SC upholds MMDA authority to solve traffic woes
THE Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a petition which transport groups filed last year questioning the legality of the re-implementation by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) of the number coding scheme on public utility buses in Metro Manila.
This as the high court upheld the authority of the MMDA to implement measures to solve the traffic-congestion problem particularly in Metro Manila.
In a 28-page decision, the SC said that the petitioners led by one Samson Pantelon “failed to present a clear factual foundation to rebut the presumption of validity of the challenged issuances. ”
These issuances are the MMDA’s Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction Program or the number coding scheme under MMDA Resolution No. 10-16 and MMDA Memorandum Circular No. 08, Series of 2010.
The SC pointed out that the issuances were validly issued by the MMDA pursuant to its mandate under Republic Act 7924, which gave the agency authority to regulate the delivery of services in Metropolitan Manila.
As such, the law conferred upon MMDA, through the Metro Manila Council (MMC), “the power to issue regulations that provide for a system to regulate traffic in major thoroughfares in Metro Manila for the safety and convenience of the public.”
The SC continued that it was the discretion of the MMDA to reimpose the number coding scheme on public utility buses ” as a reasonably appropriate response to the serious traffic problem in Metro Manila.”
“The arbitrariness, oppressiveness and unreasonableness of the implementation of the issuances have not been sufficiently shown. The buses driven by petitioners have not been totally banned or prohibited from plying the Metro Manila roads. However, as in private vehicles, the operation of public utility buses in Metro Manila was merely regulated with a view to curb traffic congestion,” the SC said.
Also, the SC ruled held that the challenged issuances do no encroach upon the regulatory powers of the Land Transportation and Franchising Regulatory Board over public utility vehicles under Executive Order 202.
The Court also held that petitioners, who are bus drivers plying along the routes between SM Fairview and Baclaran, are not the real parties in interest. The real parties in interest are the bus owners/operators or franchisees, it noted.
