G.R. No. 209479 , July 11, 2023
Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines (FEJODAP), et al., Petitioners, vs. Government of Manila City, Quezon City, Valenzuela City, Caloocan City, San Juan, Navotas, Las Piñas, Taguig, Pasay City, Parañaque City, Muntinlupa City, Mandaluyong City, Makati City, Pasig City, Pateros, Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are various transport operators and drivers associations. They assail the validity of ordinances enacted by respondent Local Government Units (LGUs) in Metro Manila from 2003 to 2005, which established their respective traffic codes. These ordinances granted LGU traffic enforcers the power to confiscate and detain driver’s licenses and issue temporary operator’s permits for traffic violations. Petitioners argue that these ordinances conflict with Republic Act No. 4136 (The Land Transportation and Traffic Code), which they claim vests the power to confiscate licenses and issue receipts exclusively in the Land Transportation Commissioner and duly designated law enforcement and peace officers. They specifically cite Section 29 of RA 4136. They further invoke Section 62 of RA 4136, which prohibits local governments from enacting ordinances in conflict with its provisions. Respondents, including the LGUs, MMDA, and LTO, defend the ordinances, asserting they were enacted under the police power and devolved authority granted by the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160). They also cite Section 5(f) of the MMDA Law (RA 7924), which authorizes the MMDA to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers’ licenses in Metro Manila, notwithstanding RA 4136. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that the LGU ordinances were valid exercises of power under the Local Government Code and that Section 5(f) of the MMDA Law expressly authorized the MMDA’s license confiscation power.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent LGUs, through their respective traffic codes/ordinances, and the MMDA, through the Metro Manila Traffic Code, have the authority to confiscate and detain driver’s licenses and issue temporary operator’s permits for traffic violations, or whether such power is exclusively vested in the Land Transportation Office (LTO) under Republic Act No. 4136 .

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The respondent LGUs and the MMDA have NO AUTHORITY to confiscate and detain driver’s licenses and issue temporary operator’s permits.
1. Exclusive Authority of LTO: The power to confiscate driver’s licenses and issue the corresponding temporary receipts is exclusively vested in the Land Transportation Office (LTO) under Section 29 of Republic Act No. 4136 . The law designates “Law enforcement and peace officers duly designated by the Commissioner” as the only ones authorized to perform this act. This is a specific grant of power that cannot be impliedly extended to other entities.
2. Local Government Code Does Not Grant This Power: While the Local Government Code (RA 7160) devolves the power to regulate traffic on streets and bridges to LGUs (Sections 447 and 458), this general grant of regulatory authority does not include the specific administrative function of confiscating licenses issued by the national government. The power to issue and confiscate driver’s licenses, which are official documents, remains a national function.
3. MMDA Law’s Grant is Invalid: Section 5(f) of the MMDA Law (RA 7924), which purports to grant the MMDA the power to confiscate licenses “notwithstanding” RA 4136, is unconstitutional. The MMDA is not a legislative unit with police power but a development authority. Congress cannot delegate the police power to it. Furthermore, the clause “notwithstanding RA 4136” constitutes an implied repeal, which is disfavored. For a repeal to be valid, it must be clear and manifest. Here, there is no irreconcilable conflict between the laws, as RA 4136’s specific grant of license confiscation power to the LTO can stand alongside the LGUs’ and MMDA’s general traffic regulation powers without the latter needing to confiscate licenses.
4. Doctrine of Operational Construction Inapplicable: The Court rejected the argument that the long-standing practice of LGU and MMDA enforcers confiscating licenses constitutes a binding operational construction. A practice that is contrary to law cannot be sustained.
5. Validity of Ordinances Upheld in Part, Struck Down in Part: The LGU traffic ordinances are valid insofar as they regulate traffic and impose fines and penalties. However, the specific provisions therein that authorize LGU traffic enforcers to confiscate driver’s licenses and issue temporary operator’s permits are declared NULL and VOID for being ultra vires and in conflict with RA 4136. The MMDA’s Metro Manila Traffic Code is likewise invalid to the extent it authorizes license confiscation by MMDA enforcers.
6. Clarification on Apprehension: The decision does not prevent LGU and MMDA traffic enforcers from apprehending violators and issuing traffic violation tickets. They may still report violations to the LTO for the latter to exercise its exclusive authority over license confiscation and suspension/revocation.