7. MMDA vs.

Bel-Air Village
FACTS:
MMDA, petitioner, is a Government Agency tasked with the delivery of
basic services in Metro Manila. Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA), respondent,
received a letter of request from the petitioner to open Neptune Street of
Bel-Air Village for the use of the public. The said opening of Neptune
Street will be for the safe and convenient movement of persons and
to regulate the flow of traffic in Makati City. Pursuant to MMDA law or
Republic Act No. 7924. On the same day, the respondent was appraised that
the perimeter wall separating the subdivision and Kalayaan Avenue would be
demolished. The respondent, to stop the opening of the said street and
demolition of the wall, filed a preliminary injunction and a temporary
restraining order. Respondent claimed that the MMDA had no authority to do
so and the lower court decided in favor of the Respondent. Petitioner
appealed the decision of the lower courts.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the MMDA has the mandate to open Neptune Street to public
traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers.
HELD:
NO, It will be noted that the powers of the MMDA are limited to the
following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation,
preparation,
management,
monitoring,
setting
of
policies,
installation of a system and administration. There is no syllable in
R.A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone
legislative power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the local government
units, there is no provision in R.A. No. 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its
Council to enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate
funds for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila.
The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a development
authority.
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 MMDAs functions. There is no grant of
authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general
welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.
8. Conference of Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. POEA

FACTS:
Petitioner Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc., an incorpora
ted
association of licensed Filipino manning agencies, and its copetitioners, all licensed
manning agencies which hire and recruit Filipino seamen for and in behalf of
their respective foreign ship-owner-principals, urge the SC to annul
Resolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the Governing Board" of the POEA and
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05.
Petitioners contend that POEA does not have the power and
authority
to
fix
and
promulgate rates affecting death and workmen's compensation of Fi
lipino seamen working in ocean-going vessels; only Congress can.
Governing Board Resolution No. 1: the POEA Governing Board
resolves
to amend
and
increase
the compensation
and other benefits as specified under Part II, Section. C, paragraph 1
and Section L, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the POEA Standard
Employment Contract for Seafarers.
ISSUE:
WON
the POEA can
by virtue of delegation of legislative power.

promulgate

rules

HELD: Yes.
The constitutional challenge of the rule-making power of the PO
EA-based on impermissible delegation of legislative power had been, as
correctly contented by the public respondents, brushed aside by this Court in
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA. The governing Board of the
Administration (POEA) shall promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of
the
Administration (POEA).
While the making of laws is a nondelegable power that pertains exclusively to
Congress, nevertheless, the latter may constitutionally delegate the au
thority to
promulgate rules and regulations to implement
a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason that
the legislature finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate
situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. All that is
required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects

and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in contradiction

to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law.
The constitutional prohibition against impairing contractual
obligations is not absolute and is not to be read with literal
exactness. It is restricted to contracts with respect to property or some
object of value and which confer rights that may be asserted in a court of
justice; it has no application to statutes relating to public subjects within the
domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public
rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. It does not
prevent a proper exercise by the State of its police power by enacting
regulations reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, morals,
comfort, or general welfare of the community, even though contracts may
thereby be affected, for such matters cannot be placed by contract beyond
the power of the State to regulate and control them.
The challenged resolution and memorandum circular, which merely fur
ther amended the previous Memorandum Circular No. 02, strictly conform
to the sufficient and valid standard of "fair and equitable
employment practices" prescribed in E.O. No.797 can no longer be
disputed.