8/9/2019 Improper Exercise of Police Power. Lucena Grand Terminal,MMDA,PPI

1/4

IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POLICEPOWER

LUCENA GRAND CENTRALTERMINAL, INC. v. JAC LINERG.R. No. 148339. February 23, 2005

 Two ordinances were enacted by theSangguniang Panlungsod of Lucena with

the objective of alleviating the traccongestion said to have been caused by

the existence of various bus and jeepney terminals within the city. City 

Ordinance 1631 grants franchise to theLucena Grand entral Terminal! "nc. toconstruct! #nance! establish! operateand maintain common bus$ jeepney

terminal facility in the ity of Lucena.

City Ordinance 1778! on the other hand!strips out all the temporary terminals inthe ity of Lucena the right to operate

which as a result favors only the LucenaGrand entral Terminal! "nc.

 The %egional Trial ourt of Lucena

declared ity &rdinance '()' as a validexcercise of police power while

declaring ity &rdinance '**+ as nulland void for being invalid. Petitioner

Lucena Grand entral Terminal! "nc.#led its ,otion for %econsiderationwhich was denied. Lucena thenelevated it via petition for review under

%ule - before the ourt. The ourtreferred the petition to the ourt of 

/ppeals 0/1 with which it hasconcurrent jurisdiction. The /

dismissed the petition and armed thechallenged orders of the trial court. "tsmotion for reconsideration having beendenied by the /! Lucena now comes to

the ourt via petition for review toassail the 2ecision and %esolution of 

the /

Issue:

3hether the ity of Lucena properlyexercised its police power when it

enacted ity &rdinance 4os. '()' and'**+

Ruling:

Ordinance directin !"#$ic "ti$it%ve&ic$e' t( $(ad and "n$(ad at a

'!eci)c #"' ter*ina$ i' an inva$ide+erci'e ( !($ice !(-er and "nd"etain ( !rivate !r(!ert%.

/rming the decision of the ourt of /ppeals! the petition of Lucena Grandentral Terminal! "nc.is 254"52 by theSupreme ourt.

 The 6uestioned ordinances having beenenacted with the objective of relievingtrac congestion in the ity of Lucena!

involve public interest warranting theinterference of the State. The #rstre6uisite for the proper exercise of police power is thus present.

7ut the ordinances go beyond what isreasonably necessary to solve thetrac problem. /dditionally! since thecompulsory use of the terminaloperated by petitioner would subjectthe users thereof to fees! rentals andcharges! such measure is unduly

oppressive! as correctly found by theappellate court.

/s for petitioner8s claim that thechallenged ordinances have actuallybeen proven e9ective in easing traccongestion: 3hether an ordinance ise9ective is an issue di9erent fromwhether it is reasonably necessary. "t isits reasonableness! not itse9ectiveness! which bears upon itsconstitutionality. "f the constitutionality

of a law were measured by itse9ectiveness! then even tyrannical lawsmay be justi#ed whenever they happento be e9ective.

;ence! &rdinance 4o. '()' is valid!having been issued in the exercise of the police power of the ityGovernment of Lucena insofar as the

8/9/2019 Improper Exercise of Police Power. Lucena Grand Terminal,MMDA,PPI

2/4

grant of franchise to the Lucena Grandentral Terminal! "nc.! to construct!#nance! establish! operate and maintaincommon bus$jeepney terminal facility inthe ity of Lucena.

Sec. -0c1 of &rdinance 4o. '()' isillegal and ultra vires because itcontravenes the provisions of %epublic/ct 4o. *'(TheLocal Government ode?.

ity &rdinance 4o. '**+ is null andvoid! the same being also an ultra viresact of the ity Government of Lucenaarising from an invalid! oppressive andunreasonable exercise of the policepower.

MMDA v. GarinG.R. No. 130230, !ri" 15, 2005, #CR176FACTS/

2ante &. Garin! a lawyer! was

issued a trac violation receipt 0T@%1

and his driver8s license was con#scated

for par=ing illegally. Garin wrote to then

,,2/ hairman Prospero &reta

re6uesting the return of his license and

expressed his preference for his case tobe #le in ourt. 3ithout an immediate

reply from the chairman! Garin #led for

a preliminary injunction assailing

among others that Sec 0f1 of %/ *AB-

violates the constitutional prohibition

against undue delegation of legislative

authority! allowing ,,2/ to #x and

impose unspeci#ed and unlimited #nes

and penalties. %T rule in his favor!

directing ,,2/ to return his licenseand for the authority to desist from

con#scating driver8s license without

#rst giving the driver the opportunity to

be heard in an appropriate proceeding.

 Thus this petition.

ISSUE/

3hether or not ,,2/ is vested with

Police Power to con#scate and suspend

or revo=e driver8s license in the

enforcement of trac rules and

regulations

RULING/

T&e MMDA i' n(t ve'ted -it&

!($ice !(-er0 it cann(t

c(n)'cate1'"'!end1rev(e a

driver2' $icen'e in t&e a#'ence ( a

tra3c $a- (r re"$ati(n va$id$%

enacted #% $a- (r (rdinance.

"t was concluded that ,,2/ is

not a local government unit of a public

corporation endowed with legislativepower and it has no power to enact

ordinances for the welfare of the

community.

Police power! as an inherent

attribute of sovereignty is the power

vested in the legislature to ma=e!

ordain! establish all manner of

wholesome and reasonable laws!statutes and ordinances either with

penalties of without! not repugnant to

the constitution! as they shall judge to

be for good and welfare of the

commonwealth and for subjects of the

same.

 There is no provision in %/ *AB-

that empowers ,,2/ or its council to

>enact ordinance! approve resolutions

and appropriate funds for the general

welfare of the inhabitants of ,etro

,anila.? "t is an agency created for the

purpose of laying down policies and

coordinating with the various national

government agencies! People8s

&rganiCations! 4G&s and private sector

for the ecient and expeditious

8/9/2019 Improper Exercise of Police Power. Lucena Grand Terminal,MMDA,PPI

3/4

delivery of services. /ll its functions are

administrative in nature.

P&i$. Pre'' In'tit"e v. COMELECG.R. No. 119694. $ay 22, 1995

FACTS/ 

&,5L5 issued resolution B**Bdirecting newspapers to provide providefree print space of not less than onehalf 0'DB1 page for use as >&,5L5Space? which shall be allocated by theommission! free of charge! among allcandidates within the area in which the

newspaper! magaCine or periodical iscirculated to enable the candidates toma=e =nown their 6uali#cations! theirstand on public issues and theirplatforms and programs of government.

Philippine Press "nstitute! a non$stoc=!non$pro#t organiCation of newspaperand magaCine publishers as=s the ourt

to declare said resolutionunconstitutional and void on the groundthat it violates the prohibition imposedby the onstitution upon thegovernment! and any of its agencies!against the ta=ing of private property

for public use without justcompensation.

 The &ce of the Solicitor General! onbehalf of &,5L5 alleged that theresolution does not impose upon thepublishers any obligation to providefree print space in the newspapers. "tmerely established guidelines to befollowed in connection with theprocurement of >&,5L5 space?. /ndif it is viewed as mandatory! the samewould nevertheless be valid as anexercise of the police power of theState$ a permissible exercise of thepower of supervision or regulation ofthe &,5L5 over the communicationand information operations of printmedia enterprises during the electionperiod to safeguard and ensure a fair!impartial and credible election.

ISSUE/ 

3hether the resolution was a validexercise of the power of eminentdomainE

4ELD/

C(*!e$$in !"#$i'&er' t( d(nate!rint '!ace a*("nt' t( 5tain2 (!rivate !r(!ert%.

4o. The court held that the resolutiondoes not constitute a valid exercise ofthe power of eminent domain. Tocompel print media companies todonate >&,5L5$space? amounts to>ta=ing? of private personal property forpublic use or purposes without there6uisite just compensation. The extentof the ta=ing or deprivation is not

8/9/2019 Improper Exercise of Police Power. Lucena Grand Terminal,MMDA,PPI

4/4

insubstantialF this is not a case of a deminimis temporary limitation orrestraint upon the use of privateproperty. The monetary value of thecompulsory >donation!? measured bythe advertising rates ordinarily charged

by newspaper publishers whether incities or in non$urban areas! may bevery substantial indeed.

 The threshold re6uisites for a lawfulta=ing of private property for public useare the necessity for the ta=ing and thelegal authority to e9ect the ta=ing. Theelement of necessity for the ta=ing hasnot been shown by respondent&,5L5. "t has not been suggestedthat the members of PP" are unwilling tosell print space at their normal rates to&,5L5 for election purposes. "ndeed!the unwillingness or reluctance of&,5L5 to buy print space lies at the

heart of the problem. Similarly! it hasnot been suggested! let alonedemonstrated! that &,5L5 has beengranted the power of eminent domaineither by the onstitution or by thelegislative authority. / reasonable

relationship between that power andthe enforcement and administration ofelection laws by &,5L5 must beshownF it is not casually to be assumed.

 The ta=ing of private property for publicuse is! of course! authoriCed by theonstitution! but not without paymentof >just compensation? 0/rticle """!Section A1. /nd apparently thenecessity of paying compensation for>&,5L5 space? is precisely what issought to be avoided by respondentommission.