7/9/2019 G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.

BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION : MAR…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > March 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 135962 March 27,
2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 135962. March 27, 2000.]

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE

ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

DECISION

PUNO, J.:

Not infrequently, the government is tempted to take legal shortcuts to solve urgent problems of the
people. But even when government is armed with the best of intention, we cannot allow it to run
roughshod over the rule of law. Again, we let the hammer fall and fall hard on the illegal attempt of the
MMDA to open for public use a private road in a private subdivision. While we hold that the general
welfare should be promoted, we stress that it should not be achieved at the expense of the rule of law. chanrobles.com :

chanrobles.com.ph

Petitioner MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila.
Respondent Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose
members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private subdivision in Makati City. Respondent BAVA is the
registered owner of Neptune Street, a road beside Bel-Air Village.

On December 30, 1995, respondent received from petitioner, through its Chairman, a notice dated
DebtKollect Company, Inc. December 22, 1995 requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting
January 2, 1996. The notice reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SUBJECT: NOTICE of the Opening of Neptune Street to Traffic

"Dear President Lindo,

"Please be informed that pursuant to the mandate of the MMDA law or Republic Act No. 7924 which
requires the Authority to rationalize the use of roads and/or thoroughfares for the safe and convenient
movement of persons, Neptune Street shall be opened to vehicular traffic effective January 2, 1996.

"In view whereof; the undersigned requests you to voluntarily open the points of entry and exit on said
street.

"Thank you for your cooperation and whatever assistance that may be extended by your association to
the MMDA personnel who will be directing traffic in the area.

"Finally, we are furnishing you with a copy of the handwritten instruction of the President on the matter.

"Very truly yours,

ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division PROSPERO I. ORETA

Chairman" 1

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=422 1/9
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION : MAR…
March-2000 Jurisprudence                  HAS THE METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMDA) THE MANDATE TO OPEN NEPTUNE
G.R. No. 104930 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ALEX K BELLO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 111928 March 1, 2000 - ALMARIO
SIAPIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 116464 March 1, 2000 - RODENTO
NAVARRO, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 117691 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EDUARDO B. SAMPIOR
G.R. Nos. 119958-62 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MARQUITA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 124895 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RUBEN DE LOS REYES
G.R. No. 134286 March 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. LORETO AMBAN
Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1184 March 2, 2000 -
AMPARO S. FARRALES, ET AL. v. RUBY B. CAMARISTA
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454 March 2, 2000 - NESCITO C.
HILARIO v. CRISANTO C. CONCEPCION
G.R. Nos. 115239-40 March 2, 2000 - MARIO C.V.
JALANDONI v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125332 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. HERACLEO MONTE, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126212 March 2, 2000 - SEA-LAND
SERVICE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126814 March 2, 2000 - JUDY CAROL L.
DANSAL, ET AL. v. GIL P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 127718 March 2, 2000 - NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF LABOR v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128360 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EDGAR CRISPIN
G.R. No. 128677 March 2, 2000 - SANTIAGO ABAPO
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 133343-44 March 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO BAYONA
G.R. Nos. 104769 & 135016 March 3, 2000 - AFP
MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 120656 March 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ARNEL FERDINAND A. OMAR
G.R. No. 126021 March 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RENE SIAO
G.R. No. 135802 March 3, 2000 - PRISCILLA L. TAN
v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES
G.R. No. 108381 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. AMADEO I. ACAYA
G.R. No. 108951 March 7, 2000 - JESUS
DIAMONON v. DOLE, ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=422
On the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the
adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished.
On January 2, 1996, respondent instituted against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136,
Makati City, Civil Case No. 96-001 for injunction. Respondent prayed for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the
demolition of the perimeter wall. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order the following day.
On January 23, 1996 after due hearing, the trial court denied issuance of a preliminary injunction. 2
Respondent questioned the denial before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39549. The appellate
court conducted an ocular inspection of Neptune Street 3 and on February 13, 1996, it issued a writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of the MMDA’s proposed action. 4
On January 28, 1997, the appellate court rendered a Decision on the merits of the case finding that the
MMDA has no authority to order the opening of Neptune Street, a private subdivision road and cause the
demolition of its perimeter walls. It held that the authority is lodged in the City Council of Makati by
ordinance. The decision disposed of as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED; the challenged Order dated January 23, 1995, in Civil Case No.
96-001, is SET ASIDE and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued on February 13, 1996 is hereby made
permanent.
"For want of sustainable substantiation, the Motion to Cite Roberto L. del Rosario in contempt is denied. 5
"No pronouncement as to costs.
"SO ORDERED." 6
The Motion for Reconsideration of the decision was denied on September 28, 1998. Hence, this recourse.
Petitioner MMDA raises the following questions: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
"I
STREET TO PUBLIC TRAFFIC PURSUANT TO ITS REGULATORY AND POLICE POWERS?
II
IS THE PASSAGE OF AN ORDINANCE A CONDITION PRECEDENT BEFORE THE MMDA MAY ORDER THE
OPENING OF SUBDIVISION ROADS TO PUBLIC TRAFFIC?
III
IS RESPONDENT BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OR ASSAILING THE
AUTHORITY OF THE MMDA TO OPEN THE SUBJECT STREET?
IV
WAS RESPONDENT DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS DESPITE THE SEVERAL MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN
MMDA AND THE AFFECTED BEL-AIR RESIDENTS AND BAVA OFFICERS?
V
HAS RESPONDENT COME TO COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS?" 7
Neptune Street is owned by respondent BAVA. It is a private road inside Bel-Air Village, a private
residential subdivision in the heart of the financial and commercial district of Makati City. It runs parallel
to Kalayaan Avenue, a national road open to the general public. Dividing the two (2) streets is a concrete
perimeter wall approximately fifteen (15) feet high. The western end of Neptune Street intersects Nicanor
Garcia, formerly Reposo Street, a subdivision road open to public vehicular traffic, while its eastern end
intersects Makati Avenue, a national road. Both ends of Neptune Street are guarded by iron gates.
Petitioner MMDA claims that it has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic because it is an
agent of the state endowed with police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. One of
these basic services is traffic management which involves the regulation of the use of thoroughfares to
insure the safety, convenience and welfare of the general public. It is alleged that the police power of
MMDA was affirmed by this Court in the consolidated cases of Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court.
8 From the premise that it has police power, it is now urged that there is no need for the City of Makati to
enact an ordinance opening Neptune street to the public. 9
Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the
Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they
shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. 10
The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public
health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare. 11
It bears stressing that police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature. 12 It cannot be
exercised by any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. 13 The National
Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as well as the
lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units. 14 Once delegated, the agents
can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body. 15
A local government is a "political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has
substantial control of local affairs." 16 The Local Government Code of 1991 defines a local government
unit as a "body politic and corporate" 17 — one endowed with powers as a political subdivision of the
National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory. 18 Local
government units are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. 19 They are also the territorial
and political subdivisions of the state. 20
Our Congress delegated police power to the local government units in the Local Government Code of
1991. This delegation is found in Section 16 of the same Code, known as the general welfare clause,
viz:
chanrobles.com : virtual law library
B.
"SECTION 16. General Welfare. — Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly
granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for
its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general
2/9
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION : MAR…
G.R. No. 109992 March 7, 2000 - HEIRS OF THE
LATE HERMAN REY SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 110899 March 7, 2000 - ELIZARDO D.
DITCHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115192 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ELMER D. SALAS
G.R. No. 128046 March 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RAMON CHUA UY
G.R. No. 128102 March 7, 2000 - AZNAR BROTHERS
REALTY COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129644 March 7, 2000 - CHINA BANKING
CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 138291 March 7, 2000 - HECTOR C.
VILLANUEVA v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK
G.R. Nos. 139573-75 March 7, 2000 - JUNE
GENEVIEVE R. SEBASTIAN v. COMELEC, ET AL.
A.M. No. 96-1-25-RTC March 8, 2000 - REPORT ON
THE FINANCIAL AUDIT IN RTC
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1446 March 9, 2000 - CONCERNED
EMPLOYEES OF THE RTC OF DAGUPAN CITY v. ERNA
FALLORAN-ALIPOSA
G.R. No. 111174 March 9, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. BERNARDO V. SALUDARES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 111806 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. BENJAMIN G. GALANO, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 114299 & 118862 March 9, 2000 -
TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 116044-45 March 9, 2000 - AMERICAN
AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 116084-85 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. DAMASO JOB
G.R. No. 118216 March 9, 2000 - DELTAVENTURES
RESOURCES v. FERNANDO P. CABATO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 120060 March 9, 2000 - CEBU WOMAN’S
CLUB v. LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 121348 March 9, 2000 - ANGELITO P.
DELES v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 121998 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. TEODORICO CLEOPAS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125233 March 9, 2000 - Spouses
ALEXANDER and ADELAIDA CRUZ v. ELEUTERIO LEIS
G.R. No. 126125 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ARMANDO GAVIOLA
G.R. No. 126210 March 9, 2000 - CRISTINA PEREZ
v. HAGONOY RURAL BANK, ET AL.
G.R. No. 127439 March 9, 2000 - ALFREDO PAZ v.
ROSARIO G. REYES
G.R. No. 127749 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. BEN GAJO
G.R. No. 131925 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. DARIO CABANAS CUAL, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132745 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROMEO UGIABAN LUMANDONG
G.R. No. 133323 March 9, 2000 - ALBERTO
AUSTRIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 133345 & 133324 March 9, 2000 -
JOSEFA CH. MAESTRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 133382 March 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EFREN MENDOZA
G.R. No. 135613 March 9, 2000 - ARTHUR V.
VELAYO v. COMELEC, ET AL.
A.M. No. 99-9-11-SC March 10, 2000 - RE:
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST RICARDO BANIEL
III
A.M. No. 99-9-12-SC March 10, 2000 - ROSA J.
MENDOZA v. RENATO LABAY
G.R. No. 127845 March 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. LODRIGO BAYYA
G.R. No. 127673 March 13, 2000 - RICARDO S.
MEDENILLA, ET AL. v. PHIL. VETERANS BANK, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130769 March 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER GEGUIRA
G.R. No. 132624 March 13, 2000 - FIDEL M.
BAÑARES II, ET AL. v. ELIZABETH BALISING, ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=422
welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support,
among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the
right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and
self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity
and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and
preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants." 21
Local government units exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies. The legislative
body of the provincial government is the sangguniang panlalawigan, that of the city government is the
sangguniang panlungsod, that of the municipal government is the sangguniang bayan, and that of the
barangay is the sangguniang barangay. The Local Government Code of 1991 empowers the sangguniang
panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod and sangguniang bayan to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions
and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the [province, city or municipality, as the case may be],
and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of the Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers
of the [province, city municipality] provided under the Code . . ." 22 The same Code gives the
sangguniang barangay the power to "enact ordinances as may be necessary to discharge the
responsibilities conferred upon it by law or ordinance and to promote the general welfare of the
inhabitants thereon." 23
Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a body composed of several local government units — i.e., twelve (12)
cities and five (5) municipalities, namely, the cities of Caloocan, Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasay,
Pasig, Quezon, Muntinlupa, Las Piñas, Marikina, Parañaque and Valenzuela, and the municipalities of
Malabon, Navotas, Pateros, San Juan and Taguig. With the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7924 24 in
1995, Metropolitan Manila was declared as a "special development and administrative region" and the
Administration of "metro-wide" basic services affecting the region placed under "a development
authority" referred to as the MMDA.25 cralaw:red
"Metro-wide services" are those "services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political
boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided
by the individual local government units comprising Metro Manila." 26 There are seven (7) basic metro-
wide services and the scope of these services cover the following: (1) development planning; (2)
transport and traffic management; (3) solid waste disposal and management; (4) flood control and
sewerage management; (5) urban renewal, zoning and land use planning, and shelter services; (6)
health and sanitation, urban protection and pollution control; and (7) public safety. The basic service of
transport and traffic management includes the following: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(b) Transport and traffic management which include the formulation, coordination, and monitoring of
policies, standards, programs and projects to rationalize the existing transport operations, infrastructure
requirements, the use of thoroughfares, and promotion of safe and convenient movement of persons and
goods; provision for the mass transport system and the institution of a system to regulate road users;
administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and
traffic education programs, including the institution of a single ticketing system in Metropolitan Manila;"
27
In the delivery of the seven (7) basic services, the MMDA has the following powers and functions: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 5. Functions and powers of the Metro Manila Development Authority. — The MMDA shall: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) Formulate, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium and long-term plans and programs
for the delivery of metro-wide services, land use and physical development within Metropolitan Manila,
consistent with national development objectives and priorities;
(b) Prepare, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium-term investment programs for
metro-wide services which shall indicate sources and uses of funds for priority programs and projects,
and which shall include the packaging of projects and presentation to funding institutions;
(c) Undertake and manage on its own metro-wide programs and projects for the delivery of specific
services under its jurisdiction, subject to the approval of the Council. For this purpose, MMDA can create
appropriate project management offices;
(d) Coordinate and monitor the implementation of such plans, programs and projects in Metro Manila;
identify bottlenecks and adopt solutions to problems of implementation;
(e) The MMDA shall set the policies concerning traffic in Metro Manila, and shall coordinate and regulate
the implementation of all programs and projects concerning traffic management, specifically pertaining to
enforcement, engineering and education. Upon request, it shall be extended assistance and cooperation,
including but not limited to, assignment of personnel, by all other government agencies and offices
concerned;
(f) Install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all
kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or non-moving in nature, and
confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers’ licenses in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations,
the provisions of RA 4136 and PD 1605 to the contrary notwithstanding. For this purpose, the Authority
shall impose all traffic laws and regulations in Metro Manila, through its traffic operation center, and may
deputize members of the PNP, traffic enforcers of local government units, duly licensed security guards,
or members of non-governmental organizations to whom may be delegated certain authority, subject to
such conditions and requirements as the Authority may impose; and
(g) Perform other related functions required to achieve the objectives of the MMDA, including the
undertaking of delivery of basic services to the local government units, when deemed necessary subject
to prior coordination with and consent of the local government unit concerned." cralaw virtua1aw library
The implementation of the MMDA’s plans, programs and projects is undertaken by the local government
units, national government agencies, accredited people’s organizations, non-governmental organizations,
and the private sector as well as by the MMDA itself. For this purpose, the MMDA has the power to enter
into contracts, memoranda of agreement and other cooperative arrangements with these bodies for the
delivery of the required services within Metro Manila. 28
The governing board of the MMDA is the Metro Manila Council. The Council is composed of the mayors of
the component 12 cities and 5 municipalities, the president of the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors’ League and
the president of the Metro Manila Councilors’ League. 29 The Council is headed by a Chairman who is
appointed by the President and vested with the rank of cabinet member. As the policy-making body of
the MMDA, the Metro Manila Council approves metro-wide plans, programs and projects, and issues the
necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of said plans; it approves the annual budget of
the MMDA and promulgates the rules and regulations for the delivery of basic services, collection of
service and regulatory fees, fines and penalties. These functions are particularly enumerated as
follows:
chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
"SECTION 6. Functions of the Metro Manila Council. —
(a) The Council shall be the policy-making body of the MMDA;
(b) It shall approve metro-wide plans, programs and projects and issue rules and regulations deemed
3/9
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION : MAR…
G.R. No. 140179 March 13, 2000 - ROQUE FERMO v.
COMELEC, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1443 March 14, 2000 - EVAN B.
CALLEJA v. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES
G.R. No. 109271 March 14, 2000 - RICARDO
CASTILLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 110524 March 14, 2000 - DOUGLAS
MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 123509 March 14, 2000 - LUCIO ROBLES,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133778 March 14, 2000 - ENGRACE NIÑAL
v. NORMA BAYADOG
G.R. No. 135087 March 14, 2000 - ALBERTO
SUGUITAN v. CITY OF MANDALUYONG
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1544 March 15, 2000 - ROMEO DE
LA CRUZ v. CARLITO A. EISMA
G.R. No. 124453 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JOSEPH PAMBID
G.R. No. 130602 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRONDA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130809 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. MAXIMO HERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 131814 March 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RODOLFO ARIZAPA
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1221 March 16, 2000 - JOSEFINA
M. VILLANUEVA v. BENJAMIN E. ALMAZAN
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1542 March 16, 2000 - ROLANDO
M. ODOÑO v. PORFIRIO G. MACARAEG, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115949 March 16, 2000 - EVANGELINE J.
GABRIEL v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 124372 March 16, 2000 - RENATO
CRISTOBAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125536 March 16, 2000 - PRUDENTIAL
BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126805 March 16, 2000 - PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128550 March 16, 2000 - DIGITAL
MICROWAVE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129904 March 16, 2000 - GUILLERMO T.
DOMONDON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133226 March 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. LOCSIN FABON
A.M. No. 99-8-286-RTC March 17, 2000 - REPORT
ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-1484 (A) & 99-1484 March 17,
2000 - JOSELITO RALLOS, ET AL. v. IRENEO LEE GAKO
JR.
G.R. No. 113433 March 17, 2000 - LUISITO P.
BASILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115221 March 17, 2000 - JULIUS G.
FROILAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 116754 March 17, 2000 - MORONG WATER
DISTRICT v. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 121780 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RAMON SUMALDE, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 122510-11 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. HERACLEO MANRIQUEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 124224 March 17, 2000 - NEW PACIFIC
TIMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 124526 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JIMMY SAPAL
G.R. No. 124874 March 17, 2000 - ALBERT R.
PADILLA v. FLORESCO PAREDES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125059 March 17, 2000 - FRANCISCO T.
SYCIP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129284 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROSALINO FLORES
G.R. No. 129297 March 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROMULO SAN DIEGO
G.R. No. 131270 March 17, 2000 - PERFECTO
PALLADA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=422
necessary by the MMDA to carry out the purposes of this Act;
(c) It may increase the rate of allowances and per diems of the members of the Council to be effective
during the term of the succeeding Council. It shall fix the compensation of the officers and personnel of
the MMDA, and approve the annual budget thereof for submission to the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM);
(d) It shall promulgate rules and regulations and set policies and
standards for metro-wide application governing the delivery of basic services, prescribe and collect
service and regulatory fees, and impose and collect fines and penalties." cralaw virtua1aw library
Clearly, the scope of the MMDA’s function is limited to the delivery of the seven (7) basic services. One of
these is transport and traffic management which includes the formulation and monitoring of policies,
standards and projects to rationalize the existing transport operations, infrastructure requirements, the
use of thoroughfares and promotion of the safe movement of persons and goods. It also covers the mass
transport system and the institution of a system of road regulation, the administration of all traffic
enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and traffic education programs, including the
institution of a single ticketing system in Metro Manila for traffic violations.
Under this service, the MMDA is expressly authorized "to set the policies concerning traffic" and
"coordinate and regulate the implementation of all traffic management programs." In addition, the MMDA
may "install and administer a single ticketing system," fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all
traffic violations.
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. Even the Metro Manila Council has not been delegated any 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." 30 It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and
coordinating with the various national government agencies, people’s organizations, non-governmental
organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast
metropolitan area. All its functions are administrative in nature and these are actually summed up in the
charter itself, viz:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 2. Creation of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. — . . .
The MMDA shall perform planning, monitoring and coordinative functions, and in the process exercise
regulatory and supervisory authority over the delivery of metro-wide services within Metro Manila,
without diminution of the autonomy of the local government units concerning purely local matters." 31
Petitioner cannot seek refuge in the cases of Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court 32 where we
upheld a zoning ordinance issued by the Metro Manila Commission (MMC), the predecessor of the MMDA,
as an exercise of police power. The first Sangalang decision was on the merits of the petition, 33 while
the second decision denied reconsideration of the first case and in addition discussed the case of Yabut v.
Court of Appeals. 34
Sangalang v. IAC involved five (5) consolidated petitions filed by respondent BAVA and three residents of
Bel-Air Village against other residents of the Village and the Ayala Corporation, formerly the Makati
Development Corporation, as the developer of the subdivision. The petitioners sought to enforce certain
restrictive easements in the deeds of sale over their respective lots in the subdivision. These were the
prohibition on the setting up of commercial and advertising signs on the lots, and the condition that the
lots be used only for residential purposes. Petitioners alleged that respondents, who were residents along
Jupiter Street of the subdivision, converted their residences into commercial establishments in violation
of the, "deed restrictions," and that respondent Ayala Corporation ushered in the full commercialization of
Jupiter Street by tearing down the perimeter wall that separated the commercial from the residential
section of the village. 35
The petitions were dismissed based on Ordinance No. 81 of the Municipal Council of Makati and
Ordinance No. 81-01 of the Metro Manila Commission (MMC). Municipal Ordinance No. 81 classified Bel-
Air Village as a Class A Residential Zone, with its boundary in the south extending to the center line of
Jupiter Street. The Municipal Ordinance was adopted by the MMC under the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for the National Capital Region and promulgated as MMC Ordinance No. 81-01. Bel-Air Village
was indicated therein as bounded by Jupiter Street and the block adjacent thereto was classified as a
High Intensity Commercial Zone. 36
We ruled that since both Ordinances recognized Jupiter Street as the boundary between Bel-Air Village
and the commercial district, Jupiter Street was not for the exclusive benefit of Bel-Air residents. We also
held that the perimeter wall on said street was constructed not to separate the residential from the
commercial blocks but simply for security reasons, hence, in tearing down said wall, Ayala Corporation
did not violate the "deed restrictions" in the deeds of sale.
We upheld the ordinances, specifically MMC Ordinance No. 81-0l, as a legitimate exercise of police power.
37 The power of the MMC and the Makati Municipal Council to enact zoning ordinances for the general
welfare prevailed over the "deed restrictions" .
chanrobles.com : law library
In the second Sangalang/Yabut decision, we held that the opening of Jupiter Street was warranted by the
demands of the common good in terms of "traffic decongestion and public convenience." Jupiter was
opened by the Municipal Mayor to alleviate traffic congestion along the public streets adjacent to the
Village. 38 The same reason was given for the opening to public vehicular traffic of Orbit Street, a road
inside the same village. The destruction of the gate in Orbit Street was also made under the police power
of the municipal government The gate, like the perimeter wall along Jupiter, was a public nuisance
because it hindered and impaired the use of property, hence, its summary abatement by the mayor was
proper and legal. 39
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the two Sangalang cases do not apply to the case at bar. Firstly, both
involved zoning ordinances passed by the municipal council of Makati and the MMC. In the instant case,
the basis for the proposed opening of Neptune Street is contained in the notice of December 22, 1995
sent by petitioner to respondent BAVA, through its president. The notice does not cite any ordinance or
law, either by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City or by the MMDA, as the legal basis for the
proposed opening of Neptune Street. Petitioner MMDA simply relied on its authority under its charter "to
rationalize the use of roads and/or thoroughfares for the safe and convenient movement of persons."
Rationalizing the use of roads and thoroughfares is one of the acts that fall within the scope of transport
and traffic management. By no stretch of the imagination, however, can this be interpreted as an express
or implied grant of ordinance-making power, much less police power.
Secondly, the MMDA is not the same entity as the MMC in Sangalang. Although the MMC is the forerunner
of the present MMDA, an examination of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 824, the charter of the MMC,
shows that the latter possessed greater powers which were not bestowed on the present MMDA.
4/9
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION : MAR…
G.R. No. 134504 March 17, 2000 - JOSELITO V.
NARCISO v. FLOR MARIE STA. ROMANA-CRUZ
G.R. No. 134986 March 17, 2000 - CAMPO ASSETS
CORP. v. CLUB X. O. COMPANY
G.R. No. 138218 March 17, 2000 - CLAUDIUS G.
BARROSO v. FRANCISCO S. AMPIG, ET AL.
A.M. No. 98-8-262-RTC March 21, 2000 - REPORT
ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT
A.M. No. 99-2-79-RTC March 21, 2000 - REQUEST of
Judge IRMA ZITA MASAMAYOR v. RTC-Br. 52
G.R. Nos. 130568-69 March 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. CHE CHUN TING
G.R. No. 130685 March 21, 2000 - FELIX UY, ET AL.
v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133434 March 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. BERNABE E. ADILA
A.C. No. 4807 March 22, 2000 - MANUEL N.
CAMACHO v. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, ET AL.
Adm. Case No. 5235 March 22, 2000 - FERNANDO
C. CRUZ, ET AL. v. ERNESTO C. JACINTO
A.M. No. 00-1258-MTJ March 22, 2000 - Spouses
CONRADO and MAITA SEÑA v. ESTER TUAZON
VILLARIN
G.R. No. 122540 March 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. NOEL SAPINOSO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 123206 March 22, 2000 - COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132551 March 22, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JOSE DEDACE
Adm. Case No. 4083 March 27, 2000 - LEONITO
GONATO, ET AL. v. CESILO A. ADAZA
Adm. Matter No. P-96-1204 March 27, 2000 - MILA
MARTINEZ v. ALEXANDER RIMANDO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 120150 March 27, 2000 - ADRIAN DE LA
PAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 123560 March 27, 2000 - YU ENG CHO, ET
AL. v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS
G.R. No. 124118 March 27, 2000 - MARINO
ADRIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000 - ONG CHIA v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. and COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 128073 March 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RENE MAMALIAS
G.R. No. 130669 March 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. WILSON MITRA
G.R. No. 130722 March 27, 2000 - REYNALDO K.
LITONJUA, ET AL. v. L & R CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 131074 March 27, 2000 - CENTRAL BANK
OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BICHARA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132929 March 27, 2000 - COMMISSIONER
OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN
MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR
VILLAGE ASSOCIATION
G.R. No. 136478 March 27, 2000 - ARSENIO P.
REYES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1528 March 28, 2000 - ROMULO SJ
TOLENTINO v. ALFREDO A. CABRAL
G.R. No. 79679 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ENRIQUE CABINGAS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447 March 28, 2000 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONIDA MERIS
G.R. No. 131472 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROMEO TIPAY
G.R. No. 132518 March 28, 2000 - GAVINA
MAGLUCOT-AW, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 133146 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. MANUEL CULA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133832 March 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ZOSIMO BARREDO
A.M. No. P-98-1284 March 30, 2000 - ABRAHAM D.
CAÑA v. ROBERTO B. GEBUSION
G.R. No. 106671 March 30, 2000 - HARRY TANZO v.
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=422
Metropolitan Manila was first created in 1975 by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 824. It comprised the
Greater Manila Area composed of the contiguous four (4) cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay and Caloocan,
and the thirteen (13) municipalities of Makati, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Las Piñas, Malabon, Navotas,
Pasig, Pateros, Parañaque, Marikina, Muntinlupa and Taguig in the province of Rizal, and Valenzuela in
the province of Bulacan. 40 Metropolitan Manila was created as a response to the finding that the rapid
growth of population and the increase of social and economic requirements in these areas demand a call
for simultaneous and unified development; that the public services rendered by the respective local
governments could be administered more efficiently and economically if integrated under a system of
central planning; and this coordination, "especially in the maintenance of peace and order and the
eradication of social and economic ills that fanned the names of rebellion and discontent [were] part of
reform measures under Martial Law essential to the safety and security of the State." 41
Metropolitan Manila was established as a "public corporation" with the following powers: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 1. Creation of the Metropolitan Manila. — There is hereby created a public corporation, to be
known as the Metropolitan Manila, vested with powers and attributes of a corporation including the power
to make contracts, sue and be sued, acquire, purchase, expropriate, hold, transfer and dispose of
property and such other powers as are necessary to carry out its purposes. The Corporation shall be
administered by a Commission created under this Decree." 42
The administration of Metropolitan Manila was placed under the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) vested
with the following powers: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 4. Powers and Functions of the Commission. — The Commission shall have the following
powers and functions: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. To act as a central government to establish and administer programs and provide services common to
the area;
2. To levy and collect taxes and special assessments, borrow and expend money and issue bonds,
revenue certificates, and other obligations of indebtedness. Existing tax measures should, however,
continue to be operative until otherwise modified or repealed by the Commission;
3. To charge and collect fees for the use of public service facilities;
4. To appropriate money for the operation of the metropolitan government and review appropriations for
the city and municipal units within its jurisdiction with authority to disapprove the same if found to be not
in accordance with the established policies of the Commission, without prejudice to any contractual
obligation of the local government units involved existing at the time of approval of this Decree;
5. To review, amend, revise or repeal all ordinances, resolutions and acts of cities and municipalities
within Metropolitan Manila;
6. To enact or approve ordinances, resolutions and to fix penalties for any violation thereof which shall
not exceed a fine of P10,000.00 or imprisonment of six years or both such fine and imprisonment for a
single offense;
7. To perform general administrative, executive and policy-making functions; chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
8. To establish a fire control operation center, which shall direct the fire services of the city and municipal
governments in the metropolitan area;
9. To establish a garbage disposal operation center, which shall direct garbage collection and disposal in
the metropolitan area;
10. To establish and operate a transport and traffic center, which shall direct traffic activities;
11. To coordinate and monitor governmental and private activities pertaining to essential services such as
transportation, flood control and drainage, water supply and sewerage, social, health and environmental
services, housing, park development, and others;
12. To insure and monitor the undertaking of a comprehensive social, economic and physical planning
and development of the area;
13. To study the feasibility of increasing barangay participation in the affairs of their respective local
governments and to propose to the President of the Philippines definite programs and policies for
implementation;
14. To submit within thirty (30) days after the close of each fiscal year an annual report to the President
of the Philippines and to submit a periodic report whenever deemed necessary; and
15. To perform such other tasks as may be assigned or directed by the President of the Philippines." cralaw virtua1aw library
The MMC was the "central government" of Metro Manila for the purpose of establishing and administering
programs providing services common to the area. As a "central government" it had the power to levy and
collect taxes and special assessments, the power to charge and collect fees; the power to appropriate
money for its operation, and at the same time, review appropriations for the city and municipal units
within its jurisdiction. It was bestowed the power to enact or approve ordinances, resolutions and fix
penalties for violation of such ordinances and resolutions. It also had the power to review, amend. revise
or repeal all ordinances, resolutions and acts of any of the four (4) cities and thirteen (13) municipalities
comprising Metro Manila.
P.D. No. 824 further provided: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 9. Until otherwise provided, the governments of the four cities and thirteen municipalities in
the Metropolitan Manila shall continue to exist in their present form except as may be inconsistent with
this Decree. The members of the existing city and municipal councils in Metropolitan Manila shall, upon
promulgation of this Decree, and until December 31, 1975, become members of the Sangguniang Bayan
which is hereby created for every city and municipality of Metropolitan Manila.
In addition, the Sangguniang Bayan shall be composed of as many barangay captains as may be
determined and chosen by the Commission, and such number of representatives from other sectors of
the society as may be appointed by the President upon recommendation of the Commission.
x x x.
The Sangguniang Bayan may recommend to the Commission ordinances, resolutions or such measures
as it may adopt; Provided, that no such ordinance, resolution or measure shall become effective, until
after its approval by the Commission; and Provided further, that the power to impose taxes and other
levies, the power to appropriate money and the power to pass ordinances or resolutions with penal
sanctions shall be vested exclusively in the Commission."
cralaw virtua1aw library
The creation of the MMC also carried with it the creation of the Sangguniang Bayan. This was composed
5/9
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION : MAR…
G.R. No. 109773 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ELBERTO BASE
G.R. No. 123112 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ARTURO CAVERTE and TEOFILO CAVERTE
G.R. No. 125355 March 30, 2000 - CIR v. COURT OF
APPEALS and COMMONWEALTH MANAGEMENT AND
SERVICES CORP.
G.R. No. 129288 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JOEY AQUINO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129433 March 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. PRIMO CAMPUHAN
G.R. No. 138081 March 30, 2000 - BUREAU OF
CUSTOMS (BOC), ET AL. v. NELSON OGARIO, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-98-1167 March 31, 2000 - EMILY M
SANDOVAL. v. FELICISIMO S. GARIN
A.M. No. P-96-1211 March 31, 2000 - PACIFICO S.
BULADO v. DOMINGO TIU
G.R. No. 100152 March 31, 2000 - ACEBEDO
OPTICAL COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 114734 March 31, 2000 - VIVIAN Y.
IMBUIDO v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115181 March 31, 2000 - MARIA
SOCORRO AVELINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115990 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR y ESTACIO @ "JOEY"
G.R. No. 121517 March 31, 2000 - RAY U. VELASCO,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 121572 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JOEL ELAMPARO
G.R. No. 123113 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JERRY ABALDE
G.R. No. 123636 March 31, 2000 - JOSELITO
LAGERA v. NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125280 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. WILSON SUITOS
G.R. Nos. 128056-57 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MARCOS PARAMIL
G.R. No. 128647 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ANTONIO SALONGA
G.R. No. 132053 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. DANILO TAYAG
G.R. No. 132192 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROGELIO NOROÑA and FREDDIE NOROÑA
G.R. Nos. 133387-423 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. EXPEDITO ABAPO
G.R. No. 133857 March 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JOEY AMIGABLE
G.R. No. 139137 March 31, 2000 - ALFREDO
ARQUELADA, ET AL v. PHIL. VETERANS BANK
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=422
of the members of the component city and municipal councils, barangay captains chosen by the MMC and
sectoral representatives appointed by the President. The Sangguniang Bayan had the power to
recommend to the MMC the adoption of ordinances, resolutions or measures. It was the MMC itself,
however, that possessed legislative powers. All ordinances, resolutions and measures recommended by
the Sangguniang Bayan were subject to the MMC’s approval. Moreover, the power to impose taxes and
other levies, the power to appropriate money, and the power to pass ordinances or resolutions with penal
sanctions were vested exclusively in the MMC.
Thus, Metropolitan Manila had a "central government," i.e., the MMC which fully possessed legislative and
police powers. Whatever legislative powers the component cities and municipalities had were all subject
to review and approval by the MMC .
After President Corazon Aquino assumed power, there was a clamor to restore the autonomy of the local
government units in Metro Manila. Hence, Sections 1 and 2 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution
provided:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces,
cities, municipalities and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras as herein provided.
"SECTION 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy." cralaw virtua1aw library
The Constitution, however, recognized the necessity of creating metropolitan regions not only in the
existing National Capital Region but also in potential equivalents in the Visayas and Mindanao. 43 Section
11 of the same Article X thus provided: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a
plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their
basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies. The
jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic services
requiring coordination." cralaw virtua1aw library
The Constitution itself expressly provides that Congress may, by law, create "special metropolitan political
subdivisions" which shall be subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the
political units directly affected; the jurisdiction of this subdivision shall be limited to basic services
requiring coordination; and the cities and municipalities comprising this subdivision shall retain their
basic autonomy and their own local executive and legislative assemblies. 44 Pending enactment of this
law, the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution gave the President of the Philippines the power to
constitute the Metropolitan Authority, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 8. Until otherwise provided by Congress, the President may constitute the Metropolitan
Authority to be composed of the heads of all local government units comprising the Metropolitan Manila
area." 45
In 1990, President Aquino issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 392 and constituted the Metropolitan Manila
Authority (MMA). The powers and functions of the MMC were devolved to the MMA. 46 It ought to be
stressed, however, that not all powers and functions of the MMC were passed to the MMA. The MMA’s
power was limited to the "delivery of basic urban services requiring coordination in Metropolitan Manila."
47 The MMA’s governing body, the Metropolitan Manila Council, although composed of the mayors of the
component cities and municipalities, was merely given the power of : (1) formulation of policies on the
delivery of basic services requiring coordination and consolidation; and (2) promulgation of resolutions
and other issuances, approval of a code of basic services and the exercise of its rule-making power. 48
Under the 1987 Constitution, the local government units became primarily responsible for the
governance of their respective political subdivisions. The MMA’s jurisdiction was limited to addressing
common problems involving basic services that transcended local boundaries. It did not have legislative
power. Its power was merely to provide the local government units technical assistance in the preparation
of local development plans. Any semblance of legislative power it had was confined to a "review [of]
legislation proposed by the local legislative assemblies to ensure consistency among local governments
and with the comprehensive development plan of Metro Manila," and to "advise the local governments
accordingly." 49
When R.A. No. 7924 took effect, Metropolitan Manila became a "special development and administrative
region" and the MMDA a "special development authority" whose functions were "without prejudice to the
autonomy of the affected local government units." The character of the MMDA was clearly defined in the
legislative debates enacting its charter.
R.A. No. 7924 originated as House Bill No. 14170/11116 and was introduced by several legislators led by
Dante Tinga, Roilo Golez and Feliciano Belmonte. It was presented to the House of Representatives by
the Committee on Local Governments chaired by Congressman Ciriaco R. Alfelor. The bill was a product
of Committee consultations with the local government units in the National Capital Region (NCR), with
former chairmen of the MMC and MMA, 50 and career officials of said agencies. When the bill was first
taken up by the Committee on Local Governments, the following debate took place: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"THE CHAIRMAN [Hon. Ciriaco Alfelor]: Okay, Let me explain. This has been debated a long time ago,
you know. It’s a special . . . we can create a special metropolitan political subdivision.
Actually, there are only six (6) political subdivisions provided for in the Constitution: barangay,
municipality, city, province, and we have the Autonomous Region of Mindanao and we have the
Cordillera. So we have 6. Now . . .
HON. [Elias] LOPEZ: May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman. In the case of the Autonomous Region, that is also
specifically mandated by the Constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: That’s correct. But it is considered to be a political subdivision. What is the meaning of a
political subdivision? Meaning to say, that it has its own government, it has its own political personality, it
has the power to tax, and all governmental powers: police power and everything. All right. Authority is
different; because it does not have its own government. It is only a council, it is an organization of
political subdivision, powers, ‘no, which is not imbued with any political power. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
If you go over Section 6, where the powers and functions of the Metro Manila Development Authority, it is
purely coordinative. And it provides here that the council is policy-making. All right.
Under the Constitution is a Metropolitan Authority with coordinative power. Meaning to say, it coordinates
all of the different basic services which have to be delivered to the constituency. All right.
There is now a problem. Each local government unit is given its respective . . . as a political subdivision.
Kalookan has its powers, as provided for and protected and guaranteed by the Constitution. All right, the
exercise. However, in the exercise of that power, it might be deleterious and disadvantageous to other
local government units. So, we are forming an authority where all of these will be members and then set
up a policy in order that the basic services can be effectively coordinated. All right.
Of course, we cannot deny that the MMDA has to survive. We have to provide some funds, resources. But
6/9
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION : MAR…
it does not possess any political power. We do not elect the Governor. We do not have the power to tax.
As a matter of fact, I was trying to intimate to the author that it must have the power to sue and be sued
because it coordinates. All right. It coordinates practically all these basic services so that the flow and the
distribution of the basic services will be continuous. Like traffic, we cannot deny that. It’s before our
eyes. Sewerage, flood control, water system, peace and order, we cannot deny these. It’s right on our
face. We have to look for a solution. What would be the right solution? All right, we envision that there
should be a coordinating agency and it is called an authority. All right, if you do not want to call it an
authority, it’s alright. We may call it a council or maybe a management agency.

x x x." 51

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 MMDA’s functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general
welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. This was explicitly stated in the last Committee deliberations
prior to the bill’s presentation to Congress. Thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but we have to go over the suggested revision. I think this was already approved
before, but it was reconsidered in view of the proposals, set-up, to make the MMDA stronger. Okay, so if
there is no objection to paragraph "f." . . And then next is paragraph "b," under Section 6. "It shall
approve metro-wide plans, programs and projects and issue ordinances or resolutions deemed necessary
by the MMDA to carry out the purposes of this Act." Do you have the powers? Does the MMDA . . .
because that takes the form of a local government unit, a political subdivision.

HON. [Feliciano] BELMONTE: Yes, I believe so, your Honor. When we say that it has the policies, it’s very
clear that those policies must be followed. Otherwise, what’s the use of empowering it to come out with
policies. Now, the policies may be in the form of a resolution or it may be in the form of a ordinance. The
term "ordinance in this case really gives it more teeth, your honor. Otherwise, we are going to see a
situation where you have the power to adopt the policy but you cannot really make it stick as in the case
now, and I think here is Chairman Bunye. I think he will agree that that is the case now. You’ve got the
power to set a policy, the body wants to follow your policy, then we say let’s call it an ordinance and see
if they will not follow it.

THE CHAIRMAN: That’s very nice. I like that. However, there is a constitutional impediment. You are
making this MMDA a political subdivision. The creation of the MMDA would be subject to a plebiscite. That
is what I’m trying to avoid. I’ve been trying to avoid this kind of predicament. Under the Constitution it
states: if it is a political subdivision, once it is created it has to be subject to a plebiscite. I’m trying to
make this as administrative. That’s why we place the Chairman as a cabinet rank.

HON. BELMONTE: All right, Mr. Chairman, okay, what you are saying there is . . .

THE CHAIRMAN: In setting up ordinances, it is a political exercise. Believe me.

HON. [Elias] LOPEZ: Mr. Chairman, it can be changed into issuances of rules and regulations. That would
be . . . it shall also be enforced.

HON. BELMONTE: Okay, I will . . .

HON. LOPEZ: And you can also say that violation of such rule, you impose a sanction. But you know,
ordinance has a different legal connotation.

HON. BELMONTE: All right. I defer to that opinion, your Honor.

THE CHAIRMAN: So instead of ordinances, say rules and regulations.

HON. BELMONTE: Or resolutions. Actually, they are actually considering resolutions now.

THE CHAIRMAN: Rules and resolutions.

HON. BELMONTE: Rules, regulations and resolutions." 52

The draft of H. B. No. 14170/11116 was presented by the Committee to the House of Representatives.
The explanatory note to the bill stated that the proposed MMDA is a "development authority" which is a
"national agency, not a political government unit." 53 The explanatory note was adopted as the
sponsorship speech of the Committee on Local Governments. No interpellations or debates were made on
the floor and no amendments introduced. The bill was approved on second reading on the same day it
was presented. 54

When the bill was forwarded to the Senate, several amendments were made. These amendments,
however, did not affect the nature of the MMDA as originally conceived in the House of Representatives.
55

It is thus beyond doubt that the MMDA is not a local government unit or a public corporation endowed
with legislative power. It is not even a "special metropolitan political subdivision" as contemplated in
Section 11, Article X of the Constitution. The creation of a "special metropolitan political subdivision"
requires the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected.
56 R.A. No. 7924 was not submitted to the inhabitants of Metro Manila in a plebiscite. The Chairman of
the MMDA is not an official elected by the people, but appointed by the President with the rank and
privileges of a cabinet member. In fact, part of his function is to perform such other duties as may be
assigned to him by the President, 57 whereas in local government units, the President merely exercises
supervisory authority. This emphasizes the administrative character of the MMDA.

Clearly then, the MMC under P.D. No. 824 is not the same entity as the MMDA under R.A. No. 7924.
Unlike the MMC, the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the
local government units, acting through their respective legislative councils, that possess legislative power
and police power. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any
ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by
petitioner MMDA is illegal and the respondent Court of Appeals did not err in so ruling. We desist from
ruling on the other issues as they are unnecessary.

We stress that this decision does not make light of the MMDA’s noble efforts to solve the chaotic traffic
condition in Metro Manila. Everyday, traffic jams and traffic bottlenecks plague the metropolis. Even our
once sprawling boulevards and avenues are now crammed with cars while city streets are clogged with
motorists and pedestrians. Traffic has become a social malaise affecting our people’s productivity and the
efficient delivery of goods and services in the country. The MMDA was created to put some order in the
metropolitan transportation system but unfortunately the powers granted by its charter are limited. Its
good intentions cannot justify the opening for public use of a private street in a private subdivision
without any legal warrant. The promotion of the general welfare is not antithetical to the preservation of
the rule of law.
chanrobles virtua| |aw |ibrary

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 39549 are affirmed.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=422 7/9
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION : MAR…
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

Davide, Jr., C.J., Kapunan, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1. Annex "D" to the CA petition, Court of Appeals (CA) Rollo, p. 27.

2. Annex "J" to Petition, Rollo, pp. 76-78.

3. Minutes of the Ocular Inspection, Court of Appeals Rollo, pp. 193-194.

4. CA Rollo, p. 332.

5. Roberto L. del Rosario is a resident of Neptune Street who allegedly spearheaded a

campaign to open Neptune Street to the public — Motion to Cite in Contempt, CA Rollo, pp.
412-415.

6. CA decision, p. 10, Rollo, p. 61.

7. Petition, p. 15, Rollo, p. 24.

8. 168 SCRA 634 (1988).

9. Petition, p. 24, Rollo, p. 33.

10. United States v. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245, 253-254 [1915]; Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil.
580, 603 [1915]; People v. Pomar, 46 Phil. 440, 447 [1924].

11. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, A Commentary, pp. 95-98 [1996].

12. Cruz, Constitutional Law, p. 44 [1995].

13. Id., see also 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sec. 177 [1956 ed.].

14. Cruz, supra, at 44; Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508, 513-514 [1991].

15. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255, 272 [1994].

16. Bernas, supra, at 959, citing UP Law Center Revision Project, Part II, 712 [1970] citing
Sady, "Improvement of Local Government Administration for Development Purpose,"
Journal of Local Administration Overseas 135 [July 1962].

17. Section 15, Book I, Local Government Code of 1991.

18. Id.

19. Titles I, II, III, IV, Book III, Local Government Code of 1991.

20. Section 1, Article X, 1987 Constitution.

21. Section 16, Book I, Local Government Code of 1991; also cited in Magtajas v. Pryce
Properties Corp., Inc. supra, at 264-265.

22. Sections 468 (a), 458 (a), and 447 (a), Book III, Local Government Code of 1991.

23. Section 391 (a), Book III, Local Government Code of 1991.

24. Entitled "An Act Creating the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Defining its
Powers and Functions, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes." cralaw virtua1aw library

25. Section 1, R.A. 7924.

26. Section 3, par. 1, R.A. 7924.

27. Section 3 (b), supra; Emphasis supplied.

28. Section 9, paragraph 5, supra.

29. Section 4, supra. Non-voting members of the Council are the heads of the Department
of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), Department of Tourism (DOT), Department of Budget and Management (DBM),
Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Committee (HUDCC), and the Philippine
National Police (PNP) of their duly authorized representatives.

30. Section 1, R.A. 7924.

31. Section 2, supra.

32. Op. Cit.

33. 168 SCRA 634 [1988].

34. 176 SCRA 719 [1989].

35. 168 SCRA 634, 654-655.

36. Id., at 643.

37. Id., at 730.

38. Id., at 723.

39. Like the perimeter wall along Jupiter Street — Id. at 734.

40. Section 2, P.D. 824.

41. Whereas Clauses, P.D. 824.

42. Section 1, P.D. 824; Emphasis supplied.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=422 8/9
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION : MAR…

43. Speech of then Constitutional Commissioner Blas Ople, see Bernas, The Intent of the
1986 Constitution Writers, pp. 706-707 [1995].

44. Section 11, Article X, 1987 Constitution.

45. Section 8, Article XVIII, 1987 Constitution.

46. Section 3, E.O. 392.

47. Section 1, supra.

48. Section 2, supra.

49. Section 6, supra.

50. Chairmen Ismael Mathay, Jr. and Ignacio Bunye.

51. Deliberations of the Committee on Local Government, House of Representatives,

Congress of the Philippines, November 10, 1993, pp. 46-48.

52. Deliberations of the Committee on Local Governments, House of Representatives,

Congress of the Philippines, November 9, 1994, pp. 68-70.

53. Explanatory Note to H. B. 11116, p. 3.

54. H.B. 14170/11116, Sponsorship and Debates, December 20, 1994.

55. Compare H.B. 14170/11116 with R.A. 7924; see Senate Amendments, February 21,
1995.

56. Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with the criteria
established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected." cralaw virtua1aw library

57. Section 7 (g), R.A. 7924.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000marchdecisions.php?id=422 9/9