METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner vs. DANTE O.

GARIN, respondent Facts: The issue arose from an incident involving the respondent Dante O. Garin, a lawyer, who was issued a traffic violation receipt (TVR) and his driver s license confiscated for par!ing illegally along Gandara "treet, #inondo, $anila. "hortly %efore the e&piration of the TVR s validity, the respondent addressed a letter to then $$D' (hairman )rospero Oreta re*uesting the return of his driver s license, and e&pressing his preference for his case to %e filed in court. Receiving no immediate reply, Garin filed the original complaint with application for preliminary in+unction in the Regional Trial (ourt (RT() of )ara,a*ue contending that, in the a%sence of any implementing rules and regulations, "ec. -(f) of Rep. 'ct .o. /012 grants the $$D' un%ridled discretion to deprive erring motorists of their licenses, pre3empting a +udicial determination of the validity of the deprivation, there%y violating the due process clause of the (onstitution. The respondent further contended that the provision violates the constitutional prohi%ition against undue delegation of legislative authority, allowing as it does the $$D' to fi& and impose unspecified 4 and therefore unlimited 3 fines and other penalties on erring motorists. 5n support of his application for a writ of preliminary in+unction, Garin alleged that he suffered and continues to suffer great and irrepara%le damage %ecause of the deprivation of his license and that, a%sent any implementing rules from the $etro $anila (ouncil, the TVR and the confiscation of his license have no legal %asis. Issue: 6O. the "ection -(f) of Repu%lic 'ct .o. /012 creating the $etropolitan $anila Development 'uthority ($$D') which authori7es it to confiscate and suspend or revo!e driver s licenses in the enforcement of traffic laws and regulations is valid. Ruling: ' license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege that the state may withhold in the e&ercise of its police power. The petitioner correctly points out that a license to operate a motor vehicle is not a property right, %ut a privilege granted %y the state, which may %e suspended or revo!ed %y the state in the e&ercise of its police power, in the interest of the pu%lic safety and welfare, su%+ect to the procedural due process re*uirements. The legislature, in the e&ercise of police power, which has the power and responsi%ility to regulate how and %y whom motor vehicles may %e operated on the state highways. The $$D' is not vested with police power. Tracing the legislative history of Rep. 'ct .o. /012 creating the $$D', we concluded that the $$D' is not a local government unit or a pu%lic corporation endowed with legislative power, and, unli!e its predecessor, the $etro $anila (ommission, it has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. Thus, in the a%sence of an ordinance from the (ity of $a!ati, its own order to open the street was invalid. The doctrine in the said decision as it applies to the case at %ar8 police power, as an inherent attri%ute of sovereignty, is the power vested %y the (onstitution in the legislature to ma!e, ordain, and esta%lish all manner of wholesome and reasona%le laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the (onstitution, as they shall +udge to %e for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the su%+ects of the same.

"ec. -(f) grants the $$D' with the duty to enforce e&isting traffic rules and regulations. "ection - of Rep. 'ct .o. /012 enumerates the 9:unctions and )owers of the $etro $anila Development 'uthority.; The contested clause in "ec. -(f) states that the petitioner shall 9install and administer a single tic!eting system, fi&, impose and collect fines and penalties for all !inds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and confiscate and suspend or revo!e drivers licenses in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, the provisions of Rep. 'ct .o. 2<=>?<@A and ).D. .o. <>B-?<0A to the contrary notwithstanding,; and that 9(f)or this purpose, the 'uthority shall enforce all traffic laws and regulations in $etro $anila, through its traffic operation center, and may deputi7e mem%ers of the ).), traffic enforcers of local government units, duly licensed security guards, or mem%ers of non3governmental organi7ations to whom may %e delegated certain authority, su%+ect to such conditions and re*uirements as the 'uthority may impose.; Thus, where there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted %y the legislature or those agencies to whom legislative powers have %een delegated (the (ity of $anila in this case), the petitioner is not precluded 4 and in fact is duty3%ound 4 to confiscate and suspend or revo!e drivers licenses in the e&ercise of its mandate of transport and traffic management, as well as the administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and traffic education programs.