FACTS
The original complaint was filed by Dante S. David, a
lawyer, who claimed that the rear license plate, of his car was removed by the
Metropolitan Traffic Command while the vehicle was parked on Escolta. He
questioned the petitioner's act on the ground not only that the car was not
illegally parked but, more importantly, that there was no ordinance or law
authorizing such removal. He asked that the practice be permanently enjoined
and that in the meantime a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary
injunction be issued.
Judge Gonong issued a temporary restraining order and
the writ of preliminary injunction .The parties also agreed to submit the case
for resolution on the sole issue of whether there was a law or ordinance
authorizing the removal of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles.
Judge Gonong held that LOI 43, which the defendant had
invoked, did not empower it "to detach, remove and confiscate vehicle
plates of motor vehicles illegally parked and unattended as in the case at bar.
It merely authorizes the removal of said vehicles when they are obstacles to
free passage or continued flow of traffic on streets and highways." At any
rate, he said, the LOI had been repealed by PD 1605. Moreover, the defendant
had not been able to point to any MMC rule or regulation or to any city
ordinance to justify the questioned act.
ISSUE:
1.
Whether or not LOI
43 is valid.
2.
Whether or not
private respondent’s license can be confiscated.
HELD:
1. Yes. The petitionerits insists that LOI 43 remains
in force despite the issuance of PD 1605. It contends that there is no
inconsistency between the two measures because the former deals with illegally
parked vehicles anywhere in the Philippines whereas the latter deals with the
regulation of the flow of traffic in the Metro Manila area only.
Private respondent argues that LOI 43 has been repealed
by PD 1605, which specifies all the sanctions available against the various
traffic violations, including illegal parking. He stresses that removal and
confiscation of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles is not one of
them, the penalties being limited in the decree to imposition of fine and
suspension or revocation of driver's licenses or certificates of public
convenience, etc. He claims
that removal and confiscation of the license plate without notice and hearing
violates due process because such license plate is a form of property protected
by the Bill of Rights against unlawful deprivation.
The Court holds that LOI 43 is valid but may be applied
only against motor vehicles that have stalled in the public streets due to some
involuntary cause and not those that have been intentionally parked in
violation of the traffic laws. A careful reading of the above decree will show
that removal and confiscation of the license plate of any illegally parked
vehicle is not among the specified penalties. Moreover, although the
Metropolitan Manila Commission is authorized by the decree to "otherwise
discipline" and "impose higher penalties" on traffic violators,
whatever sanctions it may impose must be "in such amounts and under such
penalties as are herein prescribed."
It would appear that what the LOI punishes is not a
traffic violation but a traffic obstruction, which is an altogether different
offense. A violation imports an intentional breach or disregard of a rule, as
where a driver leaves his vehicle in a no-parking area against a known and
usually visible prohibition. Contrary to the common impression, LOI 43 does not
punish illegal parking per se
but parking of stalled vehicles, i.e., those that involuntarily stop on the
road due to some unexpected trouble such as engine defect, lack of gasoline,
punctured tires, or other similar cause. The vehicle is deemed illegally parked
because it obstructs the flow of traffic, but only because it has stalled. The
obstruction is not deliberate. In fact, even the petitioner recognizes that
"there is a world of difference between a stalled vehicle and an illegally
parked and unattended one" and suggests a different treatment for either.
"The first means one which stopped unnecessarily or broke down while the
second means one which stopped to accomplish something, including temporary
rest.
2.
No. It is not covered by LOI 43 thus subject to a different penalty. As it has
not been shown that the private respondent's motor vehicle had stalled because
of an engine defect or some other accidental cause and, no less importantly,
that it had stalled on the road for a second or subsequent time, confiscation
of the license plate cannot be justified under LOI 43. And neither can that
sanction be sustained under PD 1605, which clearly provides that "in case
of traffic violations, (even) the driver's license shall not be
confiscated," let alone the license plate of the motor vehicle. If at all,
the private respondent may be held liable for illegal parking only and
subjected to any of the specific penalties mentioned in Section 3 of the
decree.
Gonong decision will
show that the measures under
consideration do not pass the first criterion because they do not conform to
existing law. The pertinent law is PD 1605. PD
1605 does not allow either the removal of license plates or the confiscation
of driver's licenses for traffic violations
committed in Metropolitan Manila. There is nothing in the following provisions
of the decree authorizing the Metropolitan
Manila Commission to impose such sanctions. In fact, the provisions prohibit the
imposition of such sanctions in
Metropolitan Manila. The Commission was allowed to "impose fines and
otherwise discipline" traffic violators only "in such amounts
and under such penalties as are herein
prescribed," that is, by the decree itself. Nowhere is the removal of license plates
directly imposed by the decree or at least allowed by it to be imposed by the Commission. Notably, Section 5
thereof expressly provides that "in case of
traffic violations, the driver's license shall not be confiscated." These
restrictions are applicable to the Metropolitan Manila Authority and
all other local political subdivisions
comprising Metropolitan Manila, including the Municipality of Mandaluyong. `The requirement that the municipal
enactment must not violate existing law
explains itself. Local political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue
of a valid delegation of legislative power from
the national legislature. They are mere agents vested with what is
called the power ofsubordinate legislation. As delegates of the Congress, the local government unit cannot
contravene but must obey at all times the will of
their principal.
