Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
* EN BANC.
319
320
321
322
behind them are quite evident. A toll way is not an ordinary road.
The special purpose for which a toll way is constructed
necessitates the imposition of guidelines in the manner of its use
and operation. Inevitably, such rules will restrict certain rights.
But the mere fact that certain rights are restricted does not
invalidate the rules.
Same; Same; Same; Due Process; The test of constitutionality
of a police power measure is limited to an inquiry on whether the
restriction imposed on constitutional rights is reasonable, and not
whether it imposes a restriction on those rights.—Consider Section
3(g) of AO 1, which prohibits the conduct of rallies inside toll
ways. The regulation affects the right to peaceably assemble. The
exercise of police power involves restriction, restriction being
implicit in the power itself. Thus, the test of constitutionality of a
police power measure is limited to an inquiry on whether the
restriction imposed on constitutional rights is reasonable, and not
whether it imposes a restriction on those rights.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Motorcycles; The means by which
the government chooses to act is not judged in terms of what is
“best,” rather, on simply whether the act is reasonable—reason, not
scientific exactitude, is the measure of the validity of the
government regulation.—None of the rules outlined in AO 1
strikes us as arbitrary and capricious. The DPWH, through the
Solicitor General, maintains that the toll ways were not designed
to accommodate motorcycles and that their presence in the toll
ways will compromise safety and traffic considerations. The
DPWH points out that the same study the petitioners rely on cites
that the inability of other drivers to detect motorcycles is the
predominant cause of accidents. Arguably, prohibiting the use of
motorcycles in toll ways may not be the “best” measure to ensure
the safety and comfort of those who ply the toll ways. However,
the means by which the government chooses to act is not judged
in terms of what is “best,” rather, on simply whether the act is
reasonable. The validity of a police power measure does not
depend upon the absolute assurance that the purpose desired can
in fact be probably fully accomplished, or upon the certainty that
it will best serve the purpose intended. Reason, not scientific
exactitude, is the measure of the validity of the governmental
regulation. Arguments based on what is “best” are arguments
reserved for the Legislature’s discussion. Judicial intervention in
such matters will only be warranted if the assailed regulation is
patently whimsical. We do not find the situation in this case to be
so.
323
324
325
326
327
evolved from its predecessors, the BPH, DPH, MPH and MPWH, I
submit, supports my view that it is the DPWH, and not the
DOTC, which has inherited the functions previously exercised by
the BPH, including those granted by the Limited Access Highway
Act. The Limited Access Highway Act confers the authority to
plan, designate, establish, regulate, vacate, alter, improve,
maintain, and provide limited access facilities for public use
under Sec. 3 thereof, and the powers to design, regulate, restrict,
or prohibit access to these limited access facilities under Sec. 4.
Although they appear in different sections of the law, the clear
and unmistakable intent was for all of these powers to be
integrated in and exercised by just one entity, the DPWC.
Same; Same; Nowhere in the list of functions of the Land
Transportation Office (LTO) is there any indication that said
agency has the authority to establish and regulate limited access
facilities.—The predecessor of the LTO is the Land
Transportation Commission (LTC) created in 1964 by RA 4136.
RA 4136 was amended by RA Nos. 5715 and 6374, PD Nos. 382,
843, 896, 1057, 1934, 1950 and 1958, and BP Blg. 43, 74 and 398,
and is now known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.
Its provisions control the registration and operation of motor
vehicles and the licensing of owners, dealers, conductors, drivers,
and similar matters. The powers and duties of the former LTC
Commissioner, now exercised by the LTO, are as follows: * * *
Nowhere in this list of functions is there any indication that the
LTO has the authority to establish and regulate limited access
facilities. The traffic rules and regulations which the LTO is
tasked to enforce pertains to traffic rules enumerated in the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code, including speed limit and
keeping to the right, overtaking and passing a vehicle and turning
at intersections, right of way and signals, turning and parking,
reckless driving, right of way for police and other emergency
vehicles, tampering with vehicles, hitching to a vehicle, driving or
parking on sidewalk, driving while under the influence of liquor
or narcotic drug, obstruction of traffic and duty of driver in case of
accident. Significantly, even as it codified all laws relative to land
transportation and traffic, the Land Transportation and Traffic
Code, as amended, makes no mention of or reference to the
establishment and regulation of limited access facilities, a tacit
recognition of the DOTC’s lack of authority on the matter.
328
329
CARPIO, J.:
1
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the
Decision dated 10 March 2003 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 147, Makati City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 01-034, as
well as the RTC’s Order dated 16 June 2003 which denied
_______________
330
Antecedent Facts
_______________
331
_______________
332
The Issues
_______________
4 Id., at p. 68.
5 Id., at p. 22.
333
_______________
334
_______________
335
336
_______________
13 Id., at p. 91.
337
_______________
14 Id., at p. 96.
338
_______________
339
_______________
18 Section 3 of EO 546.
340
_______________
19 Section 6 of EO 546.
20 Section 8 of EO 546.
341
_______________
SEC. 3. Relationships between the Department Proper, the Bureaus and the
Regional Offices.—The Department Proper shall have direct line supervision over
the bureaus and regional offices. It shall be responsible for developing and
implementing programs on the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges
and airport runways. The Bureau of Construction and Maintenance shall be
essentially staff in character and as such, shall exercise only functional
supervision over the regional offices, while the Bureau of Equipment shall provide
equipment support to the field offices through its equipment depots and area
shops. x x x
342
authorized to regulate,
23
restrict, or prohibit access to limited
access facilities?
Under Section 1 of EO 546, the Ministry of Public Works
(now DPWH) assumed the public works functions of the
Ministry of Public Works, Transportation and
Communications. On the other hand, among the functions
of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications
(now Department of Transportation and
Communications [DOTC]) were to (1) formulate and
recommend national policies and guidelines for the
preparation and implementation of an integrated and
comprehensive transportation and communications
systems at the national, regional, and local levels; and (2)
regulate, whenever necessary, activities relative to
transportation and communications and prescribe and
collect fees in the exercise of such power. Clearly, under EO
546, it is the DOTC, not the DPWH, which has authority to
regulate, restrict, or prohibit access to limited access
facilities. 24
Even under Executive Order No. 12525 (EO 125) and
Executive Order No. 125-A (EO 125-A), which further
reorganized the DOTC, the authority to administer and
enforce all laws, rules and regulations 26
relative to
transportation is clearly with the DOTC.
_______________
343
_______________
344
_______________
345
_______________
are established by international bodies or associations of which the
Philippines is a participating member or by bodies or associations
recognized by the Philippine government as the proper arbiter of
such charges or rates;
(q) Establish and prescribe the rules, regulations, procedures and
standards for the accreditation of driving schools;
(r) Administer and operate the Civil Aviation Training Center (CATC)
and the National Telecommunications Training Institute (NTTI);
and
(s) Perform such other powers and functions as may be prescribed by
law, or as may be necessary, incidental, or proper to its mandate or
as may be assigned from time to time by the President of the
Republic of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied). See also Section
3, Chapter 1, Title XV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of
1987.
27 The TRB, which was created under Presidential Decree No. 1112,
was attached to the DPWH on 9 July 1990 by virtue of Republic Act No.
6957. Executive Order No. 67, dated 26 January 1999, transferred the
TRB to the Office of the President. On 10 October 2002, the TRB was
transferred to the DOTC by virtue of Executive Order No. 133.
346
_______________
28 Rollo, p. 242.
347
348
_______________
31 Id.
32 JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
120095, 5 August 1996, 260 SCRA 319.
33 Wall v. King, 109 F. Supp. 198 (1952); Munz v. Harnett, 6 F. Supp.
158 (1933); Schwartzman Service v. Stahl, 60 F.2d 1034 (1932).
34 Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155, 1163 (1957).
35 Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. San Diego, G.R. No.
89572, 21 December 1989, 180 SCRA 533.
36 City of Raleigh v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 165 S.E.2d 745
(1969).
37 Board of Zoning Appeals of Decatur v. Decatur, Ind. Co. of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, 117 N.E.2d 115 (1954).
349
_______________
38 Section 3—On limited access highways, it is unlawful for any person
or group of persons to:
xxxx
(g) Jaywalk, loiter, litter, or travel by foot, drive or herd animals, conduct or
hold rallies, parades, funeral processions and the like;
xxxx
39 Rollo, p. 395.
350
_______________
351
_______________
352
353
354
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mirasol vs. Department of Public Works and Highways
355
DISSENTING OPINION
TINGA, J.:
I dissent from the opinion which has found favor with the
majority holding that Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH) Department Orders Nos. 74, 215 and
123 are void for want of authority on the part of the DPWH
to promulgate them.
The fundamental question which seeks an answer from
this Court is which between the DPWH and the
Department of Transportation and Communications
(DOTC) has the charge of implementing Republic Act No.
2000, otherwise known as the Limited Access Highway Act.
These two departments have mutually exclusive functions
in the general scheme of government. The DPWH oversees
the construction, maintenance and operation of public
works and infrastructure facilities, and administers the
highway system. The DOTC, on the other hand, directs the
nation’s transportation and communication network
systems. To resolve this case, it is crucial for us to
determine within which sphere of functions the powers
granted under the Limited Access Highway Act fall, i.e.,
whether the Limited Access Highway Act involves the
administration of the highway system or the management of
the transportation network.
After tracing the evolution of the Department of Public
Works and Communications (DPWC) which was originally
given the authority under the Limited Access Highway Act
to regulate, restrict or prohibit access to limited access
facilities, the ponencia concludes that this authority was
eventually bestowed upon the DOTC.
With due respect, I cannot share this conclusion. I shall
explain.
The Limited Access Highway Act authorized the DPWC
“to plan, designate, establish, regulate, vacate, alter,
improve, maintain, and provide limited access facilities for
public use
356
_______________
357
_______________
358
_______________
359
_______________
10 Sec. 6.
11 Creating a Ministry of Public Works and Highways dated July 27,
1981.
360
361
_______________
362
363
_______________
364
_______________
365
_______________
16 419 U.S. 65, 95 S. Ct. 272, 42 L. Ed. 231 (1974) cited by Alfred C.
Aman, Jr. and William T. Mayton in Administrative Law, 2nd Ed, 2001, p.
499.
367
——o0o——
368