Ordillo vs. COMELEC December 4, 1990 | Gutierrez, Jr.

Facts: The people of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao and the city of Baguio cast their votes in a plebiscite held pursuant to RA 6766 entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region." The results showed that the creation of the Region was approved by a majority of 5,889 votes in only the Ifugao Province and was overwhelmingly rejected by 148,676 votes in the rest of the provinces and city above-mentioned. Consequently, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2259 stating that the Organic Act for the Region has been approved and/or ratified by majority of the votes cast only in the province of Ifugao. As a result of this, on March 8, 1990, Congress enacted RA 6861 setting the elections in the CAR of Ifugao on the first Monday of March 1991. Affairs of the Cordillera Executive Board and the Cordillera Regional Assembly were wound up. Both offices were eventually abolished by the President. The petitioner filed a petition with COMELEC to declare the non-ratification of the Organic Act for the Region. The petitioners maintain that there can be no valid Cordillera Autonomous Region in only one province as the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6766 require that the said Region be composed of more than one constituent unit. Issue: WON the province of Ifugao, being the only province which voted favorably for the creation of the Cordillera Autonomous Region can, alone, legally and validly constitute such Region (NO) Held: The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute the Cordillera Autonomous Region. It is explicit in Article X, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution. The said provision uses words such as provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas which connote that "region" is to be made up of more than one constituent unit. The term "region" used in its ordinary sense means two or more provinces. Ifugao is a province by itself. To become part of a region, it must join other provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas. It joins other units because of their common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures and other relevant characteristics. The Constitutional requirements are not present in this case. Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Statute provide that the Cordillera Autonomous Region is to be administered by the Cordillera government consisting of the Regional Government and local government units. If we follow the respondent's position, the members of such Cordillera Assembly shall then be elected only from the province of Ifugao creating an awkward predicament of having two legislative bodies the Cordillera Assembly and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercising their legislative powers over the province of Ifugao. And since Ifugao is one of the smallest provinces in the Philippines, population-wise, it would have too many government officials for so few people.

The entirety of Republic Act No. 6766 creating the Cordillera Autonomous Region is infused with provisions which rule against the sole province of Ifugao constituting the Region. The Abbas case is not applicable in the case at bar. the issue in this case is whether the sole province of Ifugao can validly and legally constitute the Cordillera Autonomous Region. The issue is not whether the province of Ifugao is to be included in the Cordillera Autonomous Region. It is the first issue which the Court answers in the instant case. Cordillera Board Coalition vs. COA January 29, 1990 | Cortes Facts:. EO No. 220, issued by the President in the exercise of her legislative powers under Art. XVIII, sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution, created the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), which covers the provinces of Abra, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao and Mountain Province and the City of Baguio [secs. 1 and 2]. It was created to accelerate economic and social growth in the region and to prepare for the establishment of the autonomous region in the Cordilleras During the pendency of this case, RA No. 6766 entitled "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region," was enacted and signed into law. The Act recognizes the CAR and the offices and agencies created under E.O. No. 220 and its transitory nature. Issue: (1) WON E.O. No. 220 pre-empts the enactment of an organic act by the Congress and the creation of' the autonomous region in the Cordilleras conditional on the approval of the act through a plebiscite (NO) (2) WON the creation of the CAR contravenes the constitutional guarantee of the local autonomy for the provinces (Abra, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao and Mountain Province) and city (Baguio City) which compose the CAR (NO) Held: (1) A reading of E.O. No. 220 will easily reveal that what it actually envisions is the consolidation and coordination of the delivery of services of line departments and agencies of the National Government in the areas covered by the administrative region as a step preparatory to the grant of autonomy to the Cordilleras. It does not create the autonomous region contemplated in the Constitution. It merely provides for transitory measures in anticipation of the enactment of an organic act and the creation of an autonomous region. The creation of the autonomous will take time (procedure is outlined in Art. X, sec. 18). The Court cannot inquire into the wisdom of the measures taken by the President. E.O. No. 220 did not establish an autonomous regional government. CAR is a mere transitory coordinating agency that would prepare the stage for political autonomy for the Cordilleras. It fills in the resulting gap in the process of transforming a group of adjacent territorial and political subdivisions already enjoying local or administrative autonomy into an autonomous region vested with political autonomy.

It created a region, covering a specified area, for administrative purposes with the main objective of coordinating the planning and implementation of programs and services. They merely constitute the mechanism for an "umbrella" that brings together the parties involved. (2) CAR is not a public corporation or a territorial and political subdivision. It does not have a separate juridical personality, unlike provinces, cities and municipalities. As stated earlier, the CAR was created primarily to coordinate the planning. Its an administrative region for the purpose of expediting the delivery of services. The constitutional guarantee of local autonomy in the Constitution [Art. X, sec. 2] refers to the administrative autonomy of local government units or, cast in more technical language, the decentralization of government authority. On the other hand, the creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras, which is peculiar to the 1987 Constitution contemplates the grant of political autonomy and not just administrative autonomy these regions. Thus, the provision in the Constitution for an autonomous regional government with a basic structure consisting of an executive department and a legislative assembly and special courts with personal, family and property law jurisdiction in each of the autonomous regions. MMDA vs. Bel Air Village Association Inc. March 27, 2000 | Puno Facts: Neptune Street is owned by respondent BAVA. It is a private road inside Bel-Air Village, a private residential subdivision in the heart of the financial and commercial district of Makati City. It runs parallel to Kalayaan Avenue, a national road open to the general public. Dividing the two (2) streets is a concrete perimeter wall approximately fifteen (15) feet high. The western end of Neptune Street intersects Nicanor Garcia, formerly Reposo Street, a subdivision road open to public vehicular traffic, while its eastern end intersects Makati Avenue, a national road. Both ends of Neptune Street are guarded by iron gates. Respondent Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA) received from petitioner MMDA, through its Chairman, a notice requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996. On the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished. Respondent instituted against petitioner before the RTC of Makati City an action for injunction, enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and the demolition of the perimeter wall. The lower court denied issuance of a preliminary injunction. Respondent questioned the denial before the appellate court, which conducted an ocular inspection of Neptune Street. The CA issued a preliminary injunction and thereafter rendered a decision finding that the MMDA has no authority to order the opening of Neptune Street, a private subdivision road and cause the demolition of its perimeter walls. The MR of the decision was denied, hence, this petition for review.

Citing the Sangalang cases, petitioner MMDA claimed that it has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic because it is an agent of the state endowed with police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. One of these basic services is traffic management which involves the regulation of the use of thoroughfares to insure the safety, convenience and welfare of the general public. Issue: WON the MMDA, in the exercise of its mandate, has the power to open a private road to public traffic (NO) Held: The MMDA is not a local government unit or a public corporation endowed with legislative power. It is not even a special metropolitan political subdivision as contemplated in Section 11, Article X of the Constitution. Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a body composed of several local government units i.e., twelve (12) cities and five (5) municipalities, namely, the cities of Caloocan, Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasay, Pasig, Quezon, Muntinlupa, Las Pinas, Marikina, Paranaque and Valenzuela, and the municipalities of Malabon, Navotas, Pateros, San Juan and Taguig.With the passage of Republic Act (R. A.) No. 7924 in 1995, Metropolitan Manila was declared as a "special development and administrative region" and the Administration of "metro-wide" basic services affecting the region placed under "a development authority" referred to as the MMDA. "Metro-wide services" are those "services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual local government units comprising Metro Manila." 26 There are seven (7) basic metro-wide services and the scope of these services cover the following: (1) development planning; (2) transport and traffic management; (3) solid waste disposal and management; (4) flood control and sewerage management; (5) urban renewal, zoning and land use planning, and shelter services; (6) health and sanitation, urban protection and pollution control; and (7) public safety. The implementation of the MMDA's plans, programs and projects is undertaken by the local government units, national government agencies, accredited people's organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector as well as by the MMDA itself. For this purpose, the MMDA has the power to enter into contracts, memoranda of agreement and other arrangements with these bodies for the delivery of the required services Metro Manila. The governing board of the MMDA is the Metro Manila Council. The Council is composed of the mayors of the component 12 cities and 5 municipalities, the president of the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors' League and the president of the Metro Manila Councilors' League. The Council is headed by Chairman who is appointed by the President and vested with the rank of cabinet member. As the policy-making body of the MMDA, the Metro Manila Council approves metrowide plans, programs and projects, and issues the necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of said plans; it approves the annual budget of the MMDA and promulgate the rules and regulations for the delivery of basic services, collection of service and regulatory fees, fines and penalties. Metropolitan Manila was created as a response to the finding that the rapid growth of population and the increase of social and economic requirements in these areas demand a call

for simultaneous and unified development; that the public services rendered by the respective local governments could be administered more efficiently and economically if integrated under a system of central planning. The scope of the MMDAs function is limited to the delivery of the seven basic services. Its powers are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration. There is nothing in R. A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Even the Metro Manila Council has not been delegated any legislative power. No provision in R.A. No. 7924 empowers the MMDA or its Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions appropriate funds for the general welfare" of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies, people's organizations, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. Sangalang is not applicable to the case at bar because it involved zoning ordinances passed by the municipal council of Makati. In the letter-notice of MMDA, there was no cited ordinance or law either by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City or by the MMDA, as the legal basis for the proposed opening of Neptune Street. Also, MMDA is not the same entity as the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) in Sangalang. MMCs charter shows that it possessed greater powers, which were not bestowed on the present MMDA. Moreover, the character of the MMDA as a mere administrative body is affirmed by the debate in Congress when the H.B. from which R.A. No. 7924 originated was first taken up by the Committee on Local Governments in the HOR. Said Hon. Ciriaco Alfelor, the committee chairman, the MMDA will not elect the Governor nor have the power to tax. In short, it will not possess any political power. Unlike the MMC which was considered as the central government of Metro Manila. As a "central government" it had the power to levy and collect taxes and special assessments, the power to charge and collect fees; the power to appropriate money for its operation, and at the same time, review appropriations for the city and municipal units within its jurisdiction. It was bestowed the power to enact or approve ordinances, resolutions and fix penalties for violation of such ordinances and resolutions. It also had the power to review, amend, revise or repeal all ordinances, resolutions and acts of any of the four (4) cities and thirteen (13) municipalities comprising Metro Manila. Constitution itself expressly provides that Congress may, by law, create "special metropolitan political subdivisions" which shall be subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected; the jurisdiction of this subdivision shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination; and the cities and municipalities comprising this subdivision shall retain their basic services requiring coordination; and the cities and municipalities comprising this subdivision shall retain their basic autonomy and their own local executive and legislative assemblies. The Committee deliberations would show that clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The

power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of the MMDA's functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Also, it is to be noted that R. A. No. 7924 was not submitted to the inhabitants of Metro Manila in a plebiscite. The Chairman of the MMDA is not an official elected by the people, but appointed by the President with the rank and privileges of a cabinet member. MMDA vs. Garin April 15, 2005 | Chico-Nazario Facts: Dante Garin was issued a traffic violation receipt (TVR) and his drivers license confiscated for parking illegally in Binondo. The TVR served as a temporary drivers license for 7 days from date of apprehension and it directed Garin to report to the MMDA otherwise a criminal case shall be filed for failure to redeem the license after 30 days. Garin wrote a letter to MMDA Chairman Oreta requesting the return of his license and expressing his preference for his case to be filed in court. Garin filed with the RTC a complaint with preliminary injunction saying that in the absence of any IRR, Sec 5(f) of RA 7924 grants MMDA unbridled discretion to deprive erring motorists of their licenses, pre-empting a judicial determination of the validity of the deprivation thus violating the due process clause of the Constitution. It also violates the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of legislative authority because it allows MMDA to fix and impose fines and penalties on motorists. MMDA says that the powers granted by Sec 5(f) are limited to fixing, collecting and imposition of fines and penalties for traffic violations which powers are legislative and executive in nature and that the judiciary retains the right to determine the validity of the penalty imposed. MMDA presented MMDA Memo Circular No. TT95-001 which was allegedly the implementing rules of RA 7924. However, Garin said that this was passed without the quorum of the Metro Manila Council. RTC issued a TRO extending the validity of the TVR. Later on, a preliminary mandatory injunction was granted and MMDA was directed to return Garins license. RTC held that indeed there was no quorum when the MMDA memo circular was passed and that the summary confiscation deprived Garin of a property right without due process. MMDA argues that a license to operate a motor vehicle is neither a contract nor a property right but is a privilege subject to reasonable regulation. It also argues that the revocation or suspension of this privilege does not constitute taking without due process as long as the licensee is given the right to appeal the revocation. It MMDA also argues that Sec 5(f) of RA 7924 is self-executory and doesnt require the issuance of any IRR. Issue: WON Sec. 5(f) of RA 7924 which authorizes the MMDA to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the enforcement of traffic laws and regulations is valid (NO, it grants MMDA with the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations)

Held: [Recent events have overtaken the Courts need to decide this case, which has been rendered moot and academic by the implementation of a memo circular outlining the procedure for the use of the Metropolitan Traffic Ticket (MTT) scheme.] The Court held that a license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege that the state may withhold in the exercise of police power, subject to the procedural due process requirements. MMDA however is not vested with police power. MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village: RA 7924 does not grant the MMDA with police power, let alone legislative power, and that all its functions are administrative in nature. Tracing the legislative history of Rep. Act No. 7924 creating the MMDA, we concluded that the MMDA is not a local government unit or a public corporation endowed with legislative power, and, unlike its predecessor, the Metro Manila Commission, it has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. Thus, in the absence of an ordinance from the City of Makati, its own order to open the street was invalid. Therefore, insofar as Sec. 5(f)1 of Rep. Act No. 7924 is understood by the lower court and by the petitioner to grant the MMDA the power to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses without need of any other legislative enactment, such is an unauthorized exercise of police power. Sec 5(f) grants the MMDA with the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations. Thus, where there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or those agencies to whom legislative powers have been delegated, MMDA is not precluded to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the exercise of its mandate of transport and traffic management.

The MMDA shall install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, the provisions of Rep. Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 to the contrary notwithstanding.