GR 254001; (July, 2023) (Digest)

G.R. No. 254001, July 11, 2023
BAYYO ASSOCIATION, INC. AND ANSELMO D. PERWEG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION, PETITIONERS, VS. SECRETARY ARTHUR P. TUGADE, SECRETARY CARLOS S. DOMINGUEZ, SECRETARY WENDEL ELIOT AVISADO, AND ATTY. MARTIN B. DELGRA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Bayyo Association, Inc., an association of jeepney operators and drivers, and its President, Anselmo D. Perweg, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking to nullify paragraph 5.2 of Department Order (DO) No. 2017-011, known as the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP), issued by the Department of Transportation (DOTr). The PUVMP sets new specifications and procedures for public utility vehicles, requiring modernization with brand new and environmentally-friendly units. Petitioners argue that paragraph 5.2 constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative power and violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. They claim the provision forces the phase-out of traditional jeepneys, is confiscatory due to inadequate government subsidies, violates their right to livelihood, and contravenes the “Filipino First” Policy by favoring foreign vehicle manufacturers. Respondents, various government secretaries, counter that the Petition is procedurally infirm for violating the hierarchy of courts and failing to present a justiciable controversy, and that DO No. 2017-011 is a valid exercise of regulatory power pursuant to executive orders.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the Petition is procedurally infirm; and (2) whether paragraph 5.2 of DO No. 2017-011 is unconstitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the Petition for being procedurally infirm. The Court held that the petitioners failed to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, as they directly filed the Petition with the Supreme Court without showing compelling reasons to justify such direct filing. The Court also found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right to the writs of certiorari and prohibition, as they did not establish that the respondents acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the constitutional questions raised were not yet ripe for judicial review, as the petitioners relied on hypothetical scenarios and media reports rather than demonstrating an actual case or controversy involving a direct injury from the implementation of the DO. The Court emphasized that the issuance of DO No. 2017-011 is an executive and administrative function, and the petitioners’ remedy, if aggrieved by its implementation, lies first with the administrative bodies and lower courts. Consequently, the Court did not reach the substantive constitutional issues.