Mmda v Garin

7/17/2015 G.R.No.130230

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_130230_2005.html 1/6

TodayisFriday,July17,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.130230April15,2005

METROPOLITANMANILADEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,Petitioner,vs.DANTEO.GARIN,respondent.

DECISION

CHICONAZARIO,J.:

At issue in this case is the validity of Section 5(f) of Republic Act No. 7924 creating the Metropolitan ManilaDevelopmentAuthority(MMDA),whichauthorizesittoconfiscateandsuspendorrevokedriver'slicensesintheenforcementoftrafficlawsandregulations.

The issuearose froman incident involving the respondentDanteO.Garin, a lawyer,whowas issueda trafficviolation receipt (TVR) and his driver's license confiscated for parking illegally alongGandaraStreet, Binondo,Manila,on05August1995.ThefollowingstatementswereprintedontheTVR:

Youareherebydirectedtoreport totheMMDATrafficOperationsCenterPortAreaManilaafter48hoursfromdateofapprehensionfordisposition/appropriateactionthereon.Criminalcaseshallbefiledforfailuretoredeemlicenseafter30days.

ValidastemporaryDRIVER'Slicenseforsevendaysfromdateofapprehension.1

Shortlybeforetheexpirationof theTVR'svalidity, therespondentaddresseda letter2 to thenMMDAChairmanProsperoOretarequestingthereturnofhisdriver'slicense,andexpressinghispreferenceforhiscasetobefiledincourt.

Receiving no immediate reply, Garin filed the original complaint3 with application for preliminary injunction inBranch 260 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque, on 12 September 1995, contending that, in theabsenceofany implementingrulesandregulations,Sec.5(f)ofRep.ActNo.7924grantstheMMDAunbridleddiscretion todepriveerringmotoristsof their licenses,preemptinga judicialdeterminationof thevalidityof thedeprivation,therebyviolatingthedueprocessclauseoftheConstitution.Therespondentfurthercontendedthattheprovisionviolatestheconstitutionalprohibitionagainstunduedelegationoflegislativeauthority,allowingasitdoes theMMDA to fix and impose unspecified and therefore unlimited fines and other penalties on erringmotorists.

Insupportofhisapplication forawritofpreliminary injunction,Garinalleged thathesufferedandcontinues tosuffergreatandirreparabledamagebecauseofthedeprivationofhislicenseandthat,absentanyimplementingrulesfromtheMetroManilaCouncil,theTVRandtheconfiscationofhislicensehavenolegalbasis.

Foritspart,theMMDA,representedbytheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,pointedoutthatthepowersgrantedtoitbySec.5(f)ofRep.ActNo.7924are limited to the fixing,collectionand impositionof finesandpenalties fortrafficviolations,whichpowersarelegislativeandexecutiveinnaturethejudiciaryretainstherighttodeterminethevalidityofthepenaltyimposed.Itfurtherarguedthatthedoctrineofseparationofpowersdoesnotpreclude"admixture"ofthethreepowersofgovernmentinadministrativeagencies.4

TheMMDAalsorefutedGarin'sallegationthattheMetroManilaCouncil,thegoverningboardandpolicymakingbody of the petitioner, has as yet to formulate the implementing rules for Sec. 5(f) of Rep. ActNo. 7924 anddirectedthecourt'sattentiontoMMDAMemorandumCircularNo.TT95001dated15April1995.RespondentGarin,however,questionedthevalidityofMMDAMemorandumCircularNo.TT95001,asheclaimsthatitwaspassedbytheMetroManilaCouncilintheabsenceofaquorum.

7/17/2015 G.R.No.130230


JudgeHelenBautistaRicafortissuedatemporaryrestrainingorderon26September1995,extendingthevalidityoftheTVRasatemporarydriver'slicensefortwentymoredays.Apreliminarymandatoryinjunctionwasgrantedon23October1995,andtheMMDAwasdirectedtoreturntherespondent'sdriver'slicense.

On14August1997, the trial court rendered theassaileddecision5 in favorof theherein respondentandheldthat:

a.TherewasindeednoquoruminthatFirstRegularMeetingoftheMMDACouncilheldonMarch23,1995,henceMMDAMemorandumCircularNo.TT95001,authorizingconfiscationofdriver'slicensesuponissuanceofaTVR,isvoidabinitio.

b.Thesummaryconfiscationofadriver'slicensewithoutfirstgivingthedriveranopportunitytobehearddeprivinghimofapropertyright(driver'slicense)withoutDUEPROCESSnotfilling(sic)inCourtthecomplaintofsupposedtrafficinfraction,cannotbejustifiedbyanylegislation(andis)henceunconstitutional.

WHEREFORE,thetemporarywritofpreliminaryinjunctionisherebymadepermanentth(e)MMDAisdirectedtoreturn toplaintiffhisdriver's license th(e)MMDA is likewiseordered todesist fromconfiscatingdriver's licensewithoutfirstgivingthedrivertheopportunitytobeheardinanappropriateproceeding.

In filing thispetition,6 theMMDA reiteratesand reinforces itsargument in thecourtbelowandcontends thatalicensetooperateamotorvehicleisneitheracontractnorapropertyright,butisaprivilegesubjecttoreasonableregulationunder thepolicepower in the interestof thepublicsafetyandwelfare. Thepetitioner furtherarguesthat revocationor suspensionof thisprivilegedoesnot constitutea takingwithout dueprocessas longas thelicenseeisgiventherighttoappealtherevocation.

To buttress its argument that a licenseemay indeed appeal the taking and the judiciary retains the power todetermine thevalidityof theconfiscation,suspensionor revocationof the license, thepetitionerpointsout thatunderthetermsoftheconfiscation,thelicenseehasthreeoptions:

1.Tovoluntarilypaytheimposablefine,

2.ToprotesttheapprehensionbyfilingaprotestwiththeMMDAAdjudicationCommittee,or

3.TorequestthereferraloftheTVRtothePublicProsecutor'sOffice.

TheMMDA likewiseargues thatMemorandumCircularNo.TT95001wasvalidlypassed in thepresenceofaquorum,andthatthelowercourt'sfindingthat ithadnotwasbasedona"misapprehensionoffacts,"whichthepetitionerwould have us review. Moreover, it asserts that though the circular is the basis for the issuance ofTVRs, thebasis for thesummaryconfiscationof licenses isSec.5(f)ofRep.ActNo.7924 itself,and thatsuchpowerisselfexecutoryanddoesnotrequiretheissuanceofanyimplementingregulationorcircular.

Meanwhile,on12August2004,theMMDA,throughitsChairmanBayaniFernando,implementedMemorandumCircular No. 04, Series of 2004, outlining the procedures for the use of theMetropolitan Traffic Ticket (MTT)scheme.Underthecircular,erringmotoristsare issuedanMTT,whichcanbepaidatanyMetrobankbranch.Trafficenforcersmaynolongerconfiscatedrivers'licensesasamatterofcourseincasesoftrafficviolations.AllmotoristswithunredeemedTVRsweregivensevendaysfromthedateof implementationofthenewsystemtopaytheirfinesandredeemtheirlicenseorvehicleplates.7

It would seem, therefore, that insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to enjoin the petitioner fromconfiscatingdrivers' licenses isconcerned, recenteventshaveovertaken theCourt'sneed todecide thiscase,whichhasbeenrenderedmootandacademicbytheimplementationofMemorandumCircularNo.04,Seriesof2004.

The petitioner, however, is not precluded from reimplementingMemorandumCircular No. TT95001, or anyother scheme, for thatmatter, thatwould entail confiscating drivers' licenses. For the proper implementation,therefore,ofthepetitioner'sfutureprograms,thisCourtdeemsitappropriatetomakethefollowingobservations:

1. A licensetooperateamotorvehicle isaprivilegethat thestatemaywithhold intheexerciseof itspolicepower.

Thepetitionercorrectlypointsoutthatalicensetooperateamotorvehicleisnotapropertyright,butaprivilegegrantedbythestate,whichmaybesuspendedorrevokedbythestateintheexerciseofitspolicepower,intheinterestofthepublicsafetyandwelfare,subjecttotheproceduraldueprocessrequirements.Thisisconsistentwith our rulings inPedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal8 on the license to operate a cockpit,Tan v. Director ofForestry9andOposav.Factoran10ontimberlicensingagreements,andSurigaoElectricCo.,Inc.v.MunicipalityofSurigao11onalegislativefranchisetooperateanelectricplant.

7/17/2015 G.R.No.130230


PetitionercitesalonglistofAmericancasestoprovethispoint,suchasStateex.Rel.Sullivan,12whichstatesinpartthat,"thelegislativepowertoregulatetraveloverthehighwaysandthoroughfaresofthestateforthegeneralwelfare is extensive. It may be exercised in any reasonablemanner to conserve the safety of travelers andpedestrians.Sincemotorvehiclesareinstrumentsofpotentialdanger,theirregistrationandthelicensingoftheiroperatorshavebeenrequiredalmostfromtheirfirstappearance.Therighttooperatetheminpublicplacesisnotanaturalandunrestrainedright,butaprivilegesubject toreasonableregulation,underthepolicepower, intheinterestofthepublicsafetyandwelfare.Thepowertolicenseimportsfurtherpowertowithholdortorevokesuchlicenseuponnoncompliancewithprescribedconditions."

Likewise,thepetitionerquotesthePennsylvaniaSupremeCourt inCommonwealthv.Funk,13 to theeffect that:"Automobiles are vehicles of great speed and power. The use of them constitutes an element of danger topersonsandpropertyuponthehighways.Carefullyoperated,anautomobileisstilladangerousinstrumentality,but,whenoperatedbycarelessorincompetentpersons,itbecomesanengineofdestruction.TheLegislature,intheexerciseofthepolicepowerofthecommonwealth,notonlymay,butmust,prescribehowandbywhommotorvehiclesshallbeoperatedonthehighways.Oneoftheprimarypurposesofasystemofgeneralregulationofthesubjectmatter,asherebytheVehicleCode,istoinsurethecompetencyoftheoperatorofmotorvehicles.Suchagenerallawismanifestlydirectedtothepromotionofpublicsafetyandiswellwithinthepolicepower."

Thecommonthreadrunningthroughthecitedcases is that it is the legislature, in theexerciseofpolicepower,whichhas thepower and responsibility to regulatehowandbywhommotor vehiclesmaybeoperatedon thestatehighways.

2.TheMMDAisnotvestedwithpolicepower.

InMetroManilaDevelopmentAuthorityv.BelAirVillageAssociation,Inc.,14wecategoricallystatedthatRep.ActNo.7924doesnotgrant theMMDAwithpolicepower, letalone legislativepower,and thatall its functionsareadministrativeinnature.

The said case also involved the herein petitioner MMDA which claimed that it had the authority to open asubdivisionstreetownedbytheBelAirVillageAssociation,Inc.topublictrafficbecauseitisanagentofthestateendowed with police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. From this premise, theMMDAarguedthattherewasnoneedfortheCityofMakatitoenactanordinanceopeningNeptuneStreettothepublic.

Tracing the legislativehistoryofRep.ActNo.7924creating theMMDA,weconcluded that theMMDA isnotalocal government unit or a public corporation endowedwith legislative power, and, unlike its predecessor, theMetroManilaCommission, ithasnopower toenactordinances for thewelfareof thecommunity. Thus, in theabsenceofanordinancefromtheCityofMakati,itsownordertoopenthestreetwasinvalid.

We restatehere thedoctrine in thesaiddecisionas itapplies to thecaseatbar:policepower,asan inherentattributeofsovereignty,isthepowervestedbytheConstitutioninthelegislaturetomake,ordain,andestablishallmanner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, notrepugnanttotheConstitution,astheyshall judgetobeforthegoodandwelfareof thecommonwealth,andforthesubjectsofthesame.

Having been lodged primarily in the National Legislature, it cannot be exercised by any group or body ofindividualsnotpossessing legislativepower.TheNationalLegislature,however,maydelegate thispower to thepresident and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or localgovernmentunits(LGUs).Oncedelegated,theagentscanexerciseonlysuchlegislativepowersasareconferredonthembythenationallawmakingbody.

OurCongressdelegatedpolicepowertotheLGUsintheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991.15Alocalgovernmentis a "political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of localaffairs."16Localgovernmentunitsare theprovinces,cities,municipalitiesandbarangays,whichexercisepolicepowerthroughtheirrespectivelegislativebodies.

MetropolitanorMetroManila isabodycomposedofseveral localgovernmentunits. WiththepassageofRep.ActNo. 7924 in1995,MetropolitanManilawasdeclaredasa "special developmentandadministrative region"andtheadministrationof"metrowide"basicservicesaffectingtheregionplacedunder"adevelopmentauthority"referredtoastheMMDA.Thus:

. . . [T]he powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation,implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system andadministration. There is no syllable in R. A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alonelegislativepower.EventheMetroManilaCouncilhasnotbeendelegatedanylegislativepower.Unlikethelegislativebodiesof the localgovernmentunits, there isnoprovision inR.A.No.7924 thatempowers theMMDAor itsCouncil to "enactordinances,approve resolutionsandappropriate funds for thegeneral

7/17/2015 G.R.No.130230


welfare" of the inhabitants ofMetroManila. TheMMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a "developmentauthority." It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with thevariousnationalgovernmentagencies,people'sorganizations,nongovernmentalorganizationsandtheprivatesectorfortheefficientandexpeditiousdeliveryofbasicservicesinthevastmetropolitanarea.Allitsfunctionsareadministrativeinnatureandtheseareactuallysummedupinthecharteritself,viz:

"Sec.2.CreationoftheMetropolitanManilaDevelopmentAuthority.xxx.

The MMDA shall perform planning, monitoring and coordinative functions, and in the processexercise regulatoryandsupervisoryauthorityover thedeliveryofmetrowideserviceswithinMetroManila, without diminution of the autonomy of the local government units concerning purely localmatters."

.

Clearly,theMMDAisnotapoliticalunitofgovernment.ThepowerdelegatedtotheMMDAisthatgiventotheMetroManilaCouncil to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of theMMDA'sfunctions.There isnograntofauthoritytoenactordinancesandregulationsforthegeneralwelfareoftheinhabitantsofthemetropolis.17(footnotesomitted,emphasissupplied)

Therefore, insofar asSec. 5(f) ofRep.ActNo. 7924 is understoodby the lower court andby thepetitioner togrant the MMDA the power to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenseswithout need of any otherlegislativeenactment,suchisanunauthorizedexerciseofpolicepower.

3.Sec.5(f)grantstheMMDAwiththedutytoenforceexistingtrafficrulesandregulations.

Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7924 enumerates the "Functions and Powers of the Metro Manila DevelopmentAuthority."ThecontestedclauseinSec.5(f)statesthatthepetitionershall"installandadministerasingleticketingsystem, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations,whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in theenforcementofsuchtrafficlawsandregulations, theprovisionsofRep.ActNo.413618andP.D.No.160519 tothe contrary notwithstanding," and that "(f)or this purpose, the Authority shall enforce all traffic laws andregulations inMetroManila, through its trafficoperationcenter,andmaydeputizemembersof thePNP, trafficenforcers of local government units, duly licensed security guards, or members of nongovernmentalorganizations towhommaybedelegatedcertainauthority,subject tosuchconditionsand requirementsas theAuthoritymayimpose."

Thus, where there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or those agencies to whomlegislativepowershavebeendelegated(theCityofManilainthiscase),thepetitionerisnotprecludedandinfact is dutybound to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the exercise of its mandate oftransport and traffic management, as well as the administration and implementation of all traffic enforcementoperations,trafficengineeringservicesandtrafficeducationprograms.20

ThisisconsistentwithourrulinginBelAirthattheMMDAisadevelopmentauthoritycreatedforthepurposeoflaying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies, people's organizations,nongovernmentalorganizationsandtheprivatesector,whichmayenforce,butnotenact,ordinances.

Thisisalsoconsistentwiththefundamentalruleofstatutoryconstructionthatastatuteistobereadinamannerthatwouldbreathelifeintoit,ratherthandefeatit,21andissupportedbythecriteriaincasesofthisnaturethatallreasonabledoubtsshouldberesolvedinfavoroftheconstitutionalityofastatute.22

Alastword.TheMMDAwasintendedtocoordinateserviceswithmetrowideimpactthattranscendlocalpoliticalboundaries or would entail huge expenditures if provided by the individual LGUs, especially with regard totransport and trafficmanagement,23 and we are aware of the valiant efforts of the petitioner to untangle theincreasingly trafficsnarled roads of Metro Manila. But these laudable intentions are limited by the MMDA'senablinglaw,whichwecanbutinterpret,andpetitionermustberemindedthatitseffortsinthisrespectmustbeauthorizedbyavalidlaw,orordinance,orregulationarisingfromalegitimatesource.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisdismissed.

SOORDERED.

Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,andTinga,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

7/17/2015 G.R.No.130230


1Records,p.10.

2Id.,p.11.

3Id.,p.1.

4MemorandumforDefendants,Records,pp.178185.

5Id.,pp.187190,pennedbyHon.HelenBautistaRicafort.

6Records,pp.197225.

7Sec.7,Mem.Circ.No.04,Seriesof2004.

856Phil123(1931).

9G.R.No.L24548,27October1983,125SCRA302.

10G.R.No.101083,30July1993,224SCRA792.

11G.R.No.L22766,30August1968,24SCRA898.

1263P.2d653,108ALR1156,1159.

13323Pa.390,186A.65(108ALR1161).

14G.R.No.135962,27March2000,328SCRA836,pennedbyJusticeReynatoS.Puno.

15Sec.16ofBookIoftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991states:

GeneralWelfare.Everylocalgovernmentunitshallexercisethepowersexpresslygranted,thosenecessarilyimpliedtherefrom,aswellaspowersnecessary,appropriate,orincidentalforitsefficientandeffectivegovernance,andthosewhichareessentialtothepromotionofthegeneralwelfare.Withintheirrespectiveterritorialjurisdictions,localgovernmentunitsshallensureandsupport,amongotherthings,thepreservationandenrichmentofculture,promotehealthandsafety,enhancetherightofthepeopletoabalancedecology,encourageandsupportthedevelopmentofappropriateandselfreliantscientificandtechnologicalcapabilities,improvepublicmorals,enhanceeconomicprosperityandsocialjustice,promotefullemploymentamongtheirresidents,maintainpeaceandorder,andpreservethecomfortandconvenienceoftheirinhabitants.

16Supra,Note18,p.844,citingBernas,The1987ConstitutionofthePhilippines,ACommentary,pp.9598[1996],citingUPLawCenterRevisionProject,PartII,712[1970]citingSady,"ImprovementofLocalGovernmentAdministrationforDevelopmentPurpose,"JournalofLocalAdministrationOverseas135[July1962].

17Ibid.,pp.849860.

18Entitled"AnActtoCompiletheLawsRelativetoLandTransportationandTrafficRules,toCreateaLandTransportationCommissionandforOtherPurposes,"approvedon20June1964.Sec.29thereofstates:

Confiscationofdriver'slicense.LawenforcementandpeaceofficersdulydesignatedbytheCommissionershall,inapprehendinganydriverforviolationsofthisActorofanyregulationsissuedpursuantthereto,oroflocaltrafficrulesandregulations,confiscatethelicenseofthedriverconcernedandissueareceiptprescribedandissuedbytheCommissionthereforewhichshallauthorizethedrivertooperateamotorvehicleforaperiodnotexceedingseventytwohoursfromthetimeanddateofissueofsaidreceipt.Theperiodsofixedinthereceiptshallnotbeextended,andshallbecomeinvalidthereafter.Failureofthedrivertosettlehiscasewithinfifteendaysfromthedateofapprehensionwillcausesuspensionandrevocationofhislicense.(emphasissupplied)

19Entitled"GrantingtheMetropolitanManilaCommissionCertainPowersRelatedtoTrafficManagementandControlinMetropolitanManila,ProvidingPenalties,andforOtherPurposes,"dated21November1978.

SEC.5.Incaseoftrafficviolations,thedriver'slicenseshallnotbeconfiscatedbuttheerringdrivershallbeimmediatelyissuedatrafficcitationticketprescribedbytheMetropolitanManilaCommission

7/17/2015 G.R.No.130230


whichshallstatetheviolationcommitted,theamountoffineimposedfortheviolationandanadvicethathecanmakepaymenttothecityormunicipaltreasurerwheretheviolationwascommittedortothePhilippineNationalBankorPhilippineVeteran'sBankortheirbrancheswithinsevendaysfromthedateofissuanceofthecitationticket.(emphasissupplied)

20Section3(b),Rep.ActNo.7924.

21Thus,inBriadAgroDevelopmentCorporationv.delaSerna,(G.R.No.82805,29June1989,174SCRA524)weupheldthegrantofconcurrentjurisdictionbetweentheSecretaryofLabororitsRegionalDirectorsandtheLaborArbiterstopassuponmoneyclaims,amongothercases,"theprovisionsofArticle217ofthisCodetothecontrarynotwithstanding,"asenunciatedinExecutiveOrderNo.111.HoldingthatE.O.111wasacurativelawintendedtowidenworker'saccesstotheGovernmentforredressofgrievances,weheld,"theExecutiveOrdervestsinRegionalDirectorsjurisdiction,'[t]heprovisionsofArticle217ofthisCodetothecontrarynotwithstanding,'itwouldhaverenderedsuchaprovisoandtheamendmentitselfuselesstosaythatthey(RegionalDirectors)retainedtheselfsamerestrictedpowers,despitesuchanamendment.Itisfundamentalthatastatuteistobereadinamannerthatwouldbreathelifeintoit,ratherthandefeatit."(SeealsoPhiltreadWorkersUnionv.Confessor,G.R.No.117169,12March1997,269SCRA393.)

22InHeirsofArdonav.Reyes,(G.R.No.60549,26October1983,125SCRA221)weupheldtheconstitutionalityofPresidentialDecreeNo.564,theRevisedCharterofthePhilippineTourismAuthority,andProclamationNo.2052declaringcertainmunicipalitiesintheprovinceofCebuastouristzones.ThelawgrantedthePhilippineTourismauthoritytherighttoexpropriate282hectaresoflandtoestablisharesortcomplexnotwithstandingtheclaimthatcertificatesoflandtransferandemancipationpatentshadalreadybeenissuedtothemtherebymakingthelandsexpropriatedwithinthecoverageofthelandreformareaunderPresidentialDecreeNo.2,andthattheagrarianreformprogramoccupiesahigherlevelintheorderofprioritiesthanotherStatepolicieslikethoserelatingtothehealthandphysicalwellbeingofthepeople,andthatpropertyalreadytakenforpublicusemaynotbetakenforanotherpublicuse.Weheldthat,"(t)hepetitionershavefailedtoovercometheburdenofanyonetryingtostrikedownastatuteordecreewhoseavowedpurposeisthelegislativeperceptionofthepublicgood.Astatutehasinitsfavorthepresumptionofvalidity.Allreasonabledoubtsshouldberesolvedinfavoroftheconstitutionalityofalaw.ThecourtswillnotsetasidealawasviolativeoftheConstitutionexceptinaclearcase(Peoplev.Vera,65Phil.56).Andintheabsenceoffactualfindingsorevidencetorebutthepresumptionofvalidity,thepresumptionprevails(ErmitaMalateHotel,etc.v.MayorofManila,20SCRA849Morfev.Mutuc,22SCRA424)."

Inthesamemanner,weupheldinDumlaov.COMELEC(G.R.No.L52245,22January1980,95SCRA392)thefirstparagraphofSection4ofBatasPambansaBilang52providingthatanyretiredelectiveprovincial,cityormunicipalofficial,whohasreceivedpaymentoftheretirementbenefitsandwhoshallhavebeen65yearsofageatthecommencementofthetermofofficetowhichheseekstobeelectedisdisqualifiedtorunforthesameelectivelocalofficefromwhichhehasretired.Invokingtheneedfortheemergenceofyoungerbloodinlocalpolitics,weaffirmedthattheconstitutionalguaranteeisnotviolatedbyareasonableclassificationbaseduponsubstantialdistinctions,wheretheclassificationisgermanetothepurposeofthelawandappliestoallthosebelongingtothesameclass.(SeealsoTropicalHomes,Inc,v.NationalHousingAuthority,G.R.No.L48672,31July1987152SCRA540Peraltav.COMELEC,G.R.No.L47791,11March1978,82SCRA55Peoplev.Vera,GRNo.45685,65Phil56[1937].)

23Section3(b),RepublicActNo.7924.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

Documents

Mmda v Garin