Case Title: Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority, G.R. No.

102782
Topic that may be relevant to the discussion: delegation of, and exercise of the delegated
legislative power.

Facts:
 In Metropolitan Traffic Command, West Traffic District vs. Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong, the
SC ruled that (1) the confiscation of the license plates of motor vehicles for traffic
violations was not among the sanctions that could be imposed by the Metro Manila
Commission under PD 1605 and was permitted only under the conditions laid down by
LOI 43 in the case of stalled vehicles obstructing the public streets.; and, that (2) even
the confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic violations was not directly prescribed by the
decree nor was it allowed by the decree to be imposed by the Commission.
 Subsequently, there are several and different complaints that were filed in the court
about the confiscation of the driver’s licenses and removal of license plates for alleged
traffic violations. These sanctions were not among those that may be imposed under PD
1605.
 Police officer (Pat. R.J. Tano-an of Makati police force) argued that the Gonong decision
prohibited only the removal of license plates and not the confiscation of driver’s licenses.
 Thus, on May 24, 1990, the Metropolitan Manila Authority issued Ordinance No. 11,
Series of 1991, authorizing itself thru the Traffic Operation Center "to detach the license
plate/tow and impound attended/ unattended/ abandoned motor vehicles illegally parked
or obstructing the flow of traffic in Metro Manila."
 Said ordinance is in conflict with the decision of the Court in the Gonong case.
 The Metropolitan Manila Authority defended the said ordinance on the ground that it was
adopted pursuant to the powers conferred upon it by EO 392. There was no conflict
between the decision and the ordinance because the latter was meant to supplement
and not supplant the latter. It stressed that the decision itself said that the confiscation of
license plates was invalid in the absence of a valid law or ordinance, which was why
Ordinance No. 11 was enacted.
 The Solicitor General expressed the view that the ordinance was null and void because
it represented an invalid exercise of a delegated legislative power. It violated PD 1605
which does not permit, and so impliedly prohibits, the removal of license plates and the
confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic violations in Metropolitan Manila.

Issue: W/N Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991 is Valid

Held: No. The ordinance is not valid.

Discussion:
The Court holds that there is a valid delegation of legislative power to promulgate such
measures, it appearing that the requisites of such delegation are present. These requisites are.
1) the completeness of the statute making the delegation; and 2) the presence of a sufficient
standard.
Under the first requirement, the statute must leave the legislature complete in all its
terms and provisions such that all the delegate will have to do when the statute reaches it is to
implement it. What only can be delegated is not the discretion to determine what the law shall
be but the discretion to determine how the law shall be enforced. This has been done in the
case at bar.
 As a second requirement, the enforcement may be effected only in accordance with a
sufficient standard, the function of which is to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority
and thus "prevent the delegation from running riot." This requirement has also been met. It is
settled that the "convenience and welfare" of the public, particularly the motorists and
passengers in the case at bar, is an acceptable sufficient standard to delimit the delegate's
authority.

But the problem before the Court is not the validity of the delegation of legislative power.
The question the SC must resolve is the validity of the exercise of such delegated power.
A municipal ordinance, to be valid:
1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5) must not be unreasonable; and
6) must be general and consistent with public policy.

PD 1605 does not allow either the removal of license plates or the confiscation of driver's
licenses for traffic violations committed in Metropolitan Manila. There is nothing in the decree
authorizing the Metropolitan Manila Commission, now the Metropolitan Manila Authority, to
impose such sanctions.
Local political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of
legislative power from the national legislature (except only that the power to create their own
sources of revenue and to levy taxes is conferred by the Constitution itself). They are mere
agents vested with what is called the power of subordinate legislation. As delegates of the
Congress, the local government unit cannot contravene but must obey at all times the will of
their principal. Here, the enactments in question (ordinance 11), which are merely local in origin,
cannot prevail against the decree (PD1605), which has the force and effect of a statute.
At any rate, the fact is that there is no statutory authority for — and indeed there is a
statutory prohibition against — the imposition of such penalties in the Metropolitan Manila area
(since ordinance 11 enforces more deterrent penalties to traffic violators.) Hence, regardless of
their merits, they cannot be impose by the challenged enactments by virtue only of the
delegated legislative powers.
It is for Congress to determine, in the exercise of its own discretion, whether or not to
impose such sanctions, either directly through a statute or by simply delegating authority to this
effect to the local governments in Metropolitan Manila. Without such action, PD 1605 remains
effective and continues prohibit the confiscation of license plates of motor vehicles (except
under the conditions prescribed in LOI 43) and of driver licenses as well for traffic violations in
Metropolitan Manila.