MMDA v Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.

GR 135962 March 27, 2000

FACTS:On December 30, 1995, respondent received from petitioner a notice requesting the former to open its private road, Neptune Street, to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996. On the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter separating the subdivision from Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished.Respondent instituted a petition for injunction against petitioner, praying for the issuance of a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall.

ISSUE:WON MMDA has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic as an agent of the state endowed with police power.

HELD:A ‘local government’ is a “political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs”. It is a “body politic and corporate” – one endowed with powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory (LGC of 1991).

Our Congress delegated police power to the LGUs in Sec.16 of the LGC of 1991. It empowers the sangguniang panlalawigan, panlungsod and bayan to “enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the [province, city or municipality] and its inhabitants pursuant to Sec.16 of the Code and in the proper exercise of the [LGU’s corporate powers] provided under the Code.”

There is no syllable in RA 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the LGUs, there is no grant of authority in RA 7924 that allows the MMDA to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is merely a “development authority” and not a political unit of government since it is neither an LGU or a public corporation endowed with legislative power. The MMDA Chairman is not an elective official, but is merely appointed by the President with the rank and privileges of a cabinet member.

In sum, the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the LGUs, acting through their respective legislative councils, that possess legislative power and police power.

The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by the MMDA is illegal.

Basco vs PAGCOR GR 91649 (May 14, 1991)

GR 91649 197 SCRA 52, 65May 14, 1991

FACTS:Petitioners seek to annul the PAGCOR charter – PD 1869 – for being allegedly contrary to morals, public policy and order, monopolistic & tends toward “crony economy”, waiving the Manila City government’s right to impose taxes & license fees, and violating the equal protection clause, local autonomy and other state policies in the Constitution.

ISSUES:Whether PD 1869 is valid.

HELD:Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear & unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The grounds for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. The question of wether PD 1869 is a wise legislation is up for Congress to determine.

The power of LGUs to regulate gambling through the grant of franchises, licenses or permits was withdrawn by PD 771, and is now vested exclusively on the National Government. Necessarily, the power to demand/collect license fees is no longer vested in the City of Manila.

LGUs have no power to tax Government instrumentalities. PAGCOR, being a GOCC, is therefore exempt from local taxes. The National Government is supreme over local governments. As such, mere creatures of the State cannot defeat national policies using the power to tax as a “tool for regulation”. The power to tax cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. The power of LGUs to impose taxes & fees is always subject to limitation provided by Congress.

The principle of local autonomy does not make LGUs sovereign within a state, it simply means decentralization.

A law doesn’t have to operate in equal force on all persons/things. The equal protection clause doesn’t preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is not unreasonable/arbitrary. The mere fact that some gambling activities are legalized under certain conditions, while others are prohibited, does not render the applicable laws unconstitutional.

Mathay v CA

Guanzon v CA