G.R. No. 91023 - Metropolitan Traffic Command West Traffic District vs. Gonong

The case involves the practice of removing license plates from vehicles parked illegally in Metro Manila.
The petitioner, Metropolitan Traffic Command, defended the act of removing plates from vehicles, arguing such measure was authorized.
The private respondent, Dante S. David, a lawyer, challenged the practice after his car's rear license plate was removed while parked along Escolta.

The complaint was filed on August 10, 1989, in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
A temporary restraining order was issued on August 14, 1989, followed by hearings on August 18, 23, and 25, 1989.
The trial court granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the challenged practice.
The parties agreed to limit the issue to whether any law or ordinance authorized the removal of license plates of illegally parked vehicles.

The trial judge, Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong, held that LOI 43 did not empower the removal, detachment, or confiscation of license plates of illegally parked vehicles.

The petitioner contended that LOI 43 remains applicable since it addresses stalled vehicles nationwide, whereas PD 1605 governs only the Metro Manila area.
The respondent maintained that PD 1605, which specifically outlines sanctions for traffic violations, did not include the removal or confiscation of license plates.
The respondent additionally raised a due process concern, arguing that the removal of a license plate amounted to an unlawful deprivation of property.

LOI 43 (Measures to Effect a Continuing Flow of Transportation on Streets and Highways, issued November 28, 1972)

Prescribes removal, impounding, and for subsequent offenses, confiscation of the vehicle's registry plates.
Designed primarily to address stalled vehicles that inadvertently block traffic.

Transfers disciplinary powers regarding traffic violations to the Metropolitan Manila Commission.
Specifies penalties such as fines, suspension or revocation of driver’s licenses and certificates of public convenience.
Does not include the removal or confiscation of a vehicle's license plate.

The petitioner faulted the trial court for extending issues beyond the agreed scope, elaborating on alleged abuses within the traffic enforcement system.
The respondent criticized the practice on the ground of due process violations, asserting that a license plate, though not a property right, constitutes an essential means of identification and its removal unjustifiably deprives the owner of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Both parties debated whether concurrently enforcing LOI 43 and PD 1605 violated principles of implied repeal and whether the special law (LOI 43 or PD 1605) should prevail.
The broader concerns of potential graft and abuse of power in the enforcement practices were raised, including allegations of unofficial fees extorted by police through civilian intermediaries.

Although the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court took cognizance under Rule 65 due to the importance of the issues raised.
A temporary restraining order dated February 6, 1990, was issued to halt enforcement of the trial court’s decision pending further orders.
Both sides filed comments and replies as directed by the Supreme Court for a comprehensive adjudication of the matter.

Whether there is a valid law or ordinance authorizing the removal and confiscation of license plates from illegally parked vehicles.

The central legal question concerns the statutory basis for the removal of license plates under LOI 43.

Whether LOI 43, allegedly repealed by PD 1605, still remains in force and applicable to specific circumstances.

The petitioner argued that LOI 43 should be enforced conterminous with its original purpose relating to stalled vehicles.
The respondent contended that PD 1605, as a special law for Metro Manila, implicitly repealed LOI 43 with respect to its unauthorized penalty provision.

Whether the removal and confiscation of the registry plate violates due process.

The respondent maintained that such action, taken without prior notice or judicial hearing, deprived the owner of a constitutional safeguard.

Whether the practice, even if done with good intentions for traffic management, constitutes an abuse of discretion amounting to unauthorized punitive action.

This includes evaluating if enforcement efforts bypass proper judicial or legislative procedures.