G.R. No.

170656 August 15, 2007

THE METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and BAYANI FERNANDO as

Chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, petitioners,
vs.
VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., respondent.

x --------------------------------------------- x

G.R. No. 170657 August 15, 2007

HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Executive Secretary, the METROPOLITAN MANILA

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and BAYANI FERNANDO as Chairman of the Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority, petitioners,
vs.
MENCORP TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, INC., respondent.

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

FACTS:

 The present petition for review on certiorari, rooted in the traffic congestion problem,
questions the authority of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) to
order the closure of provincial bus terminals along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA)
and major thoroughfares of Metro Manila.

 Challenged are two Orders issued by Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr. of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila.

The first assailed Order of September 8, 2005, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 179, hereafter
referred to as the E.O., "unconstitutional as it constitutes an unreasonable exercise of police
power."

The second assailed Order of November 23, 20053 denied petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration.

 President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued the E.O. on February 10, 2003, "Providing for
the Establishment of Greater Manila Mass Transport System."

 The MMDA has recommended a plan to decongest traffic by eliminating the bus terminals
now located along major Metro Manila thoroughfares.
  The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), is hereby designated as the
implementing Agency for the project.

 The E.O. noted the primary cause of traffic congestion in Metro Manila has been the
numerous buses plying the streets and the inefficient connectivity of the different transport
modes.

 Viron Transport Co., Inc. (Viron), a domestic corporation engaged in the business of public
transportation with a provincial bus operation, filed a petition for declaratory relief10
before the RTC11 of Manila.

 Mencorp Transportation System, Inc. (Mencorp), another provincial bus operator, asked
the court to declare the E.O. unconstitutional and illegal for transgressing the possessory
rights of owners and operators of public land transportation units over their respective
terminals.

ISSUES:
Whether or not:
1) the MMDA’s power to regulate traffic in Metro Manila included the power to direct provincial
bus operators to abandon and close their duly established and existing bus terminals in order to
conduct business in a common terminal;
(2) the E.O. is consistent with the Public Service Act and the Constitution;
(3) the provincial bus operators would be deprived of their real properties without due process of
law should they be required to use the common bus terminals; and
(4) the President has the authority to undertake or to cause the implementation of the Project.

HELD:
The MMDA cannot order the closure of respondents’ terminals not only because no
authority to implement the Project has been granted nor legislative or police power been delegated
to it, but also because the elimination of the terminals does not satisfy the standards of a valid
police power measure.
It is the DOTC ─ as the primary policy, planning, programming, coordinating,
implementing, regulating and administrative entity to promote, develop and regulate networks of
transportation and communications ─ which has the power to establish and administer a
transportation project like the Project subject of the case at bar.
The trial court sustained the constitutionality and legality of the E.O. pursuant to R.A. No.
7924, which empowered the MMDA to administer Metro Manila’s basic services including those
of transport and traffic management. The E.O. was a valid exercise of the police power of the State
as it satisfied the two tests of lawful subject matter and lawful means, hence, Viron’s and
Mencorp’s property rights must yield to police power.
 The President’s authority to order the implementation of the Project in the exercise of the
police power of the State have been so delegated for the good and welfare of the people. Hence,
these powers partake of the nature of police power.

ANNOTATIONS:
 Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, not repugnant to the Constitution,
for the good and welfare of the people.
This power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education, good order
or safety, and general welfare of the people flows from the recognition that salus populi
est suprema lex ─ the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
 Police power rests primarily with the legislature, such power may be delegated, as it is in
fact increasingly being delegated.

 The power may be exercised by the President and administrative boards as well as by the
lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local governments under an express
delegation by the Local Government Code of 1991.

 Two tests of a valid police power measure:

(1) the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from that of a particular class,
requires its exercise; and
(2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
 The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare and
a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes and the means.

 In Luque v. Villegas, public welfare lies at the bottom of any regulatory measure designed
"to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, to say the least, a menace to public safety." As
such, 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.

 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.