[G.R. No. 130230.

April 15, 2005]

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs.
DANTE O. GARIN, respondent.
D E I ! I O N
HIO"NA#ARIO, J.$
At issue in this case is the validity of Section 5(f) of Republic Act No.
7924 creatin the !etropolitan !anila "evelop#ent Authority (!!"A)$ %hich
authori&es it to con'scate and suspend or revo(e driver)s licenses in the
enforce#ent of tra*c la%s and reulations.
+he issue arose fro# an incident involvin the respondent "ante ,.
-arin$ a la%yer$ %ho %as issued a tra*c violation receipt (+.R) and his driver)s
license con'scated for par(in illeally alon -andara Street$ /inondo$ !anila$
on 05 Auust 1995. +he follo%in state#ents %ere printed on the +.R2
3,4 AR5 65R5/3 "7R58+5" +, R59,R+ +, +65 !!"A +RA::78 ,95RA+7,NS
85N+5R 9,R+ AR5A !AN7;A A:+5R 4< 6,4RS :R,! "A+5 ,: A99R565NS7,N
:,R "7S9,S7+7,N=A99R,9R7A+5 A8+7,N +65R5,N. 8R7!7NA; 8AS5 S6A;; /5
:7;5" :,R :A7;4R5 +, R5"55! ;785NS5 A:+5R >0 "A3S.
.A;7" AS +5!9,RAR3 "R7.5R)S ;785NS5 :,R S5.5N "A3S :R,! "A+5 ,:
A99R565NS7,N.?1@
Shortly before the eApiration of the +.R)s validity$ the respondent
addressed a letter?2@ to then !!"A 8hair#an 9rospero ,reta reBuestin the
return of his driver)s license$ and eApressin his preference for his case to be
'led in court.
Receivin no i##ediate reply$ -arin 'led the oriinal co#plaint?>@ %ith
application for preli#inary inCunction in /ranch 2D0 of the Reional +rial 8ourt
(R+8) of 9araEaBue$ on 12 Septe#ber 1995$ contendin that$ in the absence of
any i#ple#entin rules and reulations$ Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 rants
the !!"A unbridled discretion to deprive errin #otorists of their licenses$
preFe#ptin a Cudicial deter#ination of the validity of the deprivation$ thereby
violatin the due process clause of the 8onstitution. +he respondent further
contended that the provision violates the constitutional prohibition aainst
undue deleation of leislative authority$ allo%in as it does the !!"A to 'A
and i#pose unspeci'ed G and therefore unli#ited F 'nes and other penalties on
errin #otorists.
7n support of his application for a %rit of preli#inary inCunction$ -arin
alleed that he suHered and continues to suHer reat and irreparable da#ae
because of the deprivation of his license and that$ absent any i#ple#entin
rules fro# the !etro !anila 8ouncil$ the +.R and the con'scation of his license
have no leal basis.
:or its part$ the !!"A$ represented by the ,*ce of the Solicitor
-eneral$ pointed out that the po%ers ranted to it by Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No.
7924 are li#ited to the 'Ain$ collection and i#position of 'nes and penalties
for tra*c violations$ %hich po%ers are leislative and eAecutive in natureI the
Cudiciary retains the riht to deter#ine the validity of the penalty i#posed. 7t
further arued that the doctrine of separation of po%ers does not preclude
Jad#iAtureK of the three po%ers of overn#ent in ad#inistrative aencies.?4@
+he !!"A also refuted -arin)s alleation that the !etro !anila 8ouncil$
the overnin board and policy #a(in body of the petitioner$ has as yet to
for#ulate the i#ple#entin rules for Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 and
directed the court)s attention to !!"A !e#orandu# 8ircular No. ++F95F001
dated 15 April 1995. Respondent -arin$ ho%ever$ Buestioned the validity of
!!"A !e#orandu# 8ircular No. ++F95F001$ as he clai#s that it %as passed by
the !etro !anila 8ouncil in the absence of a Buoru#.
Lude 6elen /autistaFRicafort issued a te#porary restrainin order on 2D
Septe#ber 1995$ eAtendin the validity of the +.R as a te#porary driver)s
license for t%enty #ore days. A preli#inary #andatory inCunction %as ranted
on 2> ,ctober 1995$ and the !!"A %as directed to return the respondent)s
driver)s license.
,n 14 Auust 1997$ the trial court rendered the assailed decision?5@ in
favor of the herein respondent and held that2
a. +here %as indeed no Buoru# in that :irst Reular !eetin of the !!"A
8ouncil held on !arch 2>$ 1995$ hence !!"A !e#orandu# 8ircular No. ++F95F
001$ authori&in con'scation of driver)s licenses upon issuance of a +.R$ is
void ab initio.
b. +he su##ary con'scation of a driver)s license %ithout 'rst ivin the
driver an opportunity to be heardI deprivin hi# of a property riht (driver)s
license) %ithout "45 9R,85SSI not 'llin (sic) in 8ourt the co#plaint of
supposed tra*c infraction$ cannot be Custi'ed by any leislation (and is) hence
unconstitutional.
M65R5:,R5$ the te#porary %rit of preli#inary inCunction is hereby #ade
per#anentI th(e) !!"A is directed to return to plaintiH his driver)s licenseI
th(e) !!"A is li(e%ise ordered to desist fro# con'scatin driver)s license
%ithout 'rst ivin the driver the opportunity to be heard in an appropriate
proceedin.
7n 'lin this petition$?D@ the !!"A reiterates and reinforces its aru#ent
in the court belo% and contends that a license to operate a #otor vehicle is
neither a contract nor a property riht$ but is a privilee subCect to reasonable
reulation under the police po%er in the interest of the public safety and
%elfare. +he petitioner further arues that revocation or suspension of this
privilee does not constitute a ta(in %ithout due process as lon as the
licensee is iven the riht to appeal the revocation.
+o buttress its aru#ent that a licensee #ay indeed appeal the ta(in
and the Cudiciary retains the po%er to deter#ine the validity of the
con'scation$ suspension or revocation of the license$ the petitioner points out
that under the ter#s of the con'scation$ the licensee has three options2
1. +o voluntarily pay the i#posable 'ne$
2. +o protest the apprehension by 'lin a protest %ith the !!"A
AdCudication 8o##ittee$ or
>. +o reBuest the referral of the +.R to the 9ublic 9rosecutor)s
,*ce.
+he !!"A li(e%ise arues that !e#orandu# 8ircular No. ++F95F001 %as
validly passed in the presence of a Buoru#$ and that the lo%er court)s 'ndin
that it had not %as based on a J#isapprehension of facts$K %hich the petitioner
%ould have us revie%. !oreover$ it asserts that thouh the circular is the basis
for the issuance of +.Rs$ the basis for the su##ary con'scation of licenses is
Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 itself$ and that such po%er is selfFeAecutory and
does not reBuire the issuance of any i#ple#entin reulation or circular.
!ean%hile$ on 12 Auust 2004$ the !!"A$ throuh its 8hair#an /ayani
:ernando$ i#ple#ented !e#orandu# 8ircular No. 04$ Series of 2004$ outlinin
the procedures for the use of the !etropolitan +ra*c +ic(et (!++) sche#e.
4nder the circular$ errin #otorists are issued an !++$ %hich can be paid at
any !etroban( branch. +ra*c enforcers #ay no loner con'scate drivers)
licenses as a #atter of course in cases of tra*c violations. All #otorists %ith
unredee#ed +.Rs %ere iven seven days fro# the date of i#ple#entation of
the ne% syste# to pay their 'nes and redee# their license or vehicle plates.?7@
7t %ould see#$ therefore$ that insofar as the absence of a pri#a facie
case to enCoin the petitioner fro# con'scatin drivers) licenses is concerned$
recent events have overta(en the 8ourt)s need to decide this case$ %hich has
been rendered #oot and acade#ic by the i#ple#entation of !e#orandu#
8ircular No. 04$ Series of 2004.
+he petitioner$ ho%ever$ is not precluded fro# reFi#ple#entin
!e#orandu# 8ircular No. ++F95F001$ or any other sche#e$ for that #atter$
that %ould entail con'scatin drivers) licenses. :or the proper i#ple#entation$
therefore$ of the petitioner)s future prora#s$ this 8ourt dee#s it appropriate
to #a(e the follo%in observations2
1. A license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege that the state may
withhold in the exercise of its police power.
+he petitioner correctly points out that a license to operate a #otor
vehicle is not a property riht$ but a privilee ranted by the state$ %hich #ay
be suspended or revo(ed by the state in the eAercise of its police po%er$ in the
interest of the public safety and %elfare$ subCect to the procedural due process
reBuire#ents. +his is consistent %ith our rulins in Pedro v. Provincial Board of
Rizal?<@ on the license to operate a coc(pit$ Tan v. Director of orestry?9@ and
!posa v. actoran?10@ on ti#ber licensin aree#ents$ and "#rigao $lectric
%o.& 'nc. v. (#nicipality of "#rigao?11@ on a leislative franchise to operate an
electric plant.
9etitioner cites a lon list of A#erican cases to prove this point$ such as
"tate ex. Rel. "#llivan$?12@ %hich states in part that$ Jthe leislative po%er to
reulate travel over the hih%ays and thorouhfares of the state for the
eneral %elfare is eAtensive. 7t #ay be eAercised in any reasonable #anner to
conserve the safety of travelers and pedestrians. Since #otor vehicles are
instru#ents of potential daner$ their reistration and the licensin of their
operators have been reBuired al#ost fro# their 'rst appearance. +he riht to
operate the# in public places is not a natural and unrestrained riht$ but a
privilee subCect to reasonable reulation$ under the police po%er$ in the
interest of the public safety and %elfare. +he po%er to license i#ports further
po%er to %ithhold or to revo(e such license upon nonco#pliance %ith
prescribed conditions.K
;i(e%ise$ the petitioner Buotes the 9ennsylvania Supre#e 8ourt in
%ommonwealth v. #n)$?1>@ to the eHect that2 JAuto#obiles are vehicles of
reat speed and po%er. +he use of the# constitutes an ele#ent of daner to
persons and property upon the hih%ays. 8arefully operated$ an auto#obile is
still a danerous instru#entality$ but$ %hen operated by careless or
inco#petent persons$ it beco#es an enine of destruction. +he ;eislature$ in
the eAercise of the police po%er of the co##on%ealth$ not only #ay$ but #ust$
prescribe ho% and by %ho# #otor vehicles shall be operated on the
hih%ays. ,ne of the pri#ary purposes of a syste# of eneral reulation of
the subCect #atter$ as here by the .ehicle 8ode$ is to insure the co#petency of
the operator of #otor vehicles. Such a eneral la% is #anifestly directed to
the pro#otion of public safety and is %ell %ithin the police po%er.K
+he co##on thread runnin throuh the cited cases is that it is the
leislature$ in the eAercise of police po%er$ %hich has the po%er and
responsibility to reulate ho% and by %ho# #otor vehicles #ay be operated
on the state hih%ays.
*. The ((DA is not vested with police power.
7n (etro (anila Development A#thority v. Bel+Air ,illage Association&
'nc.$?14@ %e cateorically stated that Rep. Act No. 7924 does not rant the
!!"A %ith police po%er$ let alone leislative po%er$ and that all its functions
are ad#inistrative in nature.
+he said case also involved the herein petitioner !!"A %hich clai#ed
that it had the authority to open a subdivision street o%ned by the /elFAir
.illae Association$ 7nc. to public tra*c because it is an aent of the state
endo%ed %ith police po%er in the delivery of basic services in !etro !anila.
:ro# this pre#ise$ the !!"A arued that there %as no need for the 8ity of
!a(ati to enact an ordinance openin Neptune Street to the public.
+racin the leislative history of Rep. Act No. 7924 creatin the !!"A$
%e concluded that the !!"A is not a local overn#ent unit or a public
corporation endo%ed %ith leislative po%er$ and$ unli(e its predecessor$ the
!etro !anila 8o##ission$ it has no po%er to enact ordinances for the %elfare
of the co##unity. +hus$ in the absence of an ordinance fro# the 8ity of
!a(ati$ its o%n order to open the street %as invalid.
Me restate here the doctrine in the said decision as it applies to the case
at bar2 police po%er$ as an inherent attribute of sovereinty$ is the po%er
vested by the 8onstitution in the leislature to #a(e$ ordain$ and establish all
#anner of %holeso#e and reasonable la%s$ statutes and ordinances$ either
%ith penalties or %ithout$ not repunant to the 8onstitution$ as they shall Cude
to be for the ood and %elfare of the co##on%ealth$ and for the subCects of
the sa#e.
6avin been loded pri#arily in the National ;eislature$ it cannot be
eAercised by any roup or body of individuals not possessin leislative po%er.
+he National ;eislature$ ho%ever$ #ay deleate this po%er to the president
and ad#inistrative boards as %ell as the la%#a(in bodies of #unicipal
corporations or local overn#ent units (;-4s). ,nce deleated$ the aents can
eAercise only such leislative po%ers as are conferred on the# by the national
la%#a(in body.
,ur 8onress deleated police po%er to the ;-4s in the ;ocal
-overn#ent 8ode of 1991.?15@ A local overn#ent is a Jpolitical subdivision of
a nation or state %hich is constituted by la% and has substantial control of local
aHairs.K?1D@ ;ocal overn#ent units are the provinces$ cities$ #unicipalities
and barangays$ %hich eAercise police po%er throuh their respective leislative
bodies.
!etropolitan or !etro !anila is a body co#posed of several local
overn#ent units. Mith the passae of Rep. Act No. 7924 in 1995$
!etropolitan !anila %as declared as a Nspecial develop#ent and
ad#inistrative reionN and the ad#inistration of N#etroF%ideN basic services
aHectin the reion placed under Na develop#ent authorityN referred to as the
!!"A. +hus2
. . . ?+@he po%ers of the !!"A are li#ited to the follo%in acts2 for#ulation$
coordination$ reulation$ i#ple#entation$ preparation$ #anae#ent$
#onitorin$ settin of policies$ installation of a syste# and ad#inistration.
There is no syllable in R. A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police
poer, let alone legislative poer. E%&' ()& M&(ro M*'il* o+',il )*-
'o( .&&' /&l&0*(&/ *'1 l&0i-l*(i%& po2&r. 4nli(e the leislative bodies of
the local overn#ent units$ ()&r& i- 'o pro%i-io' i' R. A. No. 3425 ()*(
&6po2&r- ()& MMDA or i(- o+',il (o 7&'*,( or/i'*',&-, *ppro%&
r&-ol+(io'- *'/ *ppropri*(& 8+'/- 8or ()& 0&'&r*l 2&l8*r&7 o8 ()&
i')*.i(*'(- o8 M&(ro M*'il*. +he !!"A is$ as ter#ed in the charter itself$ a
Ndevelop#ent authority.N I( i- *' *0&',1 ,r&*(&/ 8or ()& p+rpo-& o8
l*1i'0 /o2' poli,i&- *'/ ,oor/i'*(i'0 2i() ()& %*rio+- '*(io'*l
0o%&r'6&'( *0&',i&-, p&opl&9- or0*'i:*(io'-, 'o'"0o%&r'6&'(*l
or0*'i:*(io'- *'/ ()& pri%*(& -&,(or 8or ()& &;,i&'( *'/ &<p&/i(io+-
/&li%&r1 o8 .*-i, -&r%i,&- i' ()& %*-( 6&(ropoli(*' *r&*. All its
!"nctions are ad#inistrative in nat"re and these are actually su##ed up
in the charter itself$ vi&2
JSec. 2. 8reation of the !etropolitan !anila "evelop#ent Authority. FF FA A A.
+he !!"A shall perfor# plannin$ #onitorin and
coordinative functions$ and in the process eAercise
reulatory and supervisory authority over the delivery of
#etroF%ide services %ithin !etro !anila$ %ithout
di#inution of the autono#y of the local overn#ent units
concernin purely local #atters.K
O.
8learly$ the !!"A is not a political unit of overn#ent. +he po%er deleated
to the !!"A is that iven to the !etro !anila 8ouncil to pro#ulate
ad#inistrative rules and reulations in the i#ple#entation of the !!"A)s
functions. There is no grant o! a"thority to enact ordinances and
reg"lations !or the general el!are o! the inhabitants o! the
#etropolis.

?17@ (footnotes o#itted$ e#phasis supplied)
+herefore$ insofar as Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 is understood by the
lo%er court and by the petitioner to rant the !!"A the power to con'scate
and suspend or revo(e drivers) licenses witho#t need of any other legislative
enactment$ such is an unauthori&ed eAercise of police po%er.
-. "ec. ./f0 grants the ((DA with the d#ty to enforce existing tra1c r#les
and reg#lations.
Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7924 enu#erates the J:unctions and 9o%ers of
the !etro !anila "evelop#ent Authority.K +he contested clause in Sec. 5(f)
states that the petitioner shall Jinstall and ad#inister a sinle tic(etin syste#$
'A$ i#pose and collect 'nes and penalties for all (inds of violations of tra*c
rules and reulations$ %hether #ovin or non#ovin in nature$ and con'scate
and suspend or revo(e drivers) licenses in the enforcement of s#ch tra1c laws
and reg#lations$ the provisions of Rep. Act No. 41>D?1<@ and 9.". No. 1D05?19@
to the contrary not%ithstandin$K and that J(f)or this purpose$ the Authority
shall enforce all tra*c la%s and reulations in !etro !anila$ throuh its tra*c
operation center$ and #ay deputi&e #e#bers of the 9N9$ tra*c enforcers of
local overn#ent units$ duly licensed security uards$ or #e#bers of nonF
overn#ental orani&ations to %ho# #ay be deleated certain authority$
subCect to such conditions and reBuire#ents as the Authority #ay i#pose.K
+hus$ %here there is a tra*c la% or reulation validly enacted by the
leislature or those aencies to %ho# leislative po%ers have been deleated
(the 8ity of !anila in this case)$ the petitioner is not precluded G and in fact is
dutyFbound G to con'scate and suspend or revo(e drivers) licenses in the
eAercise of its #andate of transport and tra*c #anae#ent$ as %ell as the
ad#inistration and i#ple#entation of all tra*c enforce#ent operations$ tra*c
enineerin services and tra*c education prora#s.?20@
+his is consistent %ith our rulin in Bel+Air that the !!"A is a
develop#ent authority created for the purpose of layin do%n policies and
coordinatin %ith the various national overn#ent aencies$ people)s
orani&ations$ nonFovern#ental orani&ations and the private sector$ %hich
#ay enforce$ but not enact$ ordinances.
+his is also consistent %ith the funda#ental rule of statutory
construction that a statute is to be read in a #anner that %ould breathe life
into it$ rather than defeat it$?21@ and is supported by the criteria in cases of this
nature that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the
constitutionality of a statute.?22@
A last %ord. +he !!"A %as intended to coordinate services %ith #etroF
%ide i#pact that transcend local political boundaries or %ould entail hue
eApenditures if provided by the individual ;-4s$ especially %ith reard to
transport and tra*c #anae#ent$?2>@ and %e are a%are of the valiant eHorts
of the petitioner to untanle the increasinly tra*cFsnarled roads of !etro
!anila. /ut these laudable intentions are li#ited by the !!"A)s enablin la%$
%hich %e can but interpret$ and petitioner #ust be re#inded that its e2orts in
this respect m#st be a#thorized by a valid law& or ordinance& or reg#lation
arising from a legitimate so#rce.
=HERE>ORE$ the petition is "7S!7SS5".
!O ORDERED.
P#no& /%hairman0& A#stria+(artinez& %alle3o& "r.& and Tinga& 44.& concur.