Are security guards/traffic officers allowed to take

your drivers license?

COUNTER FLOW By James Deakin (The Philippine Star) | Updated November 6, 2013 - 12:00am
(http://www.philstar.com/motoring/2013/11/06/1253341/are-security-guards/traffic-officers-allowed-take-your-driverslicense#ixzz3TrbOZzwK)

So I get this frantic call from a friend. He has been pulled over for a traffic violation in Makati and they
want to take his license away from him. Several hours later, another friend calls up; hes been caught
speeding on the NLEX. He asks the exact same question. The following morning, I get a text from a friend
asking what his rights are when the security guards of a village he visited accidentally gave his license to
another driver.
Rinse and repeat this scene on a weekly basis, and youll understand why I decided to save my friends
some precious cellphone load and write this article once again; this time with feeling.
Honestly, next to: What car should I buy? the second most asked question I get as a motoring editor
is: Can the MAPSA/MMDA/toll patrol guys/village security guards really take my license?
The short answer here is: No. Nobody, except the issuing body, has the right to take your license
away. And even then, you are entitled to your day in court first.
So why then do they get away with it? Because we let them. And it needs to stop. Now.
Because just as a lie told often enough becomes the truth, a law broken enough times becomes
legalwhich loosely translated is anarchy. So before it does (if it already hasnt) I asked my favorite
lawyer ever (because he is the only one that doesnt charge me for phone-in questions) Atty. Rod Vera, to
explain it to us on my weekly podcast using very small words. He was so moved by the on-air question,
he even wrote an article about it.
In his column on Manilaspeak.com, Atty Rod cites Republic Act 4136, which clearly shows us who
can and cannot take your license away.
A drivers license is a permit issued to us by the Philippine government granting us
authorization to drive on roads and highways. Republic Act 4136 enacted back in 1964
created and empowered the Land Transportation Office (LTO) for the control of the
operation of vehicles and licensing of drivers. Under the same law (Section 19), no
person shall operate a motor vehicle without procuring a drivers license. Likewise, all
drivers MUST CARRY their license at ALL TIMES when operating a motor vehicle.
Furthermore, in Section 56, driving without license a crime does make. Moreover, the
LTO can only confiscate your license if you are in violation of a traffic rule (Section 29).
Lastly, under Section 62, no city council can enforce a resolution or ordinance that is in
conflict with the LTO law.
It is so clear that even a committee could understand it. So lets start with them first, shall we?
Village associations will argue that their developments are private property and they can choose who
they allow in or out. True. But their perimeter walls do not grant them immunity from Republic Acts, or
worse, force YOU to break the law.
Private entities cannot choose what part of the law to enforce and not what to enforce. If village
guards allow unlicensed adults to drive in the village, should they allow unlicensed minors to drive as
well? And since we are in subject of selective violations, can the village association through the guards
look the other way in other crimes? No village association is given any police power or legislative power.
Also, village associations can only control their homeowners only through the power of a contract, Atty.
Rod goes on to explain in his column.

They will argue of course that they need to identify all visitors for our own security. Fair enough. But if
that were true, then there shouldnt be a problem with any government issued ID. Yet, no. Thats not how
they roll.
Now what about the MAPSA and the tollway cops? This is where it gets tricky. Makati, as we all know,
is an autonomous region, or so it would have us believe. But once again, you only need to read section
62 of RA 4136 for the answer. Or better yet, make it your ringtone: No city council can enforce a
resolution or ordinance that is in conflict with the LTO law.
The tollway patrol has a better leg to stand on as they are deputized by the LTO, but again, how can
they revoke your license without your right to a fair trial. They can say youre speeding, and even show
you the picture, but are you not innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Since when has a traffic
infringement been a non-bailable offense?
So the next time someone wants to take your license, ask them if theyre licensed to do so.

Who is allowed to confiscate a drivers license?

COUNTER FLOW By James Deakin (The Philippine Star) | Updated December 18, 2013 - 12:00am

Read more: http://www.philstar.com/motoring/2013/12/18/1269194/who-allowed-confiscate-driverslicense#ixzz3TsAII5wH

In a previous column, I raised the question about whether traffic enforcers and village security guards
are allowed to take your drivers license whether to grant you access to a gated community, or in the
event of a traffic infringement. I basically challenged village associations, the MAPSA (Makati traffic
officers) and other law enforcers who are not deputized by the LTO, to justify how they can confiscate a
license they never issued in the first place, citing Republic Act 4136, which I had translated into human
for me by Atty. Rod Vera.
He states: A drivers license is a permit issued to us by the Philippine government granting us
authorization to drive on roads and highways. Republic Act 4136 enacted back in 1964 created and
empowered the Land Transportation Office (LTO) for the control of the operation of vehicles and licensing
of drivers. Under the same law (Section 19), no person shall operate a motor vehicle without procuring a
drivers license. Likewise, all drivers MUST CARRY their license at ALL TIMES when operating a motor
vehicle. Furthermore, in Section 56, driving without license a crime does make. Moreover, the LTO can
only confiscate your license if you are in violation of a traffic rule (Section 29). Lastly, under Section 62, no
city council can enforce a resolution or ordinance that is in conflict with the LTO law.
The article hit a nerve. It was shared online over 20,000 times in the first few days alone. It also caught
the attention of the Makati City Halls legal department.
In a letter addressed to me, dated November 21, the city legal officer pointed out that the local
government code of 1991 has given local government units police powers, which is an inherent authority
of government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order and security
The law also empowers LGUs to implement their own traffic management program, hence the
enactment of the Makati City Traffic Code of 2003. The code was later amended in 2011to impose stricter
rules and penalties on drunk driving and other violations.

The rest of the letter is nosebleed stuff, but suffice to say that section 62, which clearly states that no
city council can enforce a resolution or ordinance that is in conflict with the LTO law was indeed
overturned and superseded by congress and the Supreme Courtwhich is another way of saying,
nothing can supersede this law except for another law that says it can.
Business ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1
So, to answer to the burning question: Makati, and any other city that has amended their ordinances
according to the local government code of 1991, can legally confiscate your license. This, however, is not
the case for the MMDA, much less our village security guards or homeowners associations.
So now it is crystal clear. And even though I do not personally agree with it, I would like to thank the
city of Makati for being the first to clarify it. Thank you.
But...
While I can fully appreciate the clarification (it was all I was asking for to begin with) on a personal
note, I feel it sets a dangerous precedent because it encourages a pizza-parlor-court systemRegional
Trial court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, Super Supreme. Lets not even get into the Managers
Special.
Im not here to argue the lawthere are people who are paid a lot more money than I am to do that for
meI am only concerned that these precedents cascade down and the lines get blurred even further,
creating all sorts of legal implications and ridiculous confrontations.
Take the case of the exclusive village down south that stopped a lady from entering the village to pick
up her daughter in the private school she is enrolled in, because she had forgotten to bring her license
with her. She offered every other form of government ID, but they wouldnt budge. She could open a bank
account with the amount of legal forms of ID she was offering, but she couldnt get it to open a simple
gate. They demanded her license.
After posting the story on my Facebook page, many residents argued that they had issues with
unlicensed drivers in their village and the guards were only doing their jobs. Fair enough. But it brings us
back to RA4136. Likewise, all drivers MUST CARRY their license at ALL TIMES when operating a motor
vehicle. Furthermore, in Section 56, driving without license a crime does make.
By asking for your license, and replacing it with a cheap laminated gate pass, it places you in clear
violation of this law, which any good lawyer could argue is grave coercion under the revised penal code.
And while the guards will argue that your license is safe at the gate, the lady in question could also use
the same logic and argue that her license is safely secured at home.
The guards wouldnt budge. She had an appointment she was already late for with her daughters
teacher. Solution? They told her to catch a cab. Yes, seriously. So she parked her car, hailed a cab, and
drove in.
Now guess what the first thing they asked the cab driver? You guessed it. License.
Which brings us back to square one. Or RA 4136.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 130230. April 15, 2005]

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. DANTE

O. GARIN, respondent.

DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

At issue in this case is the validity of Section 5(f) of Republic Act No. 7924 creating the
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), which authorizes it to confiscate and
suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the enforcement of traffic laws and regulations.
The issue arose from an incident involving the respondent Dante O. Garin, a lawyer, who
was issued a traffic violation receipt (TVR) and his drivers license confiscated for parking
illegally along Gandara Street, Binondo, Manila, on 05 August 1995. The following statements
were printed on the TVR:
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO REPORT TO THE MMDA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS CENTER
PORT AREA MANILA AFTER 48 HOURS FROM DATE OF APPREHENSION FOR
DISPOSITION/APPROPRIATE ACTION THEREON. CRIMINAL CASE SHALL BE FILED FOR
FAILURE TO REDEEM LICENSE AFTER 30 DAYS.
VALID AS TEMPORARY DRIVERS LICENSE FOR SEVEN DAYS FROM DATE OF
APPREHENSION.[1]

Shortly before the expiration of the TVRs validity, the respondent addressed a letter [2] to
then MMDA Chairman Prospero Oreta requesting the return of his drivers license, and
expressing his preference for his case to be filed in court.
Receiving no immediate reply, Garin filed the original complaint [3] with application for
preliminary injunction in Branch 260 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque, on 12
September 1995, contending that, in the absence of any implementing rules and regulations, Sec.
5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 grants the MMDA unbridled discretion to deprive erring motorists of
their licenses, pre-empting a judicial determination of the validity of the deprivation, thereby
violating the due process clause of the Constitution. The respondent further contended that the
provision violates the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of legislative

authority, allowing as it does the MMDA to fix and impose unspecified and therefore
unlimited - fines and other penalties on erring motorists.
In support of his application for a writ of preliminary injunction, Garin alleged that he
suffered and continues to suffer great and irreparable damage because of the deprivation of his
license and that, absent any implementing rules from the Metro Manila Council, the TVR and
the confiscation of his license have no legal basis.
For its part, the MMDA, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, pointed out that
the powers granted to it by Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 are limited to the fixing, collection and
imposition of fines and penalties for traffic violations, which powers are legislative and
executive in nature; the judiciary retains the right to determine the validity of the penalty
imposed. It further argued that the doctrine of separation of powers does not preclude
admixture of the three powers of government in administrative agencies. [4]
The MMDA also refuted Garins allegation that the Metro Manila Council, the governing
board and policy making body of the petitioner, has as yet to formulate the implementing rules
for Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 and directed the courts attention to MMDA Memorandum
Circular No. TT-95-001 dated 15 April 1995. Respondent Garin, however, questioned the
validity of MMDA Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-001, as he claims that it was passed by the
Metro Manila Council in the absence of a quorum.
Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort issued a temporary restraining order on 26 September 1995,
extending the validity of the TVR as a temporary drivers license for twenty more days. A
preliminary mandatory injunction was granted on 23 October 1995, and the MMDA was
directed to return the respondents drivers license.
On 14 August 1997, the trial court rendered the assailed decision [5] in favor of the herein
respondent and held that:
a.
There was indeed no quorum in that First Regular Meeting of the MMDA Council
held on March 23, 1995, hence MMDA Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-001, authorizing
confiscation of drivers licenses upon issuance of a TVR, is void ab initio.
b.
The summary confiscation of a drivers license without first giving the driver an
opportunity to be heard; depriving him of a property right (drivers license) without DUE
PROCESS; not filling (sic) in Court the complaint of supposed traffic infraction, cannot be
justified by any legislation (and is) hence unconstitutional.
WHEREFORE, the temporary writ of preliminary injunction is hereby made permanent;
th(e) MMDA is directed to return to plaintiff his drivers license; th(e) MMDA is likewise
ordered to desist from confiscating drivers license without first giving the driver the
opportunity to be heard in an appropriate proceeding.

In filing this petition,[6] the MMDA reiterates and reinforces its argument in the court below
and contends that a license to operate a motor vehicle is neither a contract nor a property right,
but is a privilege subject to reasonable regulation under the police power in the interest of the
public safety and welfare. The petitioner further argues that revocation or suspension of this

privilege does not constitute a taking without due process as long as the licensee is given the
right to appeal the revocation.
To buttress its argument that a licensee may indeed appeal the taking and the judiciary
retains the power to determine the validity of the confiscation, suspension or revocation of the
license, the petitioner points out that under the terms of the confiscation, the licensee has three
options:
1. To voluntarily pay the imposable fine,
2. To protest the apprehension by filing a protest with the MMDA Adjudication Committee,
or
3. To request the referral of the TVR to the Public Prosecutors Office.

The MMDA likewise argues that Memorandum Circular No. TT-95-001 was validly passed
in the presence of a quorum, and that the lower courts finding that it had not was based on a
misapprehension of facts, which the petitioner would have us review. Moreover, it asserts
that though the circular is the basis for the issuance of TVRs, the basis for the summary
confiscation of licenses is Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 itself, and that such power is selfexecutory and does not require the issuance of any implementing regulation or circular.
Meanwhile, on 12 August 2004, the MMDA, through its Chairman Bayani Fernando,
implemented Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 2004, outlining the procedures for the use
of the Metropolitan Traffic Ticket (MTT) scheme. Under the circular, erring motorists are issued
an MTT, which can be paid at any Metrobank branch. Traffic enforcers may no longer confiscate
drivers licenses as a matter of course in cases of traffic violations. All motorists with
unredeemed TVRs were given seven days from the date of implementation of the new system to
pay their fines and redeem their license or vehicle plates.[7]
It would seem, therefore, that insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to enjoin the
petitioner from confiscating drivers licenses is concerned, recent events have overtaken the
Courts need to decide this case, which has been rendered moot and academic by the
implementation of Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 2004.
The petitioner, however, is not precluded from re-implementing Memorandum Circular No.
TT-95-001, or any other scheme, for that matter, that would entail confiscating drivers licenses.
For the proper implementation, therefore, of the petitioners future programs, this Court deems
it appropriate to make the following observations:

1.

A license to operate a motor vehicle is a privilege that the state may withhold in the
exercise of its police power.

The petitioner correctly points out that a license to operate a motor vehicle is not a property
right, but a privilege granted by the state, which may be suspended or revoked by the state in
the exercise of its police power, in the interest of the public safety and welfare, subject to the

procedural due process requirements. This is consistent with our rulings in Pedro v. Provincial
Board of Rizal[8] on the license to operate a cockpit, Tan v. Director of Forestry [9] and Oposa v.
Factoran[10] on timber licensing agreements, and Surigao Electric Co., Inc. v. Municipality of
Surigao[11] on a legislative franchise to operate an electric plant.
Petitioner cites a long list of American cases to prove this point, such as State ex. Rel.
Sullivan,[12] which states in part that, the legislative power to regulate travel over the highways
and thoroughfares of the state for the general welfare is extensive. It may be exercised in any
reasonable manner to conserve the safety of travelers and pedestrians. Since motor vehicles are
instruments of potential danger, their registration and the licensing of their operators have been
required almost from their first appearance. The right to operate them in public places is not a
natural and unrestrained right, but a privilege subject to reasonable regulation, under the police
power, in the interest of the public safety and welfare. The power to license imports further
power to withhold or to revoke such license upon noncompliance with prescribed conditions.
Likewise, the petitioner quotes the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Funk,
to the effect that: Automobiles are vehicles of great speed and power. The use of them
constitutes an element of danger to persons and property upon the highways. Carefully
operated, an automobile is still a dangerous instrumentality, but, when operated by careless or
incompetent persons, it becomes an engine of destruction. The Legislature, in the exercise of the
police power of the commonwealth, not only may, but must, prescribe how and by whom motor
vehicles shall be operated on the highways. One of the primary purposes of a system of general
regulation of the subject matter, as here by the Vehicle Code, is to insure the competency of the
operator of motor vehicles. Such a general law is manifestly directed to the promotion of public
safety and is well within the police power.
[13]

The common thread running through the cited cases is that it is the legislature, in the
exercise of police power, which has the power and responsibility to regulate how and by whom
motor vehicles may be operated on the state highways.

2.

The MMDA is not vested with police power.

In Metro Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[14] we categorically

stated that Rep. Act No. 7924 does not grant the MMDA with police power, let alone legislative
power, and that all its functions are administrative in nature.
The said case also involved the herein petitioner MMDA which claimed that it had the
authority to open a subdivision street owned by the Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. to public
traffic because it is an agent of the state endowed with police power in the delivery of basic
services in Metro Manila. From this premise, the MMDA argued that there was no need for the
City of Makati to enact an ordinance opening Neptune Street to the public.
Tracing the legislative history of Rep. Act No. 7924 creating the MMDA, we concluded that
the MMDA is not a local government unit or a public corporation endowed with legislative

power, and, unlike its predecessor, the Metro Manila Commission, it has no power to enact
ordinances for the welfare of the community. Thus, in the absence of an ordinance from the
City of Makati, its own order to open the street was invalid.
We restate here the doctrine in the said decision as it applies to the case at bar: police power,
as an inherent attribute of sovereignty, is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature
to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and
ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall
judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same.
Having been lodged primarily in the National Legislature, it cannot be exercised by any
group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. The National Legislature,
however, may delegate this power to the president and administrative boards as well as the
lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units (LGUs). Once delegated,
the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national
lawmaking body.
Our Congress delegated police power to the LGUs in the Local Government Code of 1991.
A local government is a political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law
and has substantial control of local affairs. [16] Local government units are the provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays, which exercise police power through their respective legislative
bodies.
[15]

Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a body composed of several local government units. With
the passage of Rep. Act No. 7924 in 1995, Metropolitan Manila was declared as a "special
development and administrative region" and the administration of "metro-wide" basic services
affecting the region placed under "a development authority" referred to as the MMDA. Thus:
. . . [T]he powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation,
coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting
of policies, installation of a system and administration. There is no syllable in R. A. No.
7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Even the Metro
Manila Council has not been delegated any legislative power. Unlike the legislative
bodies of the local government units, there is no provision in R. A. No. 7924 that
empowers the MMDA or its Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and
appropriate funds for the general welfare" of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The
MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a "development authority." It is an agency
created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various
national government agencies, people's organizations, non-governmental organizations
and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the
vast metropolitan area. All its functions are administrative in nature and these are
actually summed up in the charter itself, viz:
Sec. 2. Creation of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. -- -x x x.
The MMDA shall perform planning, monitoring and coordinative functions, and
in the process exercise regulatory and supervisory authority over the delivery of
metro-wide services within Metro Manila, without diminution of the autonomy
of the local government units concerning purely local matters.

.
Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the
MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and
regulations in the implementation of the MMDAs functions. There is no grant of
authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants
of the metropolis. [17] (footnotes omitted, emphasis supplied)

Therefore, insofar as Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 is understood by the lower court and by
the petitioner to grant the MMDA the power to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers
licenses without need of any other legislative enactment, such is an unauthorized exercise of police
power.
3.

Sec. 5(f) grants the MMDA with the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations.

Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7924 enumerates the Functions and Powers of the Metro Manila
Development Authority. The contested clause in Sec. 5(f) states that the petitioner shall install
and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds
of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and
confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers licenses in the enforcement of such traffic laws and
regulations, the provisions of Rep. Act No. 4136[18] and P.D. No. 1605[19] to the contrary
notwithstanding, and that (f)or this purpose, the Authority shall enforce all traffic laws and
regulations in Metro Manila, through its traffic operation center, and may deputize members of
the PNP, traffic enforcers of local government units, duly licensed security guards, or members
of non-governmental organizations to whom may be delegated certain authority, subject to such
conditions and requirements as the Authority may impose.
Thus, where there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or those
agencies to whom legislative powers have been delegated (the City of Manila in this case), the
petitioner is not precluded and in fact is duty-bound to confiscate and suspend or revoke
drivers licenses in the exercise of its mandate of transport and traffic management, as well as
the administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering
services and traffic education programs.[20]
This is consistent with our ruling in Bel-Air that the MMDA is a development authority
created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national
government agencies, peoples organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private
sector, which may enforce, but not enact, ordinances.
This is also consistent with the fundamental rule of statutory construction that a statute is
to be read in a manner that would breathe life into it, rather than defeat it, [21] and is supported
by the criteria in cases of this nature that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the
constitutionality of a statute.[22]
A last word. The MMDA was intended to coordinate services with metro-wide impact that
transcend local political boundaries or would entail huge expenditures if provided by the
individual LGUs, especially with regard to transport and traffic management, [23] and we are

aware of the valiant efforts of the petitioner to untangle the increasingly traffic-snarled roads of
Metro Manila. But these laudable intentions are limited by the MMDAs enabling law, which we
can but interpret, and petitioner must be reminded that its efforts in this respect must be authorized
by a valid law, or ordinance, or regulation arising from a legitimate source.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.

[1]

Records, p. 10.

[2]

Id., p. 11.

[3]

Id., p. 1.

[4]

Memorandum for Defendants, Records, pp. 178 -185.

[5]

Id., pp. 187-190, penned by Hon. Helen Bautista-Ricafort.

[6]

Records, pp. 197-225.

[7]

Sec. 7, Mem. Circ. No. 04, Series of 2004.

[8]

56 Phil 123 (1931).

[9]

G.R. No. L-24548, 27 October 1983, 125 SCRA 302.

[10]

G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993, 224 SCRA 792.

[11]

G.R. No. L-22766, 30 August 1968, 24 SCRA 898.

[12]

63 P. 2d 653, 108 ALR 1156, 1159.

[13]

323 Pa. 390, 186 A. 65 (108 ALR 1161).

[14]

G.R. No. 135962, 27 March 2000, 328 SCRA 836, penned by Justice Reynato S. Puno.

[15]

Sec. 16 of Book I of the Local Government Code of 1991 states:

General Welfare.-Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily
implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and
those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local
government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote
health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of
appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity
and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort
and convenience of their inhabitants.

[16]

Supra, Note 18, p. 844, citing Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, A Commentary, pp. 95-98 [1996], citing UP Law
Center Revision Project, Part II, 712 [1970] citing Sady, Improvement of Local Government Administration for
Development Purpose, Journal of Local Administration Overseas 135 [July 1962].

[17]

Ibid., pp. 849-860.

[18]

Entitled An Act to Compile the Laws Relative to Land Transportation and Traffic Rules, to Create a Land Transportation
Commission and for Other Purposes, approved on 20 June 1964. Sec. 29 thereof states:
Confiscation of drivers license.- Law enforcement and peace officers duly designated by the Commissioner shall,
in apprehending any driver for violations of this Act or of any regulations issued pursuant thereto, or of local traffic rules
and regulations, confiscate the license of the driver concerned and issue a receipt prescribed and issued by the

Commission therefore which shall authorize the driver to operate a motor vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy-two
hours from the time and date of issue of said receipt. The period so fixed in the receipt shall not be extended, and shall
become invalid thereafter. Failure of the driver to settle his case within fifteen days from the date of apprehension will
cause suspension and revocation of his license. (emphasis supplied)
[19]

Entitled Granting the Metropolitan Manila Commission Certain Powers Related to Traffic Management and Control in
Metropolitan Manila, Providing Penalties, and for Other Purposes, dated 21 November 1978.
SEC. 5.- In case of traffic violations, the drivers license shall not be confiscated but the erring driver shall be
immediately issued a traffic citation ticket prescribed by the Metropolitan Manila Commission which shall state the
violation committed, the amount of fine imposed for the violation and an advice that he can make payment to the city or
municipal treasurer where the violation was committed or to the Philippine National Bank or Philippine Veterans Bank
or their branches within seven days from the date of issuance of the citation ticket. (emphasis supplied)

[20]

Section 3(b), Rep. Act No. 7924.

[21]

Thus, in Briad Agro Development Corporation v. dela Serna, (G.R. No. 82805, 29 June 1989, 174 SCRA 524) we upheld the grant of
concurrent jurisdiction between the Secretary of Labor or its Regional Directors and the Labor Arbiters to pass upon
money claims, among other cases, the provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding, as
enunciated in Executive Order No. 111. Holding that E.O. 111 was a curative law intended to widen workers access to the
Government for redress of grievances, we held,the Executive Order vests in Regional Directors jurisdiction, [t]he
provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding, it would have rendered such a proviso - and the
amendment itself - useless to say that they (Regional Directors) retained the self-same restricted powers, despite such an
amendment. It is fundamental that a statute is to be read in a manner that would breathe life into it, rather than defeat
it. (See also Philtread Workers Union v. Confessor, G.R. No. 117169, 12 March 1997, 269 SCRA 393.)

[22]

In Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, (G.R. No. 60549, 26 October 1983, 125 SCRA 221) we upheld the constitutionality of Presidential Decree
No. 564, the Revised Charter of the Philippine Tourism Authority, and Proclamation No. 2052 declaring certain
municipalities in the province of Cebu as tourist zones. The law granted the Philippine Tourism authority the right to
expropriate 282 hectares of land to establish a resort complex notwithstanding the claim that certificates of land transfer
and emancipation patents had already been issued to them thereby making the lands expropriated within the coverage of
the land reform area under Presidential Decree No. 2, and that the agrarian reform program occupies a higher level in the
order of priorities than other State policies like those relating to the health and physical well-being of the people, and that
property already taken for public use may not be taken for another public use. We held that, (t)he petitioners have failed
to overcome the burden of anyone trying to strike down a statute or decree whose avowed purpose is the legislative
perception of the public good. A statute has in its favor the presumption of validity. All reasonable doubts should be
resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law. The courts will not set aside a law as violative of the Constitution except
in a clear case (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56). And in the absence of factual findings or evidence to rebut the presumption of
validity, the presumption prevails (Ermita-Malate Hotel, etc. v. Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849; Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA
424).
In the same manner, we upheld in Dumlao v. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-52245, 22 January 1980, 95 SCRA 392) the
first paragraph of Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 providing that any retired elective provincial, city or municipal
official, who has received payment of the retirement benefits and who shall have been 65 years of age at the
commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected is disqualified to run for the same elective local office
from which he has retired. Invoking the need for the emergence of younger blood in local politics, we affirmed that the
constitutional guarantee is not violated by a reasonable classification based upon substantial distinctions, where the
classification is germane to the purpose of the law and applies to all those belonging to the same class. (See also Tropical
Homes, Inc, v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. L-48672, 31 July 1987 152 SCRA 540; Peralta v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L47791, 11 March 1978, 82 SCRA 55; People v. Vera, GR No. 45685, 65 Phil 56 [1937].)

10 Things That Drivers Should Know (Updated May 25, 2011)

1. MMDA Enforcers are not allowed to group together while apprehending a motorist. They
are not even allowed to stand together in groupsof two (2) or more, except in actual times
of special operations (e.g. apprehending groups of smoke-belching/colorum buses).
2. Swerving is not a traffic violation per se. It is defined as a movement wherein vehicles
shift from a lane to another. However, it can constitute the offense of reckless driving if it is
done without precautions (e.g. swerving in an abrupt and careless manner, swerving without
the use of signals, swerving across solid lines).
Swerving can also constitute the offense of Disregarding Traffic Signs if there are signs
present that explicitly prohibit swerving in the area.A driver's license cannot be confiscated
by a Traffic Enforcer during traffic apprehensions except on the following situations:
3. A driver's license cannot be confiscated by a Traffic Enforcer during traffic apprehensions
except on the following situations:
1. The driver was involved in a traffic accident
2. The driver has accumulated three (3) or more unsettled violations
3. The driver has been apprehended for the following violations:

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Allowing another person to use driver's license

Broken sealing wire
Broken taximeter seal
Colorum operation (cargo/passenger vehicle)
Driving against traffic
Fake driver's license
Fake/altered taximeter seal
Fake/altered sealing wire
Fast/defective/non-operational/tampered taxi meter
Flagged up meter
Illegal or unauthorized counter-flow
Illegal transfer of plates/tags/stickers
Joined/reconnected sealing wire
No driver's ID
Ignoring Organized Bus Route (OBR) interval timers (for 2nd offense)
Skipping or bypassing designated OBR terminals or loading bays (for
2nd offense)

Operating on contractual basis

Out of line operation
Overcharging (with or without conductor) (for the 2nd offense)

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Overspeeding
Refusal to convey passengers to destination/trip-cutting (Taxis and
Public Utility Vehicles)
Refusal to render service to public (Taxis and Public Utility Vehicles)
Tampered sealing wire
Tampered taximeter seal
Tampering of OR/CR/CPC & other documents (spurious documents)
Undue preference/unjust discrimination
Using motor vehicle in commission of crime

The above-mentioned administrative violations also require a minimum of 2 hours seminar

(for the drivers) at the Traffic Academy.
However, any driver who has committed three (3) or more unpaid violations, whether
administrative or moving, shall also be subject to attending seminars, whose length shall be
based on the results of the diagnostic exam (exam that will determine the contents of the
seminar progress), which will be administered by the Agency.
*Note: If the license is to be confiscated, the Traffic Enforcer should inform the driver of the
reason/s for the confiscation and the ticket validity.
If the driver refuses to surrender his driver's license, his plate may be detached pursuant to
Section 74 & 75, MC 89-105.
4. Private Vehicles are not allowed to use the yellow lane except when they are about to
turn - provided that they start shifting lanes upon seeing the transition lane (broken white
lines painted diagonally), that you can see around 50 meters away from an intersection.
However, selective apprehension of private vehicles using the yellow lane is highly
prohibited.The yellow lanes (1st and 2nd lanes in EDSA) are only for City Buses. City Buses
are not allowed to go beyond the yellow lanes. If they do so, they will be apprehended for
violating the yellow lane policy.
Provincial buses are also not allowed to use the yellow lane. Instead, they are encouraged
to use the third lane.
5. Each Traffic Enforcer has his/her own written mission order issued by the MMDA Central
Admin. Apprehended drivers are free to ask for the apprehending officer's mission order,
which includes his area of responsibility, time of duty, official function. It also indicates
whether or not the enforcer is authorized to issue tickets.
6. Traffic Enforcers should issue TVR in complete uniform, with visible nameplates. Traffic
Enforcers are instructed to accomplish the TVR (Traffic Violation Receipt) without any delay
or argument on the road, so as to avoid traffic congestion.
7. The Apprehending Enforcer is allowed to issue another TVR for Towing Fee. If the owner
of the impounded vehicle fails to release his vehicle after payment of fine in the stipulated

date, the impounding officer shall issue a separate TVR indicating no. of days it has
remained at the impounding area.
8. Before apprehending, the Traffic Enforcer should flag down the vehicle and lead it to the
roadside where it will not obstruct the flow of traffic. Traffic Enforcers should courteously
inform the driver of his violation.
9. Traffic Enforcers are not allowed to ask drivers to alight from their vehicles while the
apprehension is taking place. Most importantly, Traffic Enforcers are not allowed to ask or
receive bribe money.
10. During traffic apprehensions, the following can be considered as a valid driver's license:

ID Plastic Card
DLR / Temporary Driver's License
TOP (Temporary Operator's Permit)
International Driver's License
Foreign License
The Traffic Enforcer should exercise extra diligence in verifying the veracity of the data or
documents presented.
If you encounter any Traffic Enforcer violating any of these, get the name of the Traffic
Enforcer indicated on his/her name plate, and submit a letter of complaint addressed to the
Traffic Adjudication Board (TAB), MMDA Bldg. EDSA cor. Orense St. Guadalupe Nuevo,
Makati City, within 5 days after the apprehension.
In case you are involved in an argument with a Traffic Enforcer, call the MMDA Hotline 136,
or the Metrobase at 0917-527-7304. Ask the Metrobase to send inspectors to go to the
place where the argument is taking place for proper investigation.
You may also e-mail complaints against erring Traffic Enforcers to the MMDA
thru email@mmda.gov.ph. Include full details of the incident (attach photos or videos if
possible), so that they will be able to act promptly on the matter.