Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

MMDA v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc.

,530 SCRA 341 (2007)

Facts:
PGMA issued EO 179, which provided for the establishment of a Mass Transport System for
Greater Manila. Pursuant to this EO, the Metro manila Council of the MMDA cited the need to
remove the bus terminals located along major thoroughfares of Metro Manila.
Respondents, provincial bus operators who had bus terminals that were threatened to be
removed, alleges that EO should be declared unconstitutional and illegal for transgressing the
possessory rights of owners and operators of public land transportation units over their
respective terminals
Issue: Whether

or

not

EO

179

is

valid

exercise

of

police

power

Held: Petition denied. EO 179 is null and void. MMDA has no police power, let alone legislative
power. In light of the administrative nature of its powers and functions, the MMDA is devoid of
authority to implement the Project as envisioned by the EO; hence it could not have been
validly designated by the President to undertake the Project. It follows that the MMDA cannot
validly
order
the
elimination
of
the
respondents
terminals.
Police power rests primarily with the legislature, such power may be delegated, as it is in
fact increasingly being delegated. By virtue of a valid delegation, the power may be exercised
by the President and administrative boards as well as by the lawmaking bodies of municipal
corporations or local government under an express delegation by the LGC of 1991.
Measures calculated to promote the safety and convenience of the people using the
thoroughfares by the regulation of vehicular traffic present a proper subject for the exercise of
police
power.
On Constitutional Law, The true role of Constitutional Law is to effect an equilibrium between
authority and liberty so that rights are exercised within the framework of the law and the laws
are enacted with due deference to rights.

MMDA and Bayani Fernando vs Viron Transportation Co. Inc.


GR 170656August 15, 2007
Facts:
P r e s i d e n t A r r o y o i s s u e d E O N o . 1 7 9 w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t t h e upon
recommendation
by
the
MMDA,
it
shall
take
measures
to
ease
the traffic congestion primarily by setting up mass transport
terminal facilities and more pertinent is the elimination of bus
t e r m i n a l s a l o n g m a j o r t h o r o u g h f a r e s o f t h e m e t r o p o l i s . I t a l s o designated
the MMDA as the implementing agency for this project. P u r s u a n t t o t h e E O t h e
M e t r o M a n i l a C o u n c i l i s s u e d a r e s o l u t i o n expressing full support for the project
and agree to the removal of b u s t e r m i n a l s l o c a t e d a l o n g m a j o r r o a d s .
Viron Transport Co. a d o m e s t i c
corporation
engaged
in
t h e b u s i n e s s o f p u b l i c transportation with a provincial bus
operation
filed
a
petition
before
he RTC of Manila assailing said plan and asking the Court
t o construe the scope, extent and limitation of the power of the MMDA
to regulate traffic.
M e n c o r p , a n o t h e r b u s o p e r a t o r l a t e r f i l e d t h e same
petition questioning the power of the MMDA to regulate traffic and the power to direct bus
operators
to
abandon
their
terminals
for
a
common facility.
T h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y a n d legality of the EO which empowered
the MMDA under its mandate to a d m i n i s t e r s u c h s e r v i c e s a n d r u l e d t h a t i t i s a
valid
exercise
of
police
power
of
the
State.
However after filing a motion for
reconsideration, the trial
c o u r t r e v e r s e d i t s d e c i s i o n t h i s t i m e holding that the EO was an
unreasonable exercise of police power and that the MMDA does not possess the power
to order the closure of the bus terminals. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether
or not EO 179 and the delegation for the
implementation to the MMDA is a valid exercise of police power.

Held:
No, the Court ruled that the authority of the President to
order the implementation of the project notwithstanding
t h e designation of the MMDA as the implementing agency for the
project may not be sustained. It is ultra vires, there being no legal
basis therefor. The MMDA is as termed in the charter itself, a
developmental authority, it is an agency created for the purpose of
laying down policies and coordinating with the various national
government agencies, all its functions are administrative in nature
and are summed up in the charter itself.
In the light of this
administrative nature of its powers and
f u n c t i o n s , t h e M M D A i s devoid of authority to implement the project as
envisioned
by
EO
179
hence it could not
h a v e b e e n v a l i d l y d e s i g n a t e d b y t h e President to undertake the project.
It
follows
that
the
MMDA
cannot
validly order the closure and elimination of respondents bus
terminals. The SC cited that the MMDA does not satisfy the two tests

Of a valid police power measure being, one the interest of the public generally as
distinguished that of a particular class and second, the means employed are reasonably
necessary
for
the
accomplishment
o f t h e p u r p o s e a n d n o t u n d u l y o p p r e s s i v e u p o n i n d i v i d u a l s . T h e MMDA is
not vested with police power. Petition is denied.