Case Summary (G.R. No. 254001)
Petitioners’ Procedural Arguments
• Standing: Bayyo claims citizen, taxpayer, and association standing, citing its members’ threatened rights.
• Justiciability: Issues are of “transcendental importance”; failure to resolve would render judiciary passive.
Petitioners’ Substantive Arguments
• Invalid Delegation: No enabling provision in EOs to compel PUJ modernization.
• Due Process & Equal Protection: Phase-out scheme discriminates against PUJs versus other PUVs.
• Confiscation: Disproportionate subsidy (₱80,000–₱130,000 vs. ₱2.1 M unit cost) amounts to taking property without just compensation.
• Right to Livelihood: Debt burden threatens drivers’ and operators’ ability to earn a living.
• “Filipino First” Violation: Modern units sourced from foreign suppliers; local industry ignored.
Respondents’ Procedural Arguments
• Hierarchy of Courts: Petition bypassed lower courts and CA; factual submissions lacking evidentiary support.
• Lack of Justiciable Facts: No actual or imminent injury shown; issues speculative.
Respondents’ Substantive Arguments
• Valid Delegation: DO 2017-011 issued under lawful mandates of EOs 125 and 202, with clear policy parameters.
• Equal Protection: All PUV types uniformly subject to modernization standards; no PUJ exception in text.
• Non-Confiscatory: Scrap value of old jeepneys is lower than subsidy; modern units yield better returns.
• Regulated Profession: Right to earn living is subject to reasonable public transportation regulation.
• “Filipino First”: 42 accredited manufacturers include 12 local entities employing Filipino labor.
Issues for Resolution
- Procedural infirmities: Do petitioners have standing and comply with hierarchy of courts?
- Substantive merit: Is paragraph 5.2 of DO 2017-011 unconstitutional?
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for procedural defects without reaching the merits:
Justiciability and Standing
– Certiorari and prohibition are proper vehicles for constitutional review under the Court’s expanded jurisdiction (Art VIII, Sec 1).
– Bayyo failed to prove third-party standing: no evidence identifying its members as PUJ operators/drivers, no board resolutions or Articles of Incorporation authorizing the suit.
– Perweg lacks personal or taxpayer standing: no direct injury demonstrated; no allegation of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 254001)
Facts
- On June 19, 2017, the Department of Transportation (DOTr) issued Department Order No. 2017-011, entitled “Omnibus Guidelines on the Planning and Identification of Public Road Transportation Services and Franchise Issuance,” implementing the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP).
- The PUVMP was mandated by Executive Order No. 125 (as amended by EO 125-A) and EO 202 to promote safe, reliable, efficient, and environment-friendly public utility vehicles (PUVs).
- DO No. 2017-011 prescribes new vehicle specifications, franchise issuance procedures, and operational practices for all PUV classes, including jeepneys (PUJs), buses (PUBs), mini-buses, utility vehicles, Filcab, school services, taxis, TNVS, tourist transport, and shuttle services.
- Paragraph 5.2 of DO No. 2017-011 requires “brand new and environmentally-friendly units” to receive priority in Certificates of Public Convenience (CPCs) and deployment, and sets out:
• 5.2.1 Definition of environmentally-friendly units (electric or Euro IV-compliant combustion engines)
• 5.2.2 Mandatory LTFRB memorandum circular on age limits based on oldest major component
• 5.2.3 Conditions for refurbished/rebuilt vehicles (must pass type approval and emission tests), with an express bar on rebuilt PUBs in lieu of phased-out units - Bayyo Association, Inc., an SEC-registered association of 430 Metro Manila jeepney operators and drivers, and its president Anselmo D. Perweg filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to declare paragraph 5.2 unconstitutional.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
- Seeks nullification of paragraph 5.2 of DO No. 2017-011 as:
• An invalid delegation of legislative power
• A violation of due process and equal protection - Invokes this Court’s expanded jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution to correct any grave abuse of discretion by administrative issuances.
Petitioners’ Procedural Arguments
- Asserts legal standing as:
• Concerned citizens and taxpayers allegedly deprived of fundamental rights
• A legitimate industry association representing directly-injured members
• Grounds for relaxing st