Case Summary (G.R. No. 206486)
Procedural History
– RTC, Baguio City (May 2, 2012) declared D.O. No. 2008-39 unconstitutional as a revenue-raising measure beyond agency authority.
– CA dismissed OSG’s certiorari petition for improper remedy.
– Republic filed Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 206486) before the Supreme Court.
– After JAO No. 2014-01 superseded D.O. No. 2008-39 (effective June 19, 2014), multiple Rule 65 petitions (G.R. Nos. 212604, 212682, 212800) and interventions challenged its constitutionality. Cases were consolidated.
Issues Presented
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Rule 65 petition in G.R. No. 206486.
- Whether D.O. No. 2008-39 and JAO No. 2014-01 violate:
a. Non-delegable legislative power;
b. Police power limits (arbitrariness, confiscation);
c. Void-for-vagueness and overbreadth principles;
d. Substantive due process; and
e. Equal protection.
Justiciability and Standing
– An actual controversy exists: drivers have been apprehended and face fines under D.O. No. 2008-39; JAO No. 2014-01 is already in effect and will similarly affect operators.
– Petitioners, as stakeholders, demonstrate threatened injury by increased fines and penalties.
– The Court’s expanded judicial-review power under Article VIII, Section 1, permits review of any agency act exceeding jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Delegation of Legislative Power
– EO No. 125 (1987), as amended by EO No. 125-A, empowered DOTC “to establish and prescribe rules and regulations for enforcement of laws governing land transportation, including penalties.”
– EO No. 202 (1987) created LTFRB, authorizing fare/rate setting and franchising rule-making.
– EO No. 266 (1987) created LTO’s Traffic Adjudication Service with quasi-judicial rule-making power.
– Tests for valid delegation (completeness and sufficient standard) are met: statutes and EOs set clear policy and boundaries.
Exercise of Police Power
– Regulation of public utilities is a valid exercise of police power.
– Fines and penalties in D.O. No. 2008-39 and JAO No. 2014-01 primarily regulate public-transport safety and compliance; revenue is incidental.
– Adjustments reflect inflation, enforcement costs, and deterrence goals; consultations were held with stakeholders.
– Penalties provide procedural safeguards (contests, temporary permits, appeals).
Void-for-Vagueness and Overbreadth
– The doctrines arise from due-process notice concerns and, in free-speech cases, chilling-effect concerns.
– Here, challenged provisions (colorum violations, signage, pick-up/drop-off rules, driver conduct) are clear when read with LTFRB Circular No. 2011-004.
– No fair-notice deficiency; terms are ordinary and practical, not leaving “men of common intelligence” guessing.
Substantive Due Process
– The fine levels, though higher, bear a reasonable relation to public-safety objectives.
– The Court does not substitute its judgment on policy wisdom when regulation is neither arbitrary nor oppressive.
– Drivers/operators are afforded hearings and appeals before license or franchise suspension/revocation.
Equal Protection
– Classification between operators renewing expiring CPCs and fir
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206486)
Procedural History
- G.R. No. 206486: The Republic, via the DOTC and LTO, sought review on certiorari under Rule 45 to overturn the RTC (Baguio City Branch 5) decision (May 2, 2012) declaring DO No. 2008-39 unconstitutional, and to reverse CA resolutions (Nov 15, 2012 & Mar 21, 2013) dismissing its petition under Rule 65 as an improper remedy.
- G.R. No. 212604: Angat Tsuper, with local affiliates, filed a Rule 65 petition directly before the Supreme Court (June 10, 2014) challenging JAO No. 2014-01 as unconstitutional, later consolidated with G.R. No. 206486 by Minute Resolution (July 1, 2014).
- G.R. No. 212682: Ximex Delivery Express, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 (June 16, 2014), consolidated with G.R. Nos. 206486 and 212604 (July 15, 2014).
- G.R. No. 212800: Ernesto C. Cruz (NCTU) and co-petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition (June 26, 2014), likewise consolidated with the earlier dockets (July 15, 2014).
- Interventions: PISTON (Motion & Petition-in-Intervention, July 18, 2014) and PNTOA (Motion & Petition-in-Intervention, Aug 10, 2015) joined as petitioners-in-intervention to assail JAO No. 2014-01.
Antecedent Facts
- October 6, 2008: DOTC/LTO issued DO No. 2008-39 revising the penalty scheme for Metro Manila traffic and administrative violations, published Oct 9 & 16.
- March 4, 2009: LTO officers apprehended three Maria Basa drivers in Baguio City for “out of line” charges, assessed a ₱6,000 fine and ₱1,500 surcharge per day after 72 hours.
- March 16, 2009: Maria Basa’s president and drivers filed a petition before the RTC (later amended Aug 28, 2009) seeking to declare DO No. 2008-39 unconstitutional for being confiscatory, anti-poor, oppressive, abdication of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions, and for prejudicing drivers’ livelihoods.
- May 2, 2012: RTC declared DO No. 2008-39 null and void, granted injunctive relief, citing its revenue-generating purpose beyond police power and exceeding the Legislature’s taxing authority.
- May 25, 2012: OSG filed a motion for reconsideration; denied Sept 10, 2012.
- Nov 15, 2012 & Mar 21, 2013: CA dismissed Republic’s Rule 65 petitions for certiorari for being the wrong remedy, instructing an appeal under Rule 45 instead.
Joint Administrative Order No. 2014-01 & Subsequent Petitions
- June 2, 2014: DOTC issued JAO No. 2014-01, superseding DO No. 2008-39 with further increased fines and stiffer penalties for colorum operations, traffic violations, franchise infractions, vehicle marking failures, etc., effective June 19, 2014.
- Stakeholder Consultations: Multiple nationwide forums (2012–2014) by LTO’s Technical Working Group, including Cebu, Davao, Albay, Naga, and Baguio, with various operators and transport groups in attendance.
- Petitions: Angat Tsuper (G.R. No. 212604), Ximex (G.R. No. 212682), and NCTU petitioned for certiorari/prohibition (Rule 65) and for injunctive relief to enjoin JAO No. 2014-01, joined by PISTON and PNTOA as intervenors.
Issues for Resolution
- G.R. No. 206486:
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy.
- Whether DO No. 2008-39 is constitutional.
- G.R. Nos. 206486, 212604, 212682, 212800:
- Whether DO No. 2008-39 and JAO No. 2014-01 were issued without valid delegation of legislative power.
- Whether they exceed police power or are an oppressive, arbitrary exercise thereof.
- Whether they are vague or overbroad (void-for-vagueness/overbreadth).
- Whether they violate substantive due process.
- Whether they violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Legislative and Administrative Framework
- RA 4136 (1964): Land Transportation and Traffic Code creating the Land Transportation Commission (LTC), authorizing issuance of rules/regulations.
- EO 125 (1987): Abolished the LTC, created the Ministry (later Department) of Transportation