MMDA v Viron Transportation G.R.

170656 (2007) – DENIED FOR BEING ULTRA VIRES

RTC Manila struck down as unconstitutional provisions of EO 1791 which authorizes the MMDA to order the closure of
terminals along EDSA and Manila thoroughfares. In the EO, MMDA was designated as the implementing agency for the
project and was directed to undertake development work and has recommended the elimination of bus terminals along
MM.
Viron and MENCORP claim that MMDA’s authority2 does not include the power to deprive bus operators the use of
their properties because it violates the constitution and the Public Service Act.
It is the DoT3 which is the primary administrative entity of the executive branch in the promotion, development, and
regulation of dependable and coordinated networks of transportation. Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution provides:
SECTION 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that
the laws be faithfully executed.
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.
While 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 governments under an express delegation by the
Local Government Code of 1991.
The authority of the President to order the implementation of the Project notwithstanding, the 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.
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 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.
Are the means employed appropriate and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose? Yes
Are they not duly oppressive? They are. Less intrusive methods are available such as elimination of colorum vehicles
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.
Gancayco vs City Gov't of QC and MMDA G.R. 177807 (2011) AFFIRMED – MMDA HAS NO AUTHORITY
Justice Gancayco bought a parcel of land located along EDSA in the 1950s. QC Council issued Ordinance no. 2904 requiring
the construction of arcades.4 (No Building Code yet) In effect, property owners relinquish the use of the space for use as
an arcade for pedestrians, instead of using it for their own purposes. Gancayco was granted exemption in 1966. In 2003,
MMDA conducted a demolition pursuant to MMC Resolution No. 02-28 series of 2002 for being violative of the Building
code in relation to Ord. 2904.
Gancayco alleged that the ordinance authorized the taking of private property without due process of law and just
compensation because the construction of an arcade would require divesting of portion of his property. RTC ruled in favor
of Gancayco which was overturned partly by the CA stating that the ordinance is valid but the demolition was beyond
MMDA’s powers.
Gancayco has legal standing to question the validity because at the time of the demolition, there was no taking yet to
speak of, having been granted exception. However, he may not question on the ground of equal protection for having
benefited from the exemption.
The primary objectives of the city council of Quezon City when it issued the questioned ordinance ordering the
construction of arcades were the health and safety of the city and its inhabitants; the promotion of their prosperity; and
the improvement of their morals, peace, good order, comfort, and the convenience.
However, the authority to order demolition lies with the building official5 and not with the MMDA whose functions are
administrative in nature. There was no valid delegation of powers to the MMDA, even with the signing of Mayor
Belmonte of the MMC Resolution.

1
Providing for the Establishment of Greater Manila Mass Transport System
2
RA 7924 – Act creating MMDA
3
EO 125
4
any portion of a building above the first floor projecting over the sidewalk beyond the first storey wall used as protection for
pedestrians against rain or sun.
5
Building Code Sec 207/215
Tano v. Socrates, G.R. 110249, August 27, 1997 - ORDINANCES ARE VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER.
Petitioners question the validity of Ordinance No. 15-92, Office Order No. 23 (ban), and Resolution No. 33 (permit),
Ordinance No. 2 (aquatic organisms from Palawan waters), which bans the catching of live fish and lobster from Puerto
Princesa for 5 years (’93 to ’98)
They posit that the implementation of said ordinances deprive, without due process of law, all the fishermen of their
only means of livelihood and marine merchants from performing their lawful occupation and trade.
Respondents defend the validity of the ordinance as a valid exercise of the government’s power under the general welfare
clause6, being part of its power the protection of the environment and imposition of appropriate penalties for acts which
endanger the same. They further contend that there was no violation of due process and equal protection as there were
hearings conducted and that lawful purpose and reasonable means were employed.
(a. substantial distinction b. germane for the purposes of the law c. not limited to existing conditions d. applies equally to
each member of the class)
In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine resources belong to the State.7 The right to a balanced and healthful
ecology carries with it a correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The LGC provisions give flesh and
blood to the people’s rights.
These ordinances were enacted for public purpose (environment, healthful ecology) and were done so with reasonable
means (selected species only, lapses after 5 years).
Fernando vs. St. Scholastica. G.R. 161107 – INVALID
St. Scholastica owns four parcels of land in Marikina Heights enclosed by a concrete perimeter fence. The city government
of Marikina enacted Ordinance no. 1928 [3(1) no more than 1m, 80% see through/5 -5 meter parking allowance]
Marikina ordered the demolition and replacement of the fence and to move it back in order to comply with the assailed
ordinance. St. Scholastica argued that the ordinance violates the Constitution9. Implementation of the same would be
tantamount to an appropriation of property without due process of law (no eminent domain)
Petitioner contends that the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, that they could restrain property rights for
the protection of public safety, health, morals, or the promotion of public convenience and general prosperity.
RTC and CA ruled that Petitioner could not take the respondents’ property under the guise of police power to evade
the payment of just compensation. The objectives of the ordinance do not justify the exercise of police power as it
involves taking of property without due process of law.
(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or
discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and
(6) must not be unreasonable.
The rational relationship test and the strict scrutiny test - (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
those of a particular class, require its exercise and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
Central Luzon Drug Corp. v DSWD, GR 199669, Apr 25, 2017 – Constitutional and valid
Central Luzon Drug Corporation sought to prohibit the implementation of Section 4(a) of RA 925710 and Section 32 of RA
944211 which grant 20% discount on the purchase of medicine by senior citizen and PWDs, treating them as tax deduction.
It assailed the constitutionality of the said provisions in that they only allow tax deduction on the gross income based
on the net cost of goods sold or services rendered as compensation to private establishments for the 20% discount that
they are required to grant to senior citizens and PWDs.
The duty to care for the elderly and the disabled lies not only upon the State, but also on the community and even private
entities. As to the State, the duty emanates from its role as parens patriae which holds it under obligation to provide
protection and look after the welfare of its people especially those who cannot tend to themselves.
The change in tax treatment is not illegal nor does it constitute taking without just compensation, it is a valid exercise
of police power by the Congress, it being legislative discretion. Just compensation is not necessary in wielding police
power. There is no taking involved, but only an imposition of burden. For there to be taking, First, the expropriator
must enter a private property. Second, the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period.
Third, the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority. Fourth, the property must be

6
Sec 16 RA 7160 (LGC)
7
Sec 2 Art XII 1987 Constitution
8
Regulating the Construction of Fences and Walls in the Municipality of Marikina
9
Sec 1 Art III 1987 Constitution
10
Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003
11
Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected. Fifth, the utilization of the property
for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
Establishments are neither divested of ownership nor was anything forcibly taken. They remain the owner and their
profit or loss depends on the performance of their sales. Right to earn profit is inchoate, not an accrued right.
In the exercise of police power, "property rights of private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to
secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State." It is a measure, which by sheer necessity, the State
exercises, even to the point of interfering with personal liberties or property rights in order to advance common good.
The welfare of senior citizens and PWDs is a recognized public duty and their care devolves upon the concerted effort of
the state, the family, and the community.
Validity of the 20% discount granted to PWDs, the supposed vagueness of the provisions of R.A. No. 9442 and violation
of the equal protection clause.
Social Justice Society v Atienza, Jr., 517 SCRA 657 (2007) GRANTED – MAYOR DIRECTED TO ENFORCE ORDINANCE

The Sangguniang Panglunsod of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8027 which reclassified areas in Pandacan and Sta. Ana
from industrial to commercial zones and disallowed business from operating therein, which included the Pandacan
Terminals of Caltex, Petron, and Shell.

An MOU was signed between the City of Manila and DOE with the oil companies which instead provided for a “scale
down” and creation of safety buffer zones. Such MOU was ratified by the Sanguniang Panglunsod and gave it a period
of 6 months and was further extended until April 30, 2003. The Mayor was given the authority to issue special business
permits.

Social Justice Society prayed that mandamus issue compelling Atienza to immediately remove the terminals of the oil
companies. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a
ministerial duty that is already imposed on the respondent and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is
questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists.

The Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as city mayor, to "enforce all laws and ordinances
relative to the governance of the city." One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city, he has
the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts.
He has no other choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so.

Carlos Superdrug Corp. v DSWD, GR 16694, Jun 29, 2007

The constitutionality of Section 4(a) of RA 9257 was assailed claiming that it is confiscatory, violative of the equal
protection clause, and violates the constitutional guarantee that makes essential goods, health and other social services
available to all people at affordable cost.

Petitioners are ultimately questioning is the validity of the tax deduction scheme as a reimbursement mechanism for
the twenty percent (20%) discount that they extend to senior citizens. It is an amount that is allowed by law to reduce
the income prior to the application of the tax rate to compute the amount of tax which is due. Being a tax deduction,
the discount does not reduce taxes owed on a peso for peso basis but merely offers a fractional reduction in taxes
owed. The permanent reduction in their total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding to the taking of private
property for public use or benefit. This constitutes compensable taking for which petitioners would ordinarily become
entitled to a just compensation. COFFERS

The Senior Citizens Act was enacted primarily to maximize the contribution of senior citizens to nation-building, and to
grant benefits and privileges to them for their improvement and well-being as the State considers them an integral part
of our society. To implement the above policy, the law grants a twenty percent discount to senior citizens. As a form of
reimbursement, the law provides that business establishments extending the twenty percent discount to senior citizens
may claim the discount as a tax deduction.
For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the
primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare. Police
power as an attribute to promote the common good would be diluted considerably if on the mere plea of petitioners
that they will suffer loss of earnings and capital, the questioned provision is invalidated. Moreover, in the absence of
evidence demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the provision in question, there is no basis for its nullification
in view of the presumption of validity which every law has in its favor.
No financial report was submitted by petitioners whether or not the tax deduction scheme really works to their
disadvantage.
The success of the senior citizens program rests largely on the support imparted by petitioners and the other private
establishments concerned. This being the case, the means employed in invoking the active participation of the private
sector, in order to achieve the purpose or objective of the law, is reasonably and directly related.
Manila Memorial Park v DSWD, GR 175356, Dec 3, 2013 CARLOS RULING REITERATED.

Petitioners question the constitutionality of Section 4 or RA 7432 as amended by 9257 as well as the implementing rules
and regulations issued by the DSWD and DOF as these allow business establishments to claim the 20% discount given to
senior citizens as tax deduction.
As to its nature and effects, the 20% discount is a regulation affecting the ability of private establishments to price their
products and services relative to a special class of individuals, senior citizens, for which the Constitution affords
preferential concern. In turn, this affects the amount of profits or income/gross sales that a private establishment can
derive from senior citizens. In other words, the subject regulation affects the pricing, and, hence, the profitability of a
private establishment. However, it does not purport to appropriate or burden specific properties, used in the operation
or conduct of the business of private establishments, for the use or benefit of the public, or senior citizens for that
matter, but merely regulates the pricing of goods and services relative to, and the amount of profits or income/gross
sales that such private establishments may derive from, senior citizens.
Police power versus eminent domain.
Police power is the inherent power of the State to regulate or to restrain the use of liberty and property for public welfare.
The only limitation is that the restriction imposed should be reasonable, not oppressive. In other words, to be a valid
exercise of police power, it must have a lawful subject or objective and a lawful method of accomplishing the goal. Under
the police power of the State, "property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to
fulfill the objectives of the government." The State "may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses
and occupations to promote the general welfare [as long as] the interference [is] reasonable and not arbitrary."
Eminent domain, on the other hand, is the inherent power of the State to take or appropriate private property for public
use. The Constitution, however, requires that private property shall not be taken without due process of law and the
payment of just compensation.
Traditional distinctions exist between police power and eminent domain. In the exercise of police power, a property right
is impaired by regulation, or the use of property is merely prohibited, regulated or restricted to promote public welfare.
In such cases, there is no compensable taking, hence, payment of just compensation is not required. Examples of these
regulations are property condemned for being noxious or intended for noxious purposes (e.g., a building on the verge of
collapse to be demolished for public safety, or obscene materials to be destroyed in the interest of public morals) as well
as zoning ordinances prohibiting the use of property for purposes injurious to the health, morals or safety of the
community (e.g., dividing a city’s territory into residential and industrial areas).
It has, thus, been observed that, in the exercise of police power (as distinguished from eminent domain), although the
regulation affects the right of ownership, none of the bundle of rights which constitute ownership is appropriated for use
by or for the benefit of the public
Powers of the government evolve. The courts must look at the nature and effects of the challenged governmental act
and decide, on the basis thereof, whether the act is the exercise of police power or eminent domain.
(1) the discount does not prevent the establishments from adjusting the level of prices of their goods and services, and
(2) the discount does not apply to all customers of a given establishment but only to the class of senior citizens.
Nonetheless, to the degree material to the resolution of this case, the 20% discount may be properly viewed as
belonging to the category of price regulatory measures which affect the profitability of establishments subjected
thereto. On its face, therefore, the subject regulation is a police power measure. These measures imposed by the state
on establishments impact, at some level, the prices and profits or income.
Deprivation or reduction of profits or income. Gross sales must be clearly shown to be unreasonable, oppressive or
confiscatory. Under the specific circumstances of this case, such determination can only be made upon the presentation
of competent proof which petitioners failed to do. A law, which has been in operation for many years and promotes the
welfare of a group accorded special concern by the Constitution, cannot and should not be summarily invalidated on a
mere allegation that it reduces the profits or income/gross sales of business establishments.
Drugstore Asso. of the Phil. v National Council on Disability Affairs, GR 194561, Sep 14, 2016 DENIED. LAW IS VALID.
DAP sought to reverse the declaration of constitutionality of the provisions of RA 7277 as amended by 944212 The DSWD,
DepED, DOF, DOT, DOTC, DILG, DOA issued an IRR giving the NCWDP, in coordination with DSWD DOH and DILG for the
implementation of the same.
The CA applied by analogy the Ruling in Carlos v DSWD pronouncing the validity of the 20% discount granted to senior
citizens
The provisions of the law are in consonance with ART XII sec 6 and ART XIII Sec 11 of the 1987 constitution:
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good.
Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the
right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice
and to intervene when the common good so demands.
Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor
to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be
priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to
provide free medical care to paupers.
The objective of the law is valid considering that public use is no longer confined to the traditional notion of use by the
public. It is synonymous with public interest, benefit, welfare, and convenience.
It is not arbitrary as the issuance of PWD ID required to be entitled to the discount goes through a procedure ensuring
that the beneficiaries are those deserving of the same, pursuant to DOH AO No. 2009-11.
It is likewise not violative of equal protection. All persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike, both in the
privileges conferred and the obligations imposed. Conversely, all persons or things differently situated should be
treated differently. The Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though
they were the same. The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not
prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed. (See requisites for valid classification)
Meralco v Sps. Ramos, GR 195145, Feb 10, 2016 AFFIRMED. DUE PROCESS MUST BE COMPLIED.

Meralco entered into a contract of service with the respondents agreeing to supply the latter with electric power. Upon
inspection on the electrical facilities, an outside connection was found to be connected to their electric meter which was
traced to an illegal connection to Nieves Sales. The service inspector therefore disconnected the electric services on the
same day without the knowledge of the respondents.

The distribution of electricity is a basic necessity that is imbued with public interest. Its provider is considered as a public
utility subject to the strict regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. Failure to comply with these
regulations gives rise to the presumption of bad faith or abuse of right.

The respondents denied that they had been, using an illegal electrical connection and they requested MERALCO to
immediately reconnect their electric services. Despite the respondents' request, MERALCO instead demanded from
them the payment of P179,231.70 as differential billing.

Meralco lost the case in the RTC and was affirmed by the CA due to Meralco’s failure to comply with its own contract of
service but also its failure to comply with Section 4 and 6 of RA 783213 when it disconnected respondent’s electric line
without due notice.

The distribution of electricity is a basic necessity that is imbued with public interest. Its provider is considered as a
public utility subject to the strict regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. Failure to comply with these
regulations gives rise to the presumption of bad faith or abuse of right.

Immediate disconnection must be witnessed and attested by an officer of the law or a duly authorized representative of
the ERB. This goes into the essence of due process. Respondent cannot act as prosecutor and judge in imposing the penalty
of disconnection due to an alleged meter tampering.

MERALCO's failure to comply with the strict requirements under Sections 4 and 6 of R. A. No. 7832, we hold that
MERALCO had no authority to immediately disconnect the respondents' electric service. As a result, the immediate
disconnection of the respondents' electric service is presumed to be in bad faith.

12
Magna Carta for Disabled persons
13
Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994
It is violative of Meralco’s own terms of service. There is nothing in its contract of service that gives MERALCO the
authority to immediately disconnect a customer's electric connection. MERALCO's contractual right to disconnect
electric service arises only after the customer has been notified of his adjusted bill and has been afforded the
opportunity to pay the differential billing.