MMDA seeks consolidation of court cases
December 28, 2005 | 12:00am
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) chairman Bayani Fernando said yesterday he will ask the Supreme Court (SC) to consolidate all pending petitions against the agency "to once and for all resolve all issues and questions on the legal and constitutional mandate of the traffic body."
Fernando welcomed yesterday the latest SC ruling, which he clarified was actually in favor of the MMDA since it did not curtail the police powers of the MMDA, contrary to news reports.
MMDA lawyers secured yesterday a copy of the Dec. 5 ruling by the Second Division of the High Tribunal, which denied the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by the agency on the MMDA vs Garin case.
In the said petition, the SC ruled that the MMDA cannot confiscate a driver’s license for any traffic violation.
"This is what we in the MMDA have been doing. We do not confiscate licenses, but issue traffic citation tickets, the fines for which they have to pay at banks," Fernando pointed out.
The case stemmed from a petition filed by lawyer Dante Garin at the lower court. It questioned the authority of the MMDA to issue TVRs and confiscate licenses. Garin filed the suit after he was arrested in Parañaque City for a traffic violation.
He won the case and the MMDA filed an appeal with the SC.
In an interview with The STAR yesterday, Fernando explained that traffic aides will continue with their enforcement duties under the SC ruling.
"In the Garin vs MMDA case, we were just trying to take the opportunity for the SC to revisit the Bel-Air case," Fernando said.
In the Bel-Air vs MMDA case, homeowners of the Makati subdivision questioned the powers of the MMDA to open their village roads to public traffic. The SC ruled that such power does not belong to the MMDA, but to the local government unit concerned.
Fernando said MMDA lawyers would want a review of the case to contest specific excerpts of the ruling.
He said the MMDA must be given the opportunity to argue the agency’s mandate under its charter in the totality of all these cases like the Garin vs MMDA and the Bel-Air vs MMDA, and all other pending related petitions.
"That is why we were asking for an oral argument so we can present all these issues related to the MMDA charter. So that once and for all, we can get a good definition of our charter and establish the real purpose of the MMDA," he stressed.
The SC 2nd Division had denied the MMDA’s appeal for the Court to revoke its April 15 ruling on the clipping the MMDA’s powers.
The Court found no substantial arguments to warrant a reversal of the earlier ruling, which made it clear that the MMDA had no police powers under the law.
It ruled that a section of the law that created the MMDA, which authorizes it to confiscate, suspend or revoke licenses, is an "unauthorized exercise of police power."
The ruling had put an end to the MMDA’s plan for a single traffic ticketing system in Metro Manila.
Fernando welcomed yesterday the latest SC ruling, which he clarified was actually in favor of the MMDA since it did not curtail the police powers of the MMDA, contrary to news reports.
MMDA lawyers secured yesterday a copy of the Dec. 5 ruling by the Second Division of the High Tribunal, which denied the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by the agency on the MMDA vs Garin case.
In the said petition, the SC ruled that the MMDA cannot confiscate a driver’s license for any traffic violation.
"This is what we in the MMDA have been doing. We do not confiscate licenses, but issue traffic citation tickets, the fines for which they have to pay at banks," Fernando pointed out.
The case stemmed from a petition filed by lawyer Dante Garin at the lower court. It questioned the authority of the MMDA to issue TVRs and confiscate licenses. Garin filed the suit after he was arrested in Parañaque City for a traffic violation.
He won the case and the MMDA filed an appeal with the SC.
In an interview with The STAR yesterday, Fernando explained that traffic aides will continue with their enforcement duties under the SC ruling.
"In the Garin vs MMDA case, we were just trying to take the opportunity for the SC to revisit the Bel-Air case," Fernando said.
In the Bel-Air vs MMDA case, homeowners of the Makati subdivision questioned the powers of the MMDA to open their village roads to public traffic. The SC ruled that such power does not belong to the MMDA, but to the local government unit concerned.
Fernando said MMDA lawyers would want a review of the case to contest specific excerpts of the ruling.
He said the MMDA must be given the opportunity to argue the agency’s mandate under its charter in the totality of all these cases like the Garin vs MMDA and the Bel-Air vs MMDA, and all other pending related petitions.
"That is why we were asking for an oral argument so we can present all these issues related to the MMDA charter. So that once and for all, we can get a good definition of our charter and establish the real purpose of the MMDA," he stressed.
The SC 2nd Division had denied the MMDA’s appeal for the Court to revoke its April 15 ruling on the clipping the MMDA’s powers.
The Court found no substantial arguments to warrant a reversal of the earlier ruling, which made it clear that the MMDA had no police powers under the law.
It ruled that a section of the law that created the MMDA, which authorizes it to confiscate, suspend or revoke licenses, is an "unauthorized exercise of police power."
The ruling had put an end to the MMDA’s plan for a single traffic ticketing system in Metro Manila.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
- Latest
- Trending
Trending
Latest
