Case Summary (G.R. No. 159110)
Ordinance No. 1664 — Principal Provisions
Ordinance No. 1664 (amending and supplementing the Traffic Code) establishes a policy to immobilize motor vehicles violating parking prohibitions or restrictions to ensure smooth traffic flow. Key operative provisions: Section 2 authorizes traffic enforcers (regular PNP personnel or Cebu City Traffic Law Enforcement Personnel) to immobilize violating vehicles by clamping a tire (using a “denver boot” or similar device). Section 3 prescribes penalties and release conditions: release requires payment of accumulated unpaid traffic penalties plus an administrative immobilization surcharge of P500 to the City Treasurer via the Traffic Violations Bureau, presentation of receipts, and an authorizing release order from specified city officials (Chairman, CITOM; Chairman, Committee on Police, Fire and Penology; or designated Assistant City Fiscal). Section 3 also penalizes tampering with clamps (criminal and civil liability), authorizes towing of unattended immobilized vehicles that obstruct traffic, and prescribes potential imprisonment or fines upon conviction for violating the ordinance.
Factual Antecedents and Private Suits
Petitioners alleged concrete incidents of clamping and impounding under the ordinance. The Jabans alleged multiple clamping incidents (e.g., June 23, 1997 for Bienvenido Jaban Sr.; May 19, 1997 for Jaban Jr.), compulsory payments to secure release without judicial hearing, and resulting inconvenience and loss. Legaspi alleged clamping on July 29, 1997 while his vehicle was temporarily left outside his residence, followed by towing even though the vehicle did not obstruct traffic. The petitioners sued the City and responsible officials in separate suits for invalidation of the ordinance, recovery of property, and damages; the cases were consolidated for trial.
Trial Court Ruling and Remedies Awarded
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 58, Cebu City) after trial declared Ordinance No. 1664 unconstitutional for violating due process. The RTC emphasized that the ordinance allowed traffic enforcers, at their sole determination, to immobilize vehicles and required owners to pay prescribed amounts before release, effectively making the enforcers “arresting officer, prosecutor, judge and collector” and depriving owners of use of their property without a hearing. The RTC held the ordinance penal in nature and violative of due process, and it awarded damages (including specific amounts for Legaspi and the Jabans) against the City of Cebu.
Court of Appeals Reversal
The City appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Ordinance No. 1664. The CA reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the police power delegated to local governments by the Local Government Code. Citing Section 458 (powers of the sanggunian to regulate streets and traffic) and Section 16 (general welfare clause) of the LGC, the CA found that the ordinance addressed a legitimate and substantial public welfare objective—reducing traffic congestion caused by illegal parking—and that it was reasonable, non‑discriminatory, and consistent with national law.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The consolidated petitions to the Supreme Court raised two principal issues: (1) whether Ordinance No. 1664 was enacted within the legislative/police powers of the City of Cebu; and (2) whether the ordinance satisfied constitutional and statutory limitations, specifically whether it complied with due process requirements and other substantive tests for validity.
Legal Tests for Validity of Local Ordinance
The Court reiterated established tests for the validity of an ordinance: in the formal dimension, the ordinance must be within the corporate powers of the LGU and enacted according to required procedures; in the substantive dimension, the ordinance must (1) not contravene the Constitution or statute; (2) not be unfair or oppressive; (3) not be partial or discriminatory; (4) not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) not be unreasonable. These formal and substantive tests frame the Court’s review.
Formal Compliance: Delegation of Police Power to LGUs
The Supreme Court affirmed that Ordinance No. 1664 was within the corporate/police powers delegated to the City under the LGC. The Court relied on Section 458’s specific authority for the sanggunian to regulate streets, traffic, and remove encroachments or obstacles, and on Section 16’s general welfare clause. The LGC’s delegation and the broad function of police power support municipal measures addressing traffic congestion. The Court presumed proper compliance with enactment formalities in the absence of challenges on that ground.
Substantive Compliance: Due Process Analysis — Overview
The substantive due process analysis was central. The Court emphasized that due process comprises procedural and substantive components: procedural due process concerns notice and hearing requirements; substantive due process concerns the adequacy of government justification for restricting life, liberty, or property. The petitioners argued that clamping and withholding release without a prior judicial hearing, and vesting enforcement/release discretion in traffic officers and specified city officials, amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process and an unlawful aggregation of enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, and collection functions.
Substantive Compliance: Court’s Reasoning and Conclusion on Due Process
The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ due process challenge. It found that Ordinance No. 1664 served a compelling government purpose — immediate mitigation of traffic congestion caused by illegal parking — and that the clamping/remedy was reasonably and substantially related to that purpose. The Court addressed key points:
- Vagueness: The ordinance’s terms were sufficiently clear in scope and application; any residual ambiguity could be resolved by ordinary rules of statutory construction.
- Administrative escape/relief: Section 3 provided an administrative remedy to obtain release without payment by allowing protest to and release orders from designated city officials (Chairman, CITOM; Committee chair; Assistant City Fiscal), which the Court regarded as an adequate administrative avenue to protect owners’ rights.
- Necessity of clamping: Clamping was appropriate when the driver or owner was absent and the vehicle could otherwis
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159110)
Procedural Posture and Holdings
- En banc decision of the Supreme Court (Justice Bersamin authoring the decision) resolving consolidated petitions stemming from RTC declarations and CA reversal concerning the constitutionality of Cebu City Ordinance No. 1664.
- RTC (Branch 58, Cebu City) declared Ordinance No. 1664 unconstitutional and awarded damages (including a judgment ordering the City of Cebu to pay Valentino Legaspi P110,000 representing the value of his car, and P100,000 each in nominal and P100,000 each in temperate damages to Legaspi and the Jabans; costs against the City).
- Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and declared Ordinance No. 1664 valid (CA decision promulgated June 16, 2003).
- Supreme Court DENIED the petitions for review on certiorari, AFFIRMED the CA decision, and ORDERED petitioners to pay costs of suit.
- Concurrence listed: Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ.
Principal Legal Question(s) Presented
- Whether Ordinance No. 1664 was enacted within the legislative powers of the City of Cebu.
- Whether Ordinance No. 1664 complied with the requirements for validity and constitutionality, particularly constitutional and statutory limitations and requirements (including due process).
Subject Ordinance — Ordinance No. 1664 (summary of pertinent provisions)
- Section 1 (Policy): Declares the City of Cebu's policy to immobilize any motor vehicle violating parking prohibitions and restrictions (notably Ordinance No. 801, the Traffic Code of Cebu City) to ensure smooth vehicular traffic.
- Section 2 (Immobilization of Vehicles): Authorizes immobilization by clamping any tire of a violating vehicle using a Denver boot or similar gadget; authorizes any traffic enforcer (regular PNP personnel or Cebu City Traffic Law Enforcement Personnel) to immobilize violating vehicles.
- Section 3 (Penalties):
- Vehicles, owners, or drivers violating parking ordinances shall be penalized in accordance with penalties in the ordinance violated.
- Vehicle immobilizer may not be removed or released until owner/driver pays to the City Treasurer via the Traffic Violations Bureau (TVB) all accumulated penalties for prior unpaid traffic violations plus an administrative penalty of P500; release requires presenting receipts and authorization unless otherwise ordered released by specified officers (Chairman, CITOM; Chairman, Committee on Police, Fire and Penology; Asst. City Fiscal Felipe Belciña).
- Tampering with or destroying immobilizer: liability for loss/destruction, prosecution under Revised Penal Code and local ordinances, civil liabilities; such acts may not be compromised extrajudicially.
- Unattended immobilized vehicle that obstructs traffic may be towed to city impounding area; release only after compliance with Section 3.
- Penal provision: upon conviction, violator may be punished by imprisonment of 1 to 6 months, or fine of P2,000 to P5,000, or both.
Factual Background / Antecedents
- Enactment: Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City enacted Ordinance No. 1664 on January 27, 1997 to authorize immobilization of motor vehicles violating parking restrictions.
- Complaints filed:
- July 29, 1997: Atty. Bienvenido Jaban, Sr. and Atty. Bienvenido Douglas Luke Bradbury Jaban brought suit in RTC (Cebu City) against City of Cebu, Mayor Alvin Garcia, Sangguniang Panlungsod, Presiding Officer Renato V. Osmeña, chairman and officers of CITOM, seeking declaration of Ordinance No. 1664 as unconstitutional (due process violation) and damages.
- Allegations by the Jabans:
- Jaban Sr.: June 23, 1997 — parked in paying parking area on Manalili Street; returned after less than ten minutes to find car clamped; notice posted warning criminal offense to break clamp; rendered unable to meet important client; car impounded for three days; informed he had to pay P4,200 for release; fine imposed without court hearing or explanation; prior clamping incident on November 20, 1997 while properly parked — compelled to pay P1,500 without court hearing.
- Jaban Jr.: May 19, 1997 — parked where no sign prohibited parking; car immobilized by CITOM operative Lito Gilbuena; compelled to pay P1,400 for release without court hearing.
- August 11, 1997: Valentino Legaspi sued City of Cebu, T.C. (Tito) Sayson, Ricardo Hapitan and John Does to demand delivery of personal property, declaration of nullity of the Traffic Code of Cebu City, and damages.
- Allegations by Legaspi:
- July 29, 1997 — left car occupying part of sidewalk and street outside gate to allow exterminator to unload; while inside the house briefly, found car clamped; found traffic citation noting clamp and warning against unauthorized removal and criminal charges; later in the day, Ricardo Hapitan led a group that towed the car even if not obstructing traffic.
- Defendants’ position in RTC answers: Traffic enforcers were upholding the law by clamping; Ordinance No. 1664 enjoys presumption of constitutionality and validity.
RTC Decision (Branch 58, Cebu City) — Rationale and Judgment
- RTC held Ordinance No. 1664 unconstitutional, reasoning that:
- Due process requires hearing before condemnation: "a law which hears before it condemns."
- Ordinance authorizes immobilization at the sole determination of traffic enforcers, depriving owners of use of vehicle and penalizing without hearing by persons not vested with judicial power.
- The ordinance makes the traffic enforcer the "arresting officer, prosecutor, Judge and collector" — a concentration of powers incompatible with due process.
- Ordinance penal in nature and lacks the procedural protections required before depriving property.
- RTC judgment: Declared Ordinance No. 1664 unconstitutional; ordered City to pay specified damages to Legaspi and the Jabans; costs against City.
Court of Appeals Decision — Rationale and Judgment
- CA overturned t