Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Legaspi v City of Cebu of the following officers: Jan 22 1999 – RTC declared Ordinance No.

Jan 22 1999 – RTC declared Ordinance No. 1664 as null and void
G.R. No. 159110, December 10, 2013 – for violating due process - In both procedural and substantive
TOPIC: Local government a) Chairman, CITOM due process, a hearing is always a pre-requisite; depriving its
Petitioner: VALENTINO L. LEGASPI b) Chairman, Committee on Police, Fire and Penology owner of the use thereof at the sole determination of any traffic
Respondents: CITY OF CEBU, T.C. (TITO) SAYSON AND c) Asst. City Fiscal Felipe Belciña enforcer or regular PNP personnel or Cebu City Traffic Law
RICARDO HAPITAN Enforcement Personnel.
Pon: Bersamin, 2 consolidated cases 3.1 Any person who tampers or tries to release an immobilized or - the owner of the immobilized vehicle shall have to undergo all
clamped motor vehicle by destroying the denver boot vehicle these ordeals at the mercy of the Traffic Law Enforcer who, as the
FACTS immobilizer or other such special gadgets, shall be liable for its Ordinance in question mandates, is the arresting officer,
- constitutionality and validity of one ordinance on the ground of loss or destruction and shall be prosecuted for such loss or prosecutor, Judge and collector.
due process by authorizing the immobilization of offending destruction under pain or penalty under the Revised Penal Code
vehicles through the clamping of tires. and any other existing ordinance of the City of Cebu for the CA – reversed RTC, declared Ord 1664 valid. LGC general grant
criminal act, in addition to his/her civil liabilities under the Civil of the police power – general welfare clause
- Jan 27 1997 – Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cebu – Ordinance Code of the Philippines; Provided that any such act may not be two branches: One branch attaches itself to the main trunk of
1664 - authorize the traffic enforcers of Cebu City to immobilize compromised nor settled amicably extrajudicially. municipal authority, and relates to such ordinances and regulations
any motor vehicle violating the parking restrictions and as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers
prohibitions defined in Ordinance No. 801 (Traffic Code of Cebu 3.2 Any immobilized vehicle which is unattended and constitute an and duties conferred upon the municipal council by law. The
City). obstruction to the free flow of traffic or a hazard thereof shall be second branch of the clause is much more independent of the
- the vehicle immobilizer may not be removed or released without towed to the city government impounding area for safekeeping and specific functions of the council, and authorizes such ordinances as
its owner or driver paying first to the City Treasurer of Cebu City may be released only after the provision of Section 3 hereof shall shall seem necessary and proper to provide for health, safety,
through the Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) all the accumulated have been fully complied with. prosperity and convenience of the municipality and its inhabitants.
penalties for all prior traffic law violations that remain unpaid or - Ordinance 1664 may be deemed a legitimate exercise of the
unsettled, plus the administrative penalty of Five Hundred Pesos 3.3 Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance shall, police power
(P500.00) for the immobilization of the said vehicle upon conviction, be penalized with imprisonment of not less than
one (1) month nor more than six (6) months or of a fine of not less Hence, certiorari petitions
Section 1. POLICY – It is the policy of the government of the City than Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) nor more than Five
of Cebu to immobilize any motor vehicle violating any provision Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), or both such imprisonment and fine ISSUES
of any City Ordinance on Parking Prohibitions or Restrictions, at the discretion of the court.[2] 1. Whether Ordinance No. 1664 was enacted within the
more particularly Ordinance No. 801, otherwise known as the ambit of the legislative powers of the City of Cebu -
Traffic Code of Cebu City, as amended, in order to have a smooth - July 29, 1997 – two lawyers (father and son) brought suit seeking YES
flow of vehicular traffic in all the streets in the City of Cebu at all the declaration of Ordinance No. 1644 as unconstitutional for
times. being in violation of due process and for being contrary to law, and 2. Whether Ordinance No. 1664 complied with the
damages requirements for validity and constitutionality,
Section 2. IMMOBILIZATION OF VEHICLES – Any vehicle - Jaban Sr – parked his car in a paying parking area but his car was particularly the limitations set by the Constitution and
found violating any provision of any existing ordinance of the City immobilized after 10 mins; car impounded for 3 days, had to pay the relevant statutes - YES
of Cebu which prohibits, regulates or restricts the parking of 4.2k fine without court hearing or due process of reason why the
vehicles shall be immobilized by clamping any tire of the said car was immobilized HELD
violating vehicle with the use of a denver boot vehicle immobilizer - happened again on Nov 20 while car was parked properly in a WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitions for review on
or any other special gadget designed to immobilize motor vehicles. parking lot in front of the San Nicolas Pasil market, had to pay certiorari for their lack of merit; AFFIRMS the decision
For this particular purpose, any traffic enforcer of the City (regular 1,5k fine promulgated on June 16, 2003 by the Court of Appeals; and
PNP Personnel or Cebu City Traffic Law Enforcement Personnel) May 19 – Jaban Jr - secluded place where there was no sign ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
is hereby authorized to immobilize any violating vehicle as prohibiting parking, paid 1.4k
hereinabove provided. RATIO
August 11, 1997, Valentino Legaspi – sued in RTC Cebu to Tests for a valid ordinance (formal: 1 and 2; substantive: 3)
Section 3. PENALTIES – Any motor vehicle, owner or driver demand the delivery of personal property, declaration of nullity of 1. must be within the corporate powers of the local
violating any ordinance on parking prohibitions, regulations and/or the Traffic Code of Cebu City, and damages. government unit to enact
restrictions, as may be provided under Ordinance No. 801, as -July 29 1997 – left his car outside the gate of his house, occupying 2. must be passed according to the procedure prescribed
amended, or any other existing ordinance, shall be penalized in part of the road and the sidewalk to make way for the vehicle of by law,
accordance with the penalties imposed in the ordinance so violated, the anay exterminator who had asked to be allowed to unload his 3. must also conform to the following substantive
provided that the vehicle immobilizer may not be removed or materials and equipment with the assurance that the unloading requirements
released without its owner or driver paying first to the City would not take too long;[9] that while waiting for the anay 1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
Treasurer of Cebu City through the Traffic Violations Bureau exterminator to finish unloading, the phone in his office inside the (2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
(TVB) all the accumulated penalties for all prior traffic law house had rung, impelling him to go into the house to answer the (3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
violations that remain unpaid or unsettled, plus the administrative call; that after a short while, his son-in-law informed him that (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
penalty of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) for the immobilization of unknown persons had clamped the front wheel of his car; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy;
the said vehicle, and receipts of such payments presented to the and
concerned personnel of the bureau responsible for the release of City Attorney of Cebu said officers only upheld the law by (6) must not be unreasonable
the immobilized vehicle, unless otherwise ordered released by any clamping the vehicles of the plaintiffs
Compliance of Ordinance No. 1664 with the formal requirements 2. substantive due process - adequate reason for taking otherwise, the transgressors would evade liability by simply
- Was the enactment of Ordinance No. 1664 within the corporate away a person’s life, liberty, or property. In other driving away.
powers of the LGU of the City of Cebu? Yes words, substantive due process looks to whether there is - Legaspi refers to a different ruling in the Astillero case – but SC
- no issues were raised against the formalities of the enactment of sufficient justification for the government’s action. says this is an irrelevant ruling - it should be the RTC that had
the ordinance, so compliance is presumed - Ordinance No. 1664 met the substantive tests of validity and improperly acted for so deciding the Astillero case despite the
- Congress enacted the LGC as the implementing law for the constitutionality by its conformity with the limitations under the appeals in these cases being already pending in the CA.
delegation to the various LGUs of the State’s great powers, Constitution and the statutes, as well as with the requirements of - the same RTC should have exercised a “becoming modesty” on
namely: the police power, the power of eminent domain, and the fairness and reason, and its consistency with public policy. the issue of the constitutionality of the same ordinance that the
power of taxation, but with parameters and limitations - terms encroachment and obstacles used in Section 458 of the Constitution required the majority vote of the Members of the
- police power cannot be exercised by any group or body of LGC, supra, were broad enough to include illegally parked Court sitting en banc to determine.
individuals not possessing legislative power. The National vehicles or whatever else obstructed the streets, alleys and
Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the President and sidewalks
administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of
municipal corporations or local government units. - Petitioners say that they were not accorded the opportunity to
protest the clamping, towing, and impounding of the vehicles, or
LGC Section 458. Powers, Duties, Functions and even to be heard and to explain their side prior to the
Composition. – (a) The sangguniang panlungsod, as the immobilization of their vehicles; and that the ordinance was
legislative body of the city, shall enact ordinances, oppressive and arbitrary for that reason.
approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the - any vehicle owner may protest such action of a traffic enforcer or
general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant PNP personnel enforcing the ordinance. – the ordinance permits
to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the release of a vehicle upon a protest directly made to the
the corporate powers of the city as provided for under Chairman of CITOM; or to the Chairman of the Committee on
Section 22 of this Code, and shall: Police, Fire and Penology of the City of Cebu; or to Asst. City
(5) Approve ordinances which shall ensure the efficient Prosecutor Felipe Belciña, even without payment of the fine
and effective delivery of the basic services and facilities - none of the petitioners resorted to this - did not diminish the
as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and in fairness and reasonableness of the escape clause written in the
addition to said services and facilities, shall: ordinance.
(v) Regulate the use of streets, avenues, alleys, - the immobilization of a vehicle by clamping pursuant to the
sidewalks, bridges, parks and other public places and ordinance was not necessary if the driver or vehicle owner was
approve the construction, improvement repair and around at the time of the apprehension. In that situation, the
maintenance of the same; establish bus and vehicle enforcer would simply either require the driver to move the vehicle
stops and terminals or regulate the use of the same by or issue a traffic citation
privately-owned vehicles which serve the public; - the towing away of the immobilized vehicle was not equivalent to
regulate garages and operation of conveyances for hire; a summary impounding, but designed to prevent the immobilized
designate stands to be occupied by public vehicles vehicle from obstructing traffic
when not in use; regulate the putting up of signs,
signposts, awnings and awning posts on the streets; and Did Ordinance No. 1664 meet the requirements of procedural
provide for the lighting, cleaning and sprinkling of due process? NO
streets and public places; - Notice and hearing are the essential requirements of procedural
(vi) Regulate traffic on all streets and bridges; prohibit due process. Yet, there are many instances under our laws in which
encroachments or obstacles thereon and, when the absence of one or both of such requirements is not necessarily a
necessary in the interest of public welfare, authorize the denial or deprivation of due process.
removal of encroachments and illegal constructions in - example: cancellation of the passport of a person being sought for
public places; the commission of a crime, preventive suspension of a civil servant
facing administrative charges, the distraint of properties to answer
- the LGUs would be in the best position to craft their traffic codes for tax delinquencies, the padlocking of restaurants found to be
because of their familiarity with the conditions peculiar to their unsanitary or of theaters showing obscene movies, and the
communities. abatement of nuisance per se, arrest of a person in flagrante delicto
- same with / applies to the clamping of the tires of the vehicles of
Compliance of Ordinance No. 1664with the substantive the Petitioners
requirements - As already said, the immobilization of illegally parked vehicles
- the first substantive requirement for a valid ordinance is the by clamping the tires was necessary because the transgressors were
adherence to the constitutional guaranty of due process of law. not around at the time of apprehension.
- 2 kinds of due process - lack of a hearing does not constitute a breach of procedural due
1. procedural due process - procedures that the process, for giving the transgressors the chance to reverse the
government must follow before it deprives a person of apprehensions through a timely protest
life, liberty, or property  notices and hearings - the clamping of the illegally parked vehicles was a fair and
reasonable way to enforce the ordinance against its transgressors;