POSITION PAPER

I.

Background

Tuguegarao City is now facing major problems in traffic

congestion
within
the
Poblacion
mainly
due
to
the
loading/unloading activities in the roadside and faulty vehicle
parking manoeuvres.
Conscious efforts have been exerted by the Chief Local
Executive in implementing Ordinance 07 -2006 which is an
Ordinance regulating the establishment of, maintenance and
operation of parking areas/ terminals for public utility vehicles
within Tuguegarao City and Tuguegarao City Ordinance No. 02
-97 which is the Traffic Ordinance. Both City Ordinances expressly
prohibit establishment of terminals/ parking areas and entry of
public utility vehicles in Poblacion.
However, Illegal terminals/ parking areas have proliferated in
many parts of the City particularly in Barangays within the
Poblacion, thereby causing heavy traffic in the general area.
In Civil Case No. 8010 entitled GCVODA, et. Al. vs. City
Government of Tuguegarao, pending before Branch 1 of the
Tuguegarao RTC, said court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
enjoining the respondent Tuguegarao City Government
represented by Hon. Jefferson P. Soriano from doing any act that
would prevent the petitioners from using their terminals in Don
Domingo, Balzain and Brickstone from lawfully and peacefully
engaging in their transport services and from ordering or directing
the petitioners to use the Leonarda Terminal.
A proposed draft Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 07- 2006
was sponsored as a response to the call for an orderly community
and cope with the realities of urbanization and development
through locating parking areas/ terminals in areas which will not
cause adverse effect to the traffic flow in the City. Such amending
Ordinance was calendared to be in the order of agenda for the 6 th
City Councils regular session.
II.

Issue

WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN PASS AN ORDINANCE

AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 07- 2006 DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF
A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUCTION ISSUED BY RTC BRANCH 3

III.

Arguments

1. Exercise of Legislative Function

We submit that it is well within the mandate of the
Sanggunian to pass new Ordinances or amend existing
Ordinances to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of basic
services and facilities and promote the general welfare of the
public.
Paragraph (a) subparagraph (3) of Section 458 of RA 7160
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 states
that:
(a) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the legislative body of the
city, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds
for the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to
Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate
powers of the city as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and
shall:
xxx
(3) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code, enact
ordinances granting franchises and authorizing the issuance of
permits or licenses, upon such conditions and for such purposes
intended to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the
city and pursuant to this legislative authority shall:
(i) Fix and impose reasonable fees and charges for all
services rendered by the city government to private
persons or entities;
(ii) Regulate or fix license fees for any business or practice
of profession within the city and the conditions under which
the license for said business or practice of profession may
be revoked and enact ordinances levying taxes thereon;
(iii) Provide for and set the terms and conditions under
which public utilities owned by the city shall be operated
by the city government, and prescribe the conditions under
which the same may be leased to private persons or
entities, preferably cooperatives;
(iv) Regulate the display of and fix the license fees for
signs, signboards, or billboards at the place or places
where the profession or business advertised thereby is, in
whole or in part, conducted;
(v) Any law to the contrary notwithstanding, authorize and
license the establishment, operation, and maintenance of
cockpits, and regulate cockfighting and commercial
breeding of gamecocks: Provided, that existing rights
should not be prejudiced;
(vi) Subject to the guidelines prescribed by the Department
of Transportation and Communications, regulate the
operation of tricycles and grant franchises for the

operation thereof within the territorial jurisdiction of the

city;
(vii) Upon approval by a majority vote of all the members
of the sangguniang panlungsod: grant a franchise to any
person, partnership, corporation, or cooperative to do
business within the city; establish, construct, operate and
maintain ferries, wharves, markets or slaughterhouses; or
undertake such other activities within the city as may be
allowed by existing laws: Provided, That, cooperatives shall
be given preference in the grant of such a franchise.

xxx
Paragraph (v) and (vi) section (5) of the same section
states that:
(5) Approve ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and
effective delivery of the basic services and facilities as provided
for under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said services
and facilities, shall:
(v) Regulate the use of streets, avenues, alleys, sidewalks,
bridges, parks and other public places and approve the
construction, improvement repair and maintenance of the
same; establish bus and vehicle stops and terminals or
regulate the use of the same by privately-owned vehicles
which serve the public; regulate garages and the operation
of conveyances for hire; designate stands to be occupied
by public vehicles when not in use; regulate the putting up
of signs, signposts, awnings and awning posts on the
streets; and provide for the lighting, cleaning and
sprinkling of streets; and public places;
(vi) Regulate traffic on all streets and bridges; prohibit
encroachments or obstacles thereon, and when necessary
in the interest of public welfare, authorize the removal or
encroachments and illegal constructions in public places;

xxx
Article IV, Section 10, item number 3 of Republic Act 8755
otherwise known as the Tuguegarao City Charter also
provides that:
Subject to the provisions of the Local Government Code of
1991, the Sangguniang Panlungsod shall enact ordinances
granting franchises, and authorizing the issuance of permits and
licenses, upon such conditions and for such purposes intended to
promote the general welfare of the inhabitants in the City.

xxx
Section 4 of Ordinance No. 02-97, otherwise known as
the Traffic Code of Tuguegarao provides that:

Parking areas within the City shall be designated by the City

Council.

xxx
Clearly, it is the duty of the City Council to pass Ordinances
that regulate terminals/ parking areas to aid the growing
problems of traffic in the City.
JMC No. 01- 2008 of the DILG and the DOTC, specifically
Section 06 (amendments of ordinances, orders, rules and
regulations) also provides that all Local Chief Executives are
directed to amend all locally- issued ordinances and regulations
which are in conflict with the policies, standards and regulations
concerning public transportation.
However, the City Mayor does not have the power to amend
the laws. It is the City Council that has the power to amend or
repeal laws and consider recommendations from LCE, if there are
any. Such JMC of the DILG and the DOTC further supports the need
to review and amend locally issued Ordinances concerning public
transportation so as to conform with existing laws and
jurisprudence relating to public transportation.
The power to enact Ordinances and policy measures that will
benefit the greater number of stakeholders is vested by law to the
Sanggunian and shall not be restricted.
2. The proposed amending Ordinance is Valid
The proposed amending Ordinance is a valid Ordinance as it
conforms to the guidelines set forth by law.
The case of Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties Corporation and
PAGCOR lays down the requisites for an Ordinance to be valid.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Must
Must
Must
Must
Must
Must

not contravene the Constitution or any Statute

not be unfair or oppressive
not be partial or discriminatory
be general and consistent with public policy
not be unreasonable
not prohibit but only regulate

As cited in the provisions mentioned earlier, it is the duty of

the Council to enact laws for the welfare of the people. There is
nothing in our present laws that prohibits the council to enact
and/or amend laws. In fact, JMC 01-2008 encourages the review
and amendment of transportation related Ordinances as to
conform with the latest laws and jurisprudence. It is not unfair or
oppressive nor partial or discriminatory because it will apply to
every one of the same class regardless of gender, race or creed.
The proposed amending Ordinance does not prohibit the
establishment of terminals/ parking areas in Tuguegarao but only
regulates the areas where terminals/ parking areas can locate

wherein they will not cause adverse effect to the flow of traffic in
the general area.
After all, it must be remembered that Ordinance 07- 2006,
the Ordinance sought to be amended, already exists even before
the courts issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The Council is
not passing a new Ordinance, rather, the proposed draft is an
amending Ordinance to an already existing Ordinance, the
passage of which does not affect the pending civil case and will
not override the existing writ of preliminary injunction.
3. The Write of Preliminary Injunction does
expressly prohibit amending the Ordinance

not

Upon review of the Resolution promulgated by the RTC

Branch 3 on 26 December 2013 issuing the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, there are only two acts which the City Government of
Tuguegarao is restraint to perform, namely:
1. Prevent transport groups from using their terminals in Don
Domingo, Balzain and Brickstone and;
2. Order petitioners to use the Leonarda Terminal.
Nothing is mentioned in the Resolution prohibiting the
Council to pass an amendment to the Ordinance regulating the
establishment of, maintenance and operation of parking areas/
terminals for public utility vehicles within Tuguegarao City.
The enunciation of the Supreme Court in Rivulet AgroIndustrial Corporation vs Anthony Parungao, et. Al., G.R. No.
197507. January 14, 2013, is instructive:
Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court by
acting in opposition to its authority, justice, and dignity, and signifies
not only a willful disregard of the courts order, but such conduct which
tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law
into disrepute or, in some manner, to impede the due administration of
justice. To be considered contemptuous, an act must be clearly
contrary to or prohibited by the order of the court. Thus, a person
cannot be punished for contempt for disobedience of an order of the
Court, unless the act which is forbidden or required to be done
is clearly and exactly defined, so that there can be no reasonable
doubt or uncertainty as to what specific act or thing is forbidden or
required.

Citing DILG Opinion dated 03 February 2014, issued by DILG

RO 2, in reply to the query of Hon. Resuello on whether the City
Council can act on the application for franchise of One Way
Terminal, Inc. in the face of the Writ of Preliminary Injuction, the
DILG said that:
From the foregoing, in order to make a person or body liable for
contempt, the order or resolution must clearly define the act prohibited

by the court. The act prohibited can never be implied, otherwise,

it will be vulnerable to arbitrary exercise of discretion in its
execution or implementation. It is a requirement in this
jurisdiction that the decision, resolution or order of the court
be clearly stated.
It bears to stress once again that the dispositive portion of the
subject Resolution does not mention anything that prohibits the City
Council of Tuguegarao in approving application for franchise. Neither
any hint as to that effect is reflected in the body of the Resolution. But
the existence of the latter will not be enough since there is a
requirement to clearly express the act to be restrained by the
Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

Although it may be argued that DILG opinions are

interlocutory in nature and has no force and effect in law, the
courts nonetheless give great weight and respect to such
executive interpretations. In the absence of statutes and
jurisprudence regarding matters, opinions issued by the DILG
shall be respected as tertiary source of law.