecentrali+ation.09

Decentrali+ation is a ecision b) the central "overnment authori+in" its suborinates,













(hether "eo"raphicall) or functionall) efine, to e>ercise authorit) in certain areas. Itinvolves ecisionBma'in" b) subnational units. It is t)picall) a ele"ate po(er, (herein alar"er "overnment chooses to ele"ate certain authorit) to more local "overnments.&eeralism implies some measure of ecentrali+ation, but unitar) s)stems ma) alsoecentrali+e. Decentrali+ation iffers intrinsicall) from feeralism in that the subBunits thathave been authori+e to act :b) ele"ation; o not possess an) claim of ri"ht a"ainst the

central "overnment.0

Decentrali+ation comes in t(o formsGeconcentration an evolution. Deconcentration isaministrative in nature it involves the transfer of functions or the ele"ation of authorit) anresponsibilit) from the national office to the re"ional an local offices. !his moe ofecentrali+ation is also referre to as aministrative ecentrali+ation.0@

Devolution, on the other han, connotes political ecentrali+ation, or the transfer of po(ers,responsibilities, an resources for the performance of certain functions from the central"overnment to local "overnment units.00 !his is a more liberal form of ecentrali+ation sincethere is an actual transfer of po(ers an responsibilities.05 It aims to "rant "reater autonom)to local "overnment units in co"ni+ance of their ri"ht to selfB"overnment, to ma'e them selfB

reliant, an to improve their aministrative an technical capabilities.

03

!his Court eluciate the concept of autonom) in 4imbona v. Man"elin,02 thusA

$utonom) is either ecentrali+ation of aministration or ecentrali+ation of po(er.!here is ecentrali+ation of aministration (hen the central "overnment ele"atesaministrative po(ers to political subivisions in orer to broaen the base of"overnment po(er an in the process to ma'e local "overnments /more responsivean accountable,/ an /ensure their fullest evelopment as selfBreliant communitiesan ma'e them more effective partners in the pursuit of national evelopment ansocial pro"ress./ $t the same time, it relieves the central "overnment of the burenof mana"in" local affairs an enables it to concentrate on national concerns. !hePresient e>ercises /"eneral supervision/ over them, but onl) to /ensure that local

affairs are aministere accorin" to la(./ 7e has no control over their acts in thesense that he can substitute their *u"ments (ith his o(n.

Decentrali+ation of po(er, on the other han, involves an abication of politicalpo(er in the favor of local "overnment units eclare to be autonomous. In thatcase, the autonomous "overnment is free to chart its o(n estin) an shape itsfuture (ith minimum intervention from central authorities. $ccorin" to aconstitutional author, ecentrali+ation of po(er amounts to /selfBimmolation,/ since inthat event the autonomous "overnment becomes accountable not to the centralauthorities but to its constituenc).

In the case, the Court revie(e the e>pulsion of a member from the San""unian" Pampoo',

$utonomous Re"ion. It hel that the Court ma) assume *urisiction as the local "overnmentunit, or"ani+e before 1235, en*o)s autonom) of the former cate"or). It refuse, thou"h, toresolve (hether the "rant of autonom) to Muslim Minanao uner the 1235 Constitutioninvolves, trul), an effort to ecentrali+e po(er rather than mere aministration.5-

$ )ear later, in Corillera =roa Coalition v. Commission on $uit,51 the Court, (ith the samecomposition, rule (ithout an) issent that the creation of autonomous re"ions contemplatesthe "rant of political autonom)Gan autonom) (hich is "reater than the aministrativeautonom) "rante to local "overnment units. It hel that /the constitutional "uarantee of local




















autonom) in the Constitution :$rt. , Sec. ; refers to aministrative autonom) of local"overnment units or, cast in more technical lan"ua"e, the ecentrali+ation of "overnmentauthorit). On the other han, the creation of autonomous re"ions in Muslim Minanao anthe Corilleras, (hich is peculiar to the 1235 Constitution, contemplates the "rant of politicalautonom) an not *ust aministrative autonom) to these re"ions./5

$n b) re"ional autonom), the framers intene it to mean /meanin"ful an authenticre"ional autonom)./59 $s articulate b) a Muslim author, substantial an meanin"fulautonom) is /the 'in of local selfB"overnment (hich allo(s the people of the re"ion or areathe po(er to etermine (hat is best for their "ro(th an evelopment (ithout unueinterference or ictation from the central "overnment./5

!o this en, Section 10, $rticle 5@ limits the po(er of the Presient over autonomousre"ions.50 In essence, the provision also curtails the po(er of Con"ress over autonomousre"ions.55 Conse6uentl), Con"ress (ill have to reBe>amine national la(s an ma'e sure thatthe) reflect the ConstitutionJs aherence to local autonom). $n in case of conflicts, theunerl)in" spirit (hich shoul "uie its resolution is the ConstitutionJs esire for "enuinelocal autonom).53

!he iminution of Con"ressJ po(ers over autonomous re"ions (as confirme in <an+on v.Court of $ppeals,52(herein this Court hel that /the omission :of /as ma) be provie b)la(/; si"nifies nothin" more than to unerscore local "overnmentsJ autonom) from Con"ressan to brea' Con"ressJ JcontrolJ over local "overnment affairs./

!his is true to sub*ects over (hich autonomous re"ions have po(ers, as specifie inSections 13 an -, $rticle of the 1235 Constitution. E>pressl) not inclue therein arepo(ers over certain areas. ?orth) of note is that the area of public (or's is not e>cluean neither is it reserve for the National <overnment. !he 'e) provisions rea, thusA

SEC. 13. !he Con"ress shall enact an or"anic act for each autonomous re"ion (iththe assistance an participation of the re"ional consultative commission composeof representatives appointe b) the Presient from a list of nominees frommultisectoral boies. !he or"anic act shall efine the basic structure of "overnmentfor the re"ion consistin" of the e>ecutive epartment an le"islative assembl), bothof (hich shall be elective an representative of the constituent political units. !heor"anic acts shall li'e(ise provie for special courts (ith personal, famil) anpropert) la( *urisiction consistent (ith the provisions of the Constitution annational la(s.

!he creation of the autonomous re"ion shall be effective (hen approve b) ma*orit)of the votes cast b) the constituent units in a plebiscite calle for the purpose,provie that onl) provinces, cities, an "eo"raphic areas votin" favorabl) in suchplebiscite shall be inclue in the autonomous re"ion.

SEC. -. ?ithin its territorial *urisiction an sub*ect to the provisions of thisConstitution an national la(s, the or"anic act of autonomous re"ions shall proviefor le"islative po(ers overA

:1; $ministrative or"ani+ation

:; Creation of sources of revenues






















:9; $ncestral omain an natural resources

:; Personal, famil) an propert) relations

:@; Re"ional urban an rural plannin" evelopment

:0; Economic, social, an tourism evelopment

:5; Eucational policies

:3; Preservation an evelopment of the cultural herita"e an

:2; Such other matters as ma) be authori+e b) la( for the promotion of "eneral(elfare of the people of the re"ion. :Emphasis supplie;

E.O. 0 officiall) evolve the po(ers an functions of the DP?7 in $RMM to the $utonomous Re"ional <overnment :$R<;. Sections 1 an of E.O. 0 provieA

SEC!ION 1. !ransfer of Control an Supervision. !he offices of the Department ofPublic ?or's an 7i"h(a)s :DP?7; (ithin the $utonomous Re"ion in MuslimMinanao :$RMM; incluin" their functions, po(ers an responsibilities, personnel,e6uipment, properties, bu"ets an liabilities are hereb) place uner the controlan supervision of the $utonomous Re"ional <overnment.

In particular, these offices are ientifie as the four :; District En"ineerin" Offices:DEO; in each of the four provinces respectivel) an the three :9; $rea E6uipmentServices :$ES; locate in !a(iB!a(i, Sulu an Ma"uinanao :Municipalit) of SultanKuarat;.

SEC. . &unctions !ransferre. !he $utonomous Re"ional <overnment shall be responsible

for hi"h(a)s, floo control an (ater resource evelopment s)stems, an other public (or's(ithin the $RMM an shall e>ercise the follo(in" functionsA

1. nerta'e an evaluate the plannin", esi"n, construction an (or's supervisionfor the infrastructure pro*ects (hose location an impact are confine (ithin the

$RMM

. nerta'e the maintenance of infrastructure facilities (ithin the $RMM ansupervise the maintenance of such local roas an other infrastructure facilitiesreceivin" financial assistance from the National <overnment

9. Ensure the implementation of la(s, policies, pro"rams, rules an re"ulations

re"arin" infrastructure pro*ects as (ell as all public an private ph)sical structures(ithin the $RMM

. Provie technical assistance relate to their functions to other a"encies (ithin the $RMM, especiall) the local "overnment units

@. Coorinate (ith other national an re"ional "overnment epartments, a"encies,institutions an or"ani+ations, especiall) the local "overnment units (ithin the $RMMin the plannin" an implementation of infrastructure pro*ects



0. Conuct continuin" consultations (ith the local communities, ta'e appropriatemeasures to ma'e the services of the $utonomous Re"ional <overnment responsiveto the nees of the "eneral public an recommen such appropriate actions as ma)be necessar) an

5. Perform such other relate uties an responsibilities (ithin the $RMM as ma) be

assi"ne or ele"ate b) the Re"ional <overnor or as ma) be provie b) la(.:Emphasis supplie;

More importantl), Con"ress itself throu"h R.$. 2-@ transferre an evolve theaministrative an fiscal mana"ement of public (or's an funs for public (or's to the $R<.Section -, $rticle VI of R.$. 2-@ proviesA

ARTCLE

TE LE$SLATE #EPARTMENT

SEC. -. $nnual =u"et an Infrastructure &uns. !he annual bu"et ofthe Re"ional <overnment shall be enacte b) Re"ional $ssembl). &uns forinfrastructure in the autonomous re"ion allocate b) the central "overnmentor national "overnment shall be appropriate throu"h a Re"ional $ssembl)Public ?or's $ct.

nless approve b) the Re"ional $ssembl), no public (or's funs allocateb) the central "overnment or national "overnment for the Re"ional<overnment or allocate b) the Re"ional <overnment from its o(n revenuesma) be isburse, istribute, reali"ne, or use in an) manner.

!he aim of the Constitution is to e>ten to the autonomous peoples, the people ofMuslim Minanao in this case, the ri"ht to selfBeterminationGa ri"ht to choose theiro(n path of evelopment the ri"ht to etermine the political, cultural an economiccontent of their evelopment path (ithin the frame(or' of the soverei"nt) anterritorial inte"rit) of the Philippine Republic.3- SelfBetermination refers to the neefor a political structure that (ill respect the autonomous peoplesJ uni6ueness an"rant them sufficient room for selfBe>pression an selfBconstruction.31

In treain" their chosen path of evelopment, the Muslims in Minanao are to be"iven freeom an inepenence (ith minimum interference from the National<overnment. !his necessaril) inclues the freeom to ecie on, buil, supervisean maintain the public (or's an infrastructure pro*ects (ithin the autonomousre"ion. !he evolution of the po(ers an functions of the DP?7 in the $RMM antransfer of the aministrative an fiscal mana"ement of public (or's an funs to the

$R< are meant to be true, meanin"ful an unfettere. !his unassailable conclusionis "roune on a clear consensus, reache at the Constitutional Commission anratifie b) the entire &ilipino electorate, on the centralit) of ecentrali+ation of po(eras the appropriate vessel of eliverance for Muslim &ilipinos an the ultimate unit) ofMuslims an Christians in this countr).

?ith R.$. 3222, ho(ever, this freeom is ta'en a(a), an the National <overnment







ta'es control a"ain. !he hans, once more, of the autonomous peoples are reine inan tie up.

!he challen"e la( creates an office (ith functions an po(ers (hich, b) virtue ofE.O. 0, have been previousl) evolve to the DP?7B$RMM, &irst En"ineerin"District in 4anao el Sur.

E.O. 0 clearl) orains the transfer of the control an supervision of the offices ofthe DP?7 (ithin the $RMM, incluin" their functions, po(ers an responsibilities,personnel, e6uipment, properties, an bu"ets to the $R<. $mon" its otherfunctions, the DP?7B$RMM, uner the control of the Re"ional <overnment shall beresponsible for hi"h(a)s, floo control an (ater resource evelopment s)stems,an other public (or's (ithin the $RMM. Its scope of po(er inclues the plannin",esi"n, construction an supervision of public (or's. $ccorin" to R.$. 2-@, thereach of the Re"ional <overnment enables it to appropriate, mana"e an isburseall public (or' funs allocate for the re"ion b) the central "overnment.

!he use of the (or /po(ers/ in E.O. 0 manifests an unmista'able case of

evolution.

In this re"ar, it is not amiss to cite Opinion No. 1-, S. 12213 of the Secretar) of#ustice on (hether the national epartments or their counterpart epartments in the

$R< are responsible for implementation of roas, rural (ater suppl), health,eucation, (omen in evelopment, a"ricultural e>tension an (atershemana"ement. Referrin" to Section , $rticle V of R.$. 059 (hich enumerates thepo(ers of the $R<, he statesA

It is clear from the fore"oin" provision of la( that e>cept for the areas of e>ecutivepo(er mentione therein, all other such areas shall be e>ercise b) the $utonomousRe"ional <overnment :/$R</; of the $utonomous Re"ion in Muslim Minanao. It isnote that pro"rams relative to infrastructure facilities, health, eucation, (omen inevelopment, a"ricultural e>tension an (atershe mana"ement o not fall uneran) of the e>empte areas liste in the above6uote provision of la(. !hus, theinevitable conclusion is that all these spheres of e>ecutive responsibilit) have beentransferre to the $R<.

Reinforcin" the abovevie( :sic; are the various e>ecutive orers issue b) thePresient proviin" for the evolution of the po(ers an functions of specifiee>ecutive epartments of the National <overnment to the $R<. !hese are E.O. Nos.@ :Department of 4abor an Emplo)ment, 4ocal <overnment, !ourism,Environment an Natural Resources, Social ?elfare an Development an Sciencean !echnolo");, 0 :Department of Public ?or's an 7i"h(a)s;, @2 :Departmentof Eucation, Culture an Sports; an 0- :Department of $"riculture;. !he

e>ecution of pro*ects on infrastructure, eucation, (omen, a"ricultural e>tension an(atershe mana"ement (ithin the $utonomous Re"ion of Muslim Minanaonormall) fall (ithin the responsibilit) of one of the aforementione e>ecutiveepartments of the National <overnment, but b) virtue of the aforestate EOs, suchresponsibilit) has been transferre to the $R<.

E.O. 0 (as issue to implement the provisions of the first $RMM Or"anic $ct, R.$. 059Gthe valiit) of (hich this Court uphel in the case of $bbas v. Commission on Elections.39 InSection , $rticle VIII of sai $ct, /central "overnment or national "overnment offices an








a"encies in the autonomous re"ion (hich are not e>clue uner Section 9, $rticle IV3 ofthis Or"anic $ct, shall be place uner the control an supervision of the Re"ional<overnment pursuant to a scheule prescribe b) the oversi"ht committee./

Evientl), the intention is to cee some, if not most, of the po(ers of the national"overnment to the autonomous "overnment in orer to effectuate a veritable autonom). !he

continue enforcement of R.$. 3222, therefore, runs afoul of the $RMM Or"anic $cts anresults in the recall of po(ers (hich have previousl) been hane over. !his shoul not besanctione, else(ise the Or"anic $ctsJ esire for "reater autonom) for the $RMM inaccorance (ith the Constitution (oul be 6uelle. It bears stressin" that national la(s aresub*ect to the Constitution one of (hose state policies is to ensure the autonom) ofautonomous re"ions. Section @, $rticle II of the 1235 Constitution statesA

Sec. @. !he State shall ensure the autonom) of local "overnments.

R.$. 3222 has mae the DP?7B$RMM effete an renere re"ional autonom) illusor) (ithrespect to infrastructure pro*ects. !he Con"ressional Recor sho(s, on the other han, thatthe /lac' of an implementin" an monitorin" bo) (ithin the area/ has hinere the spee)

implementation, of infrastructure pro*ects.3@

$pparentl), in the le"islatureJs estimation, thee>istin" DP?7B$RMM en"ineerin" istricts faile to measure up to the tas'. =ut if it (asinee the case, the problem coul not be solve throu"h the simple le"islative creation ofan incon"ruous en"ineerin" istrict for the central "overnment in the $RMM. $s it (as,7ouse =ill No. 22@ (hich ultimatel) became R.$. 3222 (as passe in recor time on seconreain" :not more than 1- minutes;, absolutel) (ithout the usual sponsorship speech anebates.30 !he precipitate spee (hich characteri+e the passa"e of R.$. 3222 is ifficult tocomprehen since R.$. 3222 coul have resulte in the amenment of the first $RMMOr"anic $ct an, therefore, coul not ta'e effect (ithout first bein" ratifie in a plebiscite.?hat is more bafflin" is that in March --1, or barel) t(o :; months after it enacte R.$.3222 in #anuar) --1, Con"ress passe R.$. 2-@, the secon $RMM Or"anic $ct, (here itreaffirme the evolution of the DP?7 in $RMM, incluin" 4anao el Sur an Mara(i Cit),to the Re"ional <overnment an effectivel) repeale R.$. 3222.

DP?7 Department Orer No. 112

No(, the 6uestion irectl) relate to D.O. 112.

D.O. 112 creatin" the Mara(i SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office (hich has *urisiction overinfrastructure pro*ects (ithin Mara(i Cit) an 4anao el Sur is violative of the provisions ofE.O. 0. !he E>ecutive Orer (as issue pursuant to R.$. 059G(hich initiate thecreation of the constitutionall)Bmanate autonomous re"ion35 an (hich efine the basicstructure of the autonomous "overnment.33 E.O. 0 sou"ht to implement the transfer of thecontrol an supervision of the DP?7 (ithin the $RMM to the $utonomous Re"ional<overnment. In particular, it ientifie four :; District En"ineerin" Offices in each of the four

:; provinces, namel)A 4anao el Sur, Ma"uinanao, Sulu an !a(iB!a(i.32

$ccorin"l), the&irst En"ineerin" District of the DP?7B$RMM in 4anao el Sur has *urisiction over thepublic (or's (ithin the province.

!he office create uner D.O. 112, havin" essentiall) the same po(ers, is a uplication ofthe DP?7B$RMM &irst En"ineerin" District in 4anao el Sur forme uner the ae"is of E.O.0. !he epartment orer, in effect, ta'es bac' po(ers (hich have been previousl)evolve uner the sai e>ecutive orer. D.O. 112 runs counter to the provisions of E.O.0. !he DP?7Js orer, li'e sprin" (ater, cannot rise hi"her than its source of po(erGthe
















E>ecutive.

!he fact that the epartment orer (as issue pursuant to E.O. 1Gsi"ne an approveb) Presient $6uino in her resiual le"islative po(ersGis of no moment. It is a finel)Bimbee principle in statutor) construction that a special provision or la( prevails over a"eneral one.2- 4e> specialis ero"ant "enerali. $s this Court e>presse in the case of

4everi+a v. Intermeiate $ppellate Court,21 /another basic principle of statutor) constructionmanates that "eneral le"islation must "ive (a) to special le"islation on the same sub*ect,an "enerall) be so interprete as to embrace onl) cases in (hich the special provisions arenot applicable, that specific statute prevails over a "eneral statute an that (here t(ostatutes are of e6ual theoretical application to a particular case, the one esi"ne thereforspeciall) shoul prevail./

E.O. No. 1, upon (hich D.O. 112 is base, is a "eneral la( reor"ani+in" the Ministr) ofPublic ?or's an 7i"h(a)s (hile E.O. 0 is a special la( transferrin" the control ansupervision of the DP?7 offices (ithin $RMM to the $utonomous Re"ional <overnment.!he latter statute specificall) applies to DP?7B$RMM offices. E.O. 1 shoul therefore"ive (a) to E.O. 0 in the instant case.

In an) event, the $RMM Or"anic $cts an their ratification in a plebiscite in effectsupersee E.O. 1. In case of an irreconcilable conflict bet(een t(o la(s of ifferentvinta"es, the later enactment prevails because it is the later le"islative (ill.2

&urther, in its repealin" clause, R.$. 2-@ states that /all la(s, ecrees, orers, rules anre"ulations, an other issuances or parts thereof, (hich are inconsistent (ith this Or"anic

$ct, are hereb) repeale or moifie accorin"l)./29 ?ith the repeal of E.O. 1 (hich is thebasis of D.O. 112, it necessaril) follo(s that D.O. 112 (as also renere functus officio b)the $RMM Or"anic $cts.

<rave abuse of iscretion

?ithout oubt, responents committe "rave abuse of iscretion. !he) implemente R.$.3222 espite its inoperativeness an repeal. !he) also put in place an maintaine theDP?7 Mara(i SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office in accorance (ith D.O. 112 (hich has beenrenere functus officio b) the $RMM Or"anic $cts.

Still, on the issue of "rave abuse of iscretion, this Court, ho(ever, cannot upholpetitionersJ ar"ument that R.$. 3222 (as si"ne into la( uner suspicious circumstances tosupport the assertion that there (as a capricious an (himsical e>ercise of le"islativeauthorit). Once more, this Court cannot in6uire into the (isom, merits, propriet) ore>peienc) of the acts of the le"islative branch.

4i'e(ise, the alle"e lac' of consultation or public hearin" (ith the affecte a"enc) urin"

the inception of the la( oes not rener the la( infirm. !his Court hols that the Con"ressi not trans"ress the Constitution nor an) statute or 7ouse Rule in failin" to invite aresource person from the DP?7B$RMM urin" the Committee meetin". Section 5, Rule VIIof the Rules of the 7ouse2 onl) re6uires that a (ritten notice be "iven to all the members ofa Committee seven :5; calenar a)s before a re"ularl) scheule meetin", specif)in" thesub*ect matter of the meetin" an the names of the invite resource persons. $n it must beemphasi+e that the 6uestions of (ho to invite an (hether there is a nee to invite resourcepersons urin" Committee meetin"s shoul be aresse solel) to Con"ress in its plenar)le"islative po(ers.2@



















Conclusion

!he repeal of R.$. 3222 an the functus officio state of D.O. 112 provie the necessar)basis for the "rant of the (rits of certiorari an prohibition sou"ht b) the petitioners.7o(ever, there is no similar basis for the issuance of a (rit of manamus to compelresponent D=M Secretar) to release funs appropriate for public (or's pro*ects in Mara(i

Cit) an 4anao el Sur to the DP?7B$RMM &irst En"ineerin" District in 4anao el Sur anto compel responent DP?7 Secretar) to allo( the DP?7B$RMM, &irst En"ineerin" Districtin 4anao el Sur to implement all public (or's pro*ects (ithin its *urisictional area. Section-, $rticle VI of R.$. 2-@ clearl) provies that /:f;uns for infrastructure in the autonomousre"ion allocate b) the central "overnment or national "overnment shall onl) beappropriate throu"h a Re"ional $ssembl) Public ?or's $ct/ passe b) the Re"ional

$ssembl). !here is no sho(in" that such Re"ional $ssembl) Public ?or's $ct has beenenacte.

?7ERE&ORE, consierin" that Republic $ct No. 2-@ repeale Republic $ct No. 3222 anrenere DP?7 Department Orer No. 112 functus officio, the petition insofar as it see'sthe (rits of certiorari an prohibition is <R$N!ED. $ccorin"l), let a (rit of prohibition

ISSE commanin" responents to esist from implementin" R.$. 3222 an D.O. 112, anmaintainin" the DP?7 Mara(i SubBDistrict En"ineerin" Office an the &irst En"ineerin"District of the Province of 4anao el Sur comprisin" the Cit) of Mara(i an the municipalities(ithin the &irst District of 4anao el Sur. 7o(ever, the petition insofar as it see's a (rit ofmanamus a"ainst responents is DENIED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno 2Acting !"#"3 Panganiban 4uisu&bing 5nares.Santiago Sandoval./utierre,!ar(io Austria.6artine, !ar(io.6orales !allejo Sr" A,cuna !0ico.Na,ario and /arcia##" concur.Davide #r" !"#" on official leave.!orona #" on leave.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 93054 : December 4, 1990.]

192 SCRA 100

Cordiller Re!io"l A##embl$ %ember A&E'ANDER (. )RD*&&), +B"e-,

*!o (ro/i"cil Bord %ember C)RA)N %)N*N*G, +%$o$o-, ormer

ice%$or %AR*N DAN +B"e-, %"ici6l Co"cilor# %AR*N GAN),+&!7e-, "d E)D)R) 8EE, +8i"!$o"-, Br"!$ Co"cilm" (EDR) .

D&AG +&m-; A!i"ldo re#ide"# SAND< B. C8ANG*AN, "d D)NA)*%AG); &m re#ide" RE< AN)N*); =i"!" re#ide"# )R&AND)

(G)N, "d RE<NAND D&D&A); &!7e re#ide"# )%AS =*%A<)NG,

GREG)R*) DANG), GE)RGE B. BA<)NG, "d *CENE &NAG; 8i"!$o"re#ide"# (AB&) %. D&NAN "d C)NSANC*) GAN); %$o$o re#ide"#

(EDR) %. BA)ANG, &E)NARD) *GADNA, "d %A'*%) *GADNA; "d B"ere#ide"# (%AA C&8*, &AA<)N B*G, %*GE& (%E&BAN, ANDRES



)RD*&&), EDER*C) %AR*AN), SAND< B*N)%NGA, GABR*E& &*%%ANG,R)%E) )NGA&*, RBEN BA8AAN, %8)%D< GABR*E&, "d NADRES

G8A%ANG , Petitioners, /#. 8E C)%%*SS*)N )N E&EC*)NS; >e8o"orble RAN=&*N %. DR*&)N, Secrer$ o ?#ice; 8o". CAA&*N)

%ACARA*G, E@eci/e Secrer$; >e Cbi"e )icer or Re!io"lDe/elo6me"; 8o". G*&&ER%) CARAGE, Secrer$ o Bd!e "d

%"!eme"; "d 8o". R)SA&*NA S. CA?C)%, )*C, Nio"l re#rer ,Respondents.

D E C * S * ) N

G*ERRE, ?R., J.:

The question raised in this petition is whether or not the province of Ifugao, being

the only province which voted favorably for the creation of the CordilleraAutonomous Region can, alone, legally and validly constitute such Region.

The antecedent facts that gave rise to this petition are as follows:

n !anuary "#, $%%#, the people of the provinces of &enguet, 'ountain (rovince,

Ifugao, Abra and )alinga*Apayao and the city of &aguio cast their votes in aplebiscite held pursuant to Republic Act +o. - entitled An Act (roviding for an

rganic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region.

The official Commission on /lections 0C'/1/C2 results of the plebiscite showed that

the creation of the Region was approved by a ma3ority of 4,55% votes in only theIfugao (rovince and was overwhelmingly re3ected by $65,- votes in the rest of the

provinces and city above*mentioned.

Consequently, the C'/1/C, on 7ebruary $6, $%%#, issued Resolution +o. 884%

stating that the rganic Act for the Region has been approved and9or ratified byma3ority of the votes cast only in the province of Ifugao. n the same date, the

ecretary of !ustice issued a memorandum for the (resident reiterating the

C'/1/C resolution and provided:

. . . ;A<nd considering the proviso in ec. $"0A2 that only the provinces and cityvoting favorably shall be included in the CAR, the province of Ifugao being the only

province which voted favorably = then, alone, legally and validly constitutes theCAR. 0Rollo, p. -2

As a result of this, on 'arch 5, $%%#, Congress enacted Republic Act +o. 5$setting the elections in the Cordillera Autonomous Region of Ifugao on the first

'onday of 'arch $%%$.: nad

/ven before the issuance of the C'/1/C resolution, the />ecutive ecretary on7ebruary 4, $%%# issued a 'emorandum granting authority to wind up the affairs of

the Cordillera />ecutive &oard and the Cordillera Regional Assembly created under/>ecutive rder +o. 88#.

n 'arch %, $%%#, the petitioner filed a petition with C'/1/C to declare the non*

ratification of the rganic Act for the Region. The C'/1/C merely noted saidpetition.

n 'arch "#, $%%#, the (resident issued Administrative rder +o. $# declaring



among others that the Cordillera />ecutive &oard and Cordillera Regional Assemblyand all the offices created under />ecutive rder +o. 88# were abolished in view of

the ratification of the rganic Act. * nad

The petitioners maintain that there can be no valid Cordillera Autonomous Region in

only one province as the Constitution and Republic Act +o. - require that the saidRegion be composed of more than one constituent unit.

The petitioners, then, pray that the Court: 0$2 declare null and void C'/1/Cresolution +o. 884%, the memorandum of the ecretary of !ustice, the memorandum

of the />ecutive ecretary, Administrative rder +o. $#, and Republic Act +o. 5$and prohibit and restrain the respondents from implementing the same and spending

public funds for the purpose and 082 declare />ecutive rder +o. 88# constituting theCordillera />ecutive &oard and the Cordillera Regional Assembly and other offices to

be still in force and effect until another organic law for the Autonomous Region shallhave been enacted by Congress and the same is duly ratified by the voters in the

constituent units. ?e treat the Comments of the respondents as an answer anddecide the case.

This petition is meritorious.

The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute the Cordillera AutonomousRegion.

It is e>plicit in Article @, ection $4 of the $%5- Constitution that:

ection $4. There shall be created autonomous regions in 'uslim 'indanaoand in the Cordillera consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities and

geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and culturalheritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics

within the framewor of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well

as territorial integrity of the Republic of the (hilippines. 0/mphasis upplied2

The eywords = provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas connote thatregion is to be made up of more than one constituent unit. The term region used

in its ordinary sense means two or more provinces. This is supported by the fact thatthe thirteen 0$"2 regions into which the (hilippines is divided for administrative

purposes are groupings of contiguous provinces. 0Integrated ReorganiBation (lan0$%-82, which was made as part of the law of the land by (.. +o. $D (.. +o. -682

Ifugao is a province by itself. To become part of a region, it must 3oin otherprovinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas. It 3oins other units because

of their common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and socialstructures and other relevant characteristics. The Constitutional requirements are not

present in this case.* nad

The well*established rule in statutory construction that the language of the

Constitution, as much as possible should be understood in the sense it has incommon use and that the words used in constitutional provisions are to be given

their ordinary meaning e>cept where technical terms are employed, must then, beapplied in this case. 0ee &aranda v. Eustilo, $4 CRA -4-, --#, ;$%55<D !.'.Tuason F Co., Inc. v. 1and Tenure Administration, "$ CRA 6$", 688*68" ;$%-#<2.

Aside from the $%5- Constitution, a reading of the provisions of Republic Act +o.

- strengthens the petitionerGs position that the Region cannot be constituted fromonly one province.

Article III, ections $ and 8 of the tatute provide that the Cordillera AutonomousRegion is to be administered by the Cordillera government consisting of the Regional



Eovernment and local government units. It further provides that:

/CTI+ 8. The Regional Eovernment shall e>ercise powers and functionsnecessary for the proper governance and development of all provinces, cities,

municipalities, and barangay or ili within the Autonomous Region . . .

7rom these sections, it can be gleaned that Congress never intended that a single

province may constitute the autonomous region. therwise, we would be faced withthe absurd situation of having two sets of officials, a set of provincial officials andanother set of regional officials e>ercising their e>ecutive and legislative powers over

e>actly the same small area.

Article H, ections $ and 6 of Republic Act - vest the legislative power in the

Cordillera Assembly whose members shall be elected from regional assembly districtsapportioned among provinces and the cities composing the Autonomous Region. chanroblesvirtual lawlibrary

If we follow the respondentGs position, the members of such Cordillera Assembly shall

then be elected only from the province of Ifugao creating an awward predicament of

having two legislative bodies = the Cordillera Assembly and the angguniang(anlalawigan = e>ercising their legislative powers over the province of Ifugao. And

since Ifugao is one of the smallest provinces in the (hilippines, population*wise, it

would have too many government officials for so few people. :*cralaw

Article @II, ection $# of the law creates a Regional (lanning and evelopment &oardcomposed of the Cordillera Eovernor, all the provincial governors and city mayors or

their representatives, two members of the Cordillera Assembly, and membersrepresenting the private sector. The &oard has a counterpart in the provincial level

called the (rovincial (lanning and evelopment Coordinator. The &oardGs functions0Article @II, ection $#, par. 8, Republic Act +o. -2 are almost similar to those of

the (rovincial CoordinatorGs 0Title 7our, Chapter ", Article $#, ection 88# 062, &atas(ambansa &lg. ""- = 1ocal Eovernment Code2. If it taes only one person in the

provincial level to perform such functions while on the other hand it taes an entire&oard to perform almost the same tass in the regional level, it could only mean that

a larger area must be covered at the regional level. The respondentGs theory of the

Autonomous Region being made up of a single province must, therefore, fail.

Article @@I, ection $" 0&2 0c2 alloting the huge amount of Ten 'illion (esos0($#,###,###.##2 to the Regional Eovernment for its initial organiBational

requirements cannot be construed as funding only a lone and small province.

These sections of Republic Act +o. - show that a one province Cordillera

Autonomous Region was never contemplated by the law creating it.

The province of Ifugao maes up only $$ of the total population of the areas

enumerated in Article I, ection 8 0b2 of Republic Act +o. - which include&enguet, 'ountain (rovince, Abra, )alinga*Apayao and &aguio City. It has the

second smallest number of inhabitants from among the provinces and city abovementioned. The Cordillera population is distributed in round figures as follows: Abra,

$54,###D &enguet, 65,###D Ifugao, $6%,###D )alinga*Apayao, 8$6,###D 'ountain(rovince, $$,###D and &aguio City, $5",###D Total population of these fiveprovinces and one cityD $,""8,### according to the $%%# Census 0'anila tandard,

eptember "#, $%%#, p. $62.

There are other provisions of Republic Act +o. - which are either violated orwhich cannot be complied with. ection $ of Article H calls for a Regional

Commission on Appointments with the peaer as Chairman and are 02 memberscoming from different provinces and cities in the Region. Jnder the respondentsG



view, the Commission would have a Chairman and only one member. It would neverhave a quorum. ection " of Article HI calls for cabinet members, as far as

practicable, to come from various provinces and cities of the Region. ection $ ofArticle HII creates a system of tribal courts for the various indigenous cultural

communities of the Region. ection % of Article @H requires the development of acommon regional language based upon the various languages and dialects in the

region which regional language in turn is e>pected to enrich the national language.

The entirety of Republic Act +o. - creating the Cordillera Autonomous Region is

infused with provisions which rule against the sole province of Ifugao constituting theRegion.:*cralaw

To contemplate the situation envisioned by the respondent would not only violate theletter and intent of the Constitution and Republic Act +o. - but would also be

impractical and illogical.

ur decision in Abbas, et al. v. C'/1/C, 0E.R. +o. 5%4$, +ovember $#, $%%2, is

not applicable in the case at bar contrary to the view of the ecretary of !ustice.

The Abbas case laid down the rate on the meaning of ma3ority in the phrase by

ma3ority of the votes cast by the constituent units called for the purpose found in

the Constitution, Article @, ection $5. It stated:

> > >

. . . ;I<t is thus clear that what is required by the Constitution is simple

ma3ority of votes approving the rganic Act in individual constituent units andnot a double ma3ority of the votes in all constituent units put together, as well

as in the individual constituent units.

This was the pronouncement applied by the ecretary of !ustice in arriving at his

conclusion stated in his 'emorandum for the (resident that:

> > >

. . . ;i<t is believed that the creation of the Cordillera Autonomous Region

0CAR2 as mandated by R.A. +o. - became effective upon its approval bythe ma3ority of the votes cast in the province of Ifugao. And considering theproviso in ection $" 0a2 that only the provinces and city voting favorably

shall be included in the CAR, the province of Ifugao being the only provincewhich voted favorably = can, alone, legally and validly constitute the CAR.

0Rollo. p. 6#2.

The plebiscites mandated by the Constitution and Republic Act +o. - for the

Cordillera and Republic Act +o. -"6 for the Autonomous Region in 'uslim 'indanaodetermine = 0$2 whether there shall be an autonomous region in the Cordillera and

in 'uslim 'indanao and 082 which provinces and cities, among those enumerated inthe two Republic Acts, shall comprise said Autonomous Regions. 0ee III, Record of

the Constitutional Commission, 65-*6%8 ;$%5<2.

The Abbas case established the rule to follow on which provinces and cities shall

comprise the autonomous region in 'uslim 'indanao which is, consequently, thesame rule to follow with regard to the autonomous region in the Cordillera. Kowever,

there is nothing in the Abbas decision which deals with the issue on whether anautonomous region, in either 'uslim 'indanao or Cordillera could e>ist despite the

fact that only one province or one city is to constitute it. chanroblesvirtual lawlibrary

tated in another way, the issue in this case is whether the sole province of Ifugaocan validly and legally constitute the Cordillera Autonomous Region. The issue is not



whether the province of Ifugao is to be included in the Cordillera AutonomousRegion. It is the first issue which the Court answers in the instant case.

?K/R/7R/, the petition is hereby ERA+T/. Resolution +o. 884% of the

Commission on /lections, insofar as it upholds the creation of an autonomous region,

the 7ebruary $6, $%%# memorandum of the ecretary of !ustice, the 7ebruary 4,$%%# memorandum of the />ecutive ecretary, Administrative rder +o. $#, and

Republic Act +o. 5$ are declared null and void while />ecutive rder +o. 88# isdeclared to be still in force and effect until properly repealed or amended.

R/R/.

Fernan C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla,Bidin, ar!iento, Gri"o-#$uino, Medialdea and Re%alado, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., is on leave.


SUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

$.R. No. 1/2/ A<r'+ 15, 2//5

METROPOLTAN MANLA #EELOPMENT AUTORT3, Petitioner,vs.#ANTE O. $ARN, responent.

D E C I S I O N

CCO-NA"ARO, J.

$t issue in this case is the valiit) of Section @:f; of Republic $ct No. 52 creatin" theMetropolitan Manila Development $uthorit) :MMD$;, (hich authori+es it to confiscate ansuspen or revo'e riverJs licenses in the enforcement of traffic la(s an re"ulations.

!he issue arose from an incient involvin" the responent Dante O. <arin, a la()er, (ho(as issue a traffic violation receipt :!VR; an his riverJs license confiscate for par'in"ille"all) alon" <anara Street, =inono, Manila, on -@ $u"ust 122@. !he follo(in"statements (ere printe on the !VRA

ou are hereb) irecte to report to the MMD$ !raffic Operations Center Port $rea Manilaafter 3 hours from ate of apprehension for ispositionFappropriate action thereon. Criminalcase shall be file for failure to reeem license after 9- a)s.

Vali as temporar) DRIVERJS license for seven a)s from ate of apprehension.1

Shortl) before the e>piration of the !VRJs valiit), the responent aresse a letter to thenMMD$ Chairman Prospero Oreta re6uestin" the return of his riverJs license, ane>pressin" his preference for his case to be file in court.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_130230_2005.html#fnt1






Receivin" no immeiate repl), <arin file the ori"inal complaint9 (ith application forpreliminar) in*unction in =ranch 0- of the Re"ional !rial Court :R!C; of Para%a6ue, on 1September 122@, contenin" that, in the absence of an) implementin" rules an re"ulations,Sec. @:f; of Rep. $ct No. 52 "rants the MMD$ unbrile iscretion to eprive errin"motorists of their licenses, preBemptin" a *uicial etermination of the valiit) of theeprivation, thereb) violatin" the ue process clause of the Constitution. !he responent

further contene that the provision violates the constitutional prohibition a"ainst unueele"ation of le"islative authorit), allo(in" as it oes the MMD$ to fi> an imposeunspecifie an therefore unlimite B fines an other penalties on errin" motorists.

In support of his application for a (rit of preliminar) in*unction, <arin alle"e that he sufferean continues to suffer "reat an irreparable ama"e because of the eprivation of hislicense an that, absent an) implementin" rules from the Metro Manila Council, the !VR anthe confiscation of his license have no le"al basis.

&or its part, the MMD$, represente b) the Office of the Solicitor <eneral, pointe out thatthe po(ers "rante to it b) Sec. @:f; of Rep. $ct No. 52 are limite to the fi>in", collectionan imposition of fines an penalties for traffic violations, (hich po(ers are le"islative an

e>ecutive in nature the *uiciar) retains the ri"ht to etermine the valiit) of the penalt)impose. It further ar"ue that the octrine of separation of po(ers oes not preclue/ami>ture/ of the three po(ers of "overnment in aministrative a"encies.

!he MMD$ also refute <arinJs alle"ation that the Metro Manila Council, the "overnin"boar an polic) ma'in" bo) of the petitioner, has as )et to formulate the implementin"rules for Sec. @:f; of Rep. $ct No. 52 an irecte the courtJs attention to MMD$Memoranum Circular No. !!B2@B--1 ate 1@ $pril 122@. Responent <arin, ho(ever,6uestione the valiit) of MMD$ Memoranum Circular No. !!B2@B--1, as he claims that it(as passe b) the Metro Manila Council in the absence of a 6uorum.

#u"e 7elen =autistaBRicafort issue a temporar) restrainin" orer on 0 September 122@,e>tenin" the valiit) of the !VR as a temporar) riverJs license for t(ent) more a)s. $

preliminar) manator) in*unction (as "rante on 9 October 122@, an the MMD$ (asirecte to return the responentJs riverJs license.

On 1 $u"ust 1225, the trial court renere the assaile ecision @ in favor of the hereinresponent an hel thatA

a. !here (as inee no 6uorum in that &irst Re"ular Meetin" of the MMD$ Council helon March 9, 122@, hence MMD$ Memoranum Circular No. !!B2@B--1, authori+in"confiscation of riverJs licenses upon issuance of a !VR, is voi ab initio"

b. !he summar) confiscation of a riverJs license (ithout first "ivin" the river anopportunit) to be hear eprivin" him of a propert) ri"ht :riverJs license; (ithout DE

PROCESS not fillin" :sic ; in Court the complaint of suppose traffic infraction, cannot be *ustifie b) an) le"islation :an is; hence unconstitutional.

?7ERE&ORE, the temporar) (rit of preliminar) in*unction is hereb) mae permanent th:e;MMD$ is irecte to return to plaintiff his riverJs license th:e; MMD$ is li'e(ise orere toesist from confiscatin" riverJs license (ithout first "ivin" the river the opportunit) to behear in an appropriate proceein".

In filin" this petition,0 the MMD$ reiterates an reinforces its ar"ument in the court belo( an













contens that a license to operate a motor vehicle is neither a contract nor a propert) ri"ht,but is a privile"e sub*ect to reasonable re"ulation uner the police po(er in the interest ofthe public safet) an (elfare. !he petitioner further ar"ues that revocation or suspension ofthis privile"e oes not constitute a ta'in" (ithout ue process as lon" as the licensee is"iven the ri"ht to appeal the revocation.

!o buttress its ar"ument that a licensee ma) inee appeal the ta'in" an the *uiciar)retains the po(er to etermine the valiit) of the confiscation, suspension or revocation ofthe license, the petitioner points out that uner the terms of the confiscation, the licensee hasthree optionsA

1. !o voluntaril) pa) the imposable fine,

. !o protest the apprehension b) filin" a protest (ith the MMD$ $*uicationCommittee, or

9. !o re6uest the referral of the !VR to the Public ProsecutorJs Office.

!he MMD$ li'e(ise ar"ues that Memoranum Circular No. !!B2@B--1 (as valil) passe inthe presence of a 6uorum, an that the lo(er courtJs finin" that it ha not (as base on a/misapprehension of facts,/ (hich the petitioner (oul have us revie(. Moreover, it assertsthat thou"h the circular is the basis for the issuance of !VRs, the basis for the summar)confiscation of licenses is Sec. @:f; of Rep. $ct No. 52 itself, an that such po(er is selfBe>ecutor) an oes not re6uire the issuance of an) implementin" re"ulation or circular.

Mean(hile, on 1 $u"ust --, the MMD$, throu"h its Chairman =a)ani &ernano,implemente Memoranum Circular No. -, Series of --, outlinin" the proceures for theuse of the Metropolitan !raffic !ic'et :M!!; scheme. ner the circular, errin" motorists areissue an M!!, (hich can be pai at an) Metroban' branch. !raffic enforcers ma) nolon"er confiscate riversJ licenses as a matter of course in cases of traffic violations. $ll

motorists (ith unreeeme !VRs (ere "iven seven a)s from the ate of implementation ofthe ne( s)stem to pa) their fines an reeem their license or vehicle plates.5

It (oul seem, therefore, that insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to en*oin thepetitioner from confiscatin" riversJ licenses is concerne, recent events have overta'en theCourtJs nee to ecie this case, (hich has been renere moot an acaemic b) theimplementation of Memoranum Circular No. -, Series of --.

!he petitioner, ho(ever, is not preclue from reBimplementin" Memoranum Circular No.!!B2@B--1, or an) other scheme, for that matter, that (oul entail confiscatin" riversJlicenses. &or the proper implementation, therefore, of the petitionerJs future pro"rams, thisCourt eems it appropriate to ma'e the follo(in" observationsA

7" A license to o(erate a &otor ve0icle is a (rivilege t0at t0e state &a' *it00old int0e e8ercise of its (olice (o*er"

!he petitioner correctl) points out that a license to operate a motor vehicle is not a propert)ri"ht, but a privile"e "rante b) the state, (hich ma) be suspene or revo'e b) the statein the e>ercise of its police po(er, in the interest of the public safet) an (elfare, sub*ect tothe proceural ue process re6uirements. !his is consistent (ith our rulin"s in Pedro v"Provincial $oard of Ri,al 3 on the license to operate a coc'pit, Tan v" Director of











of the same.

7avin" been lo"e primaril) in the National 4e"islature, it cannot be e>ercise b) an)"roup or bo) of iniviuals not possessin" le"islative po(er. !he National 4e"islature,ho(ever, ma) ele"ate this po(er to the presient an aministrative boars as (ell as thela(ma'in" boies of municipal corporations or local "overnment units :4<s;. Once

ele"ate, the a"ents can e>ercise onl) such le"islative po(ers as are conferre on them b)the national la(ma'in" bo).

Our Con"ress ele"ate police po(er to the 4<s in the 4ocal <overnment Coe of1221.1@ $ local "overnment is a /political subivision of a nation or state (hich is constituteb) la( an has substantial control of local affairs./10 4ocal "overnment units are theprovinces, cities, municipalities an baranga's, (hich e>ercise police po(er throu"h theirrespective le"islative boies.

Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a bo) compose of several local "overnment units. ?iththe passa"e of Rep. $ct No. 52 in 122@, Metropolitan Manila (as eclare as a /specialevelopment an aministrative re"ion/ an the aministration of /metroB(ie/ basic

services affectin" the re"ion place uner /a evelopment authorit)/ referre to as theMMD$. !husA

. . . H!he po(ers of the MMD$ are limite to the follo(in" actsA formulation, coorination,re"ulation, implementation, preparation, mana"ement, monitorin", settin" of policies,installation of a s)stem an aministration. "here is no sylla#le in $. %. &o. '()* that+rants the ,,!% police power let alone le+islative power . E=e% 7:e Me7ro Ma%'+aCou%&'+ :a( %o7 bee% *e+e)a7e* a%y +e)'(+a7'=e <o?er . nli'e the le"islative boies of thelocal "overnment units, 7:ere '( %o <ro='('o% '% R. A. No. 924 7:a7 e0<o?er( 7:e MM#Aor '7( Cou%&'+ 7o e%a&7 or*'%a%&e(, a<<ro=e re(o+u7'o%( a%* a<<ro<r'a7e ;u%*( ;or 7:e)e%era+ ?e+;are o; 7:e '%:ab'7a%7( o; Me7ro Ma%'+a. !he MMD$ is, as terme in thecharter itself, a /evelopment authorit)./ 7 '( a% a)e%&y &rea7e* ;or 7:e <ur<o(e o; +ay'%)*o?% <o+'&'e( a%* &oor*'%a7'%) ?'7: 7:e =ar'ou( %a7'o%a+ )o=er%0e%7 a)e%&'e(,

<eo<+eB( or)a%'a7'o%(, %o%-)o=er%0e%7a+ or)a%'a7'o%( a%* 7:e <r'=a7e (e&7or ;or 7:ee;;'&'e%7 a%* eD<e*'7'ou( *e+'=ery o; ba('& (er='&e( '% 7:e =a(7 0e7ro<o+'7a% area. %llits functions are administrative in nature an these are actuall) summe up in the charteritself, vi+A

/Sec. . Creation of the Metropolitan Manila Development $uthorit). BB B> > >.

!he MMD$ shall perform plannin", monitorin" an coorinative functions,an in the process e>ercise re"ulator) an supervisor) authorit) over theeliver) of metroB(ie services (ithin Metro Manila, (ithout iminution of theautonom) of the local "overnment units concernin" purel) local matters./

.

Clearl), the MMD$ is not a political unit of "overnment. !he po(er ele"ate to the MMD$is that "iven to the Metro Manila Council to promul"ate aministrative rules an re"ulationsin the implementation of the MMD$Js functions. "here is no +rant of authority to enactordinances and re+ulations for the +eneral welfare of the inha#itants of themetropolis. 15 :footnotes omitte, emphasis supplie;

!herefore, insofar as Sec. @:f; of Rep. $ct No. 52 is unerstoo b) the lo(er court an b)



http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_130230_2005.htm/o#_ftn17



http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_130230_2005.htm/o#_ftn17



the petitioner to "rant the MMD$ the (o*er to confiscate an suspen or revo'e riversJlicenses *it0out need of an' ot0er legislative enact&ent , such is an unauthori+e e>ercise ofpolice po(er.

:" Sec" ;2f3 grants t0e 66DA *it0 t0e dut' to enforce e8isting traffic rules andregulations"

Section @ of Rep. $ct No. 52 enumerates the /&unctions an Po(ers of the Metro ManilaDevelopment $uthorit)./ !he conteste clause in Sec. @:f; states that the petitioner shall/install an aminister a sin"le tic'etin" s)stem, fi>, impose an collect fines an penaltiesfor all 'ins of violations of traffic rules an re"ulations, (hether movin" or nonmovin" innature, an confiscate an suspen or revo'e riversJ licenses in t0e enforce&ent of suc0traffic la*s and regulations, the provisions of Rep. $ct No. 19013 an P.D. No. 10-@12 to thecontrar) not(ithstanin",/ an that /:f;or this purpose, the $uthorit) shall enforce all trafficla(s an re"ulations in Metro Manila, throu"h its traffic operation center, an ma) eputi+emembers of the PNP, traffic enforcers of local "overnment units, ul) license securit)"uars, or members of nonB"overnmental or"ani+ations to (hom ma) be ele"ate certainauthorit), sub*ect to such conitions an re6uirements as the $uthorit) ma) impose./

!hus, (here there is a traffic la( or re"ulation valil) enacte b) the le"islature or thosea"encies to (hom le"islative po(ers have been ele"ate :the Cit) of Manila in this case;,the petitioner is not preclue an in fact is ut)Bboun to confiscate an suspen orrevo'e riversJ licenses in the e>ercise of its manate of transport an traffic mana"ement,as (ell as the aministration an implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, trafficen"ineerin" services an traffic eucation pro"rams.-

!his is consistent (ith our rulin" in $el.Air that the MMD$ is a evelopment authorit) createfor the purpose of la)in" o(n policies an coorinatin" (ith the various national"overnment a"encies, peopleJs or"ani+ations, nonB"overnmental or"ani+ations an theprivate sector, (hich ma) enforce, but not enact , orinances.

!his is also consistent (ith the funamental rule of statutor) construction that a statute is tobe rea in a manner that (oul breathe life into it, rather than efeat it,1 an is supporte b)the criteria in cases of this nature that all reasonable oubts shoul be resolve in favor ofthe constitutionalit) of a statute.

$ last (or. !he MMD$ (as intene to coorinate services (ith metroB(ie impact thattranscen local political bounaries or (oul entail hu"e e>penitures if provie b) theiniviual 4<s, especiall) (ith re"ar to transport an traffic mana"ement,9 an (e area(are of the valiant efforts of the petitioner to untan"le the increasin"l) trafficBsnarle roasof Metro Manila. =ut these lauable intentions are limite b) the MMD$Js enablin" la(,(hich (e can but interpret, an petitioner must be remine that its efforts in t0is res(ect&ust be aut0ori,ed b' a valid la* or ordinance or regulation arising fro& a legiti&ate

source.

EREFORE, the petition is ismisse.

SO OR#ERE#.

Puno 2!0air&an3 Austria.6artine, !allejo Sr" an Tinga ##" concur.


















Documents

Lgc Cases Lgus