In a 25-page en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the SC also voided three DPWH orders (Nos. 74, 215 and 123), saying the department has no authority to declare certain expressways limited access facilities.
Under the law, the SC said it is the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) which is authorized to administer and enforce all laws, rules and regulations in the field of transportation and to regulate related activities.
"Since the DPWH has no authority to regulate activities relative to transportation, the Toll Regulatory Board cannot derive its power from the DPWH to issue regulations governing limited access facilities. The DPWH cannot delegate a power or function which it does not possess in the first place," it said.
Under DPWH Order No. 74 issued on April 3, 1993, the DPWH designated the Balintawak-Tabang section of the North Luzon Expressway and the Nichols-Alabang section of the South Luzon Expressway as limited access highways subject to the rules and regulations which the DPWH, through the TRB, might impose.
On the other hand, DPWH Order No. 215 issued in June 1998 declared the R-1 expressway, C-5 link expressway and the R-1 extension of the Manila-Cavite toll expressway limited access facilities.
In July 2001, the DPWH amended Administrative Order No. 1, through Department Order No. 123, allowing motorcycles with 400 cc or above engine displacements on the limited access highways.
The SC decision stemmed from the petition filed by the Freedom Riders motorcyclists’ group seeking to lift the ban on all types of motorcycles on the North and South Luzon expressways.
In its petition, the Freedom Riders asked the SC to reverse and set aside the March 24, 2003 ruling of the Makati regional trial court upholding the motorcycle ban.
The group argued that the ban was unconstitutional since it deprived them of using the expressways despite the fact that they paid for its construction and rehabilitation through their taxes.
In favoring the DPWH, the SC said it is not convinced that there are studies showing that motorcycles are safe modes of transport, adding that the use of public highways by motor vehicles is subject to regulation as an exercise of the government’s police power.
"We find that AO 1 does not impose unreasonable restrictions. It merely outlines several precautionary measures, to which tollway users must adhere. Petitioners are not being deprived of their right to use the limited access facility. They are merely being required, just like the rest of the public, to adhere to the rules on how to use the facility," it said.