Petitioner,
Present:
PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
-
versus - CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO
MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA, and
VELASCO, JJ.
HON. BAYANI F. FERNANDO,
in
his capacity as Chairman of the
Metropolitan
Authority,
and METROPOLITAN
MANILA DEVELOPMENT Promulgated:
AUTHORITY,
Respondents. November
16, 2006
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CARPIO,
J.:
Petitioner Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr.
(“petitioner”), as member of the Integrated Bar of the
Petitioner
contends that the Flag Scheme: (1) has no legal basis because the MMDA’s
governing body, the Metro Manila Council, did not authorize it; (2) violates
the Due Process Clause because it is a summary punishment for jaywalking; (3)
disregards the Constitutional protection against cruel, degrading, and inhuman
punishment; and (4) violates “pedestrian rights” as it exposes pedestrians to
various potential hazards.[2]
In their Comment, respondents sought
the dismissal of the petition for petitioner’s lack of standing to litigate and
for violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Alternatively,
respondents contended that the Flag Scheme is a valid preventive measure
against jaywalking.
Petitioner filed a Reply, claiming that the Court should take cognizance of the case as it raises issues of “paramount and transcendental importance.” Petitioner also contended that he filed this petition directly with the Court because the issues raised in the petition deserve the “direct x x x intervention of the x x x [C]ourt x x x.”
We dismiss the petition.
A citizen
can raise a constitutional question only when (1) he can show that he has
personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly
illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and (3) a favorable action will likely redress the injury.[3] On the other hand, a party suing as a
taxpayer must specifically show that he has a sufficient interest in preventing
the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a
direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute.[4]
Petitioner meets none of the requirements under either category.
Nor is there merit to petitioner’s
claim that the Court should relax the standing requirement because of the
“transcendental importance” of the issues the petition raises. As an exception to the standing requirement,
the transcendental importance of the issues raised relates to the merits of the
petition.[5] Thus, the party invoking it must show, among
others, the presence of a clear disregard of a constitutional or statutory
prohibition.[6] Petitioner has not shown such clear
constitutional or statutory violation.
On the Flag Scheme’s alleged lack
of legal basis, we note that all the cities and municipalities within the
MMDA’s jurisdiction,[7] except
Valenzuela City, have each enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances or traffic
management codes with provisions for
pedestrian regulation. Such fact serves as sufficient basis for respondents’
implementation of schemes, or ways and means, to enforce the anti-jaywalking
ordinances and similar regulations.
After all, the MMDA is an administrative agency tasked with the
implementation of rules and regulations enacted by proper authorities.[8]
The absence of an anti-jaywalking ordinance in
Further, the petition ultimately calls
for a factual determination of whether the Flag Scheme is a reasonable
enforcement of anti-jaywalking ordinances and similar enactments. This Court is not a trier of facts.[9] The petition proffers mere surmises and
speculations on the potential hazards of the Flag Scheme. This Court cannot determine the
reasonableness of the Flag Scheme based on mere surmises and speculations.
Lastly, petitioner violated the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts when he filed this petition directly with us.
This Court’s jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus, while concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of
Appeals, does not give litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of forum from
which to seek such relief.[10] We relax this rule only in exceptional and
compelling circumstances.[11] This is not the case here.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
|
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
|
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
CANCIO C.
GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] As
first implemented on 17 January 2005, respondents describe the Flag Scheme as
follows: “[F]ifteen mobile units bearing wet white flags, measuring seven (7)
by five (5) feet with the words “MAGLAKAD AT MAG-ABANG SA BANGKETA,” were
deployed along major Metro Manila thoroughfares. Specifically, the wet flags
are hung on the right side of the MMDA mobile units, perpendicular to the
sidewalks and in full view of pedestrians and commuters awaiting for a ride,
which move slowly along the street.” (Rollo, pp. 74-75)
[2] Petitioner listed the following as the hazards likely to result from the Flag Scheme’s implementation (rollo, pp. 34-35):
a) Pedestrians walking ahead of
a [sic] MMDA moving vehicle with their backs towards the latter are likely to
be hit by the wet flag even before they will come to know that the wet flag is
behind them;
b) The scheme is likely to cause accident and
injuries in case of a sudden scampering of pedestrians to avoid getting hit by
the wet flag;
c) Employees going to work are likely to miss a
day’s work or be late for work because either they have to change clothes or
wait for the clothes they are wearing to dry;
d) Students going to school are likely to miss
school or be late for school because either they have to change clothes or wait
for their wet clothes to dry;
e) Women are subjected to indignities because if
drenched, sensitive parts of their bodies may be exposed, or they might end up
using just any place wherein to change
clothes or to dry their clothes;
f) As a matter of fact, anyone hit by the wet
flag or wet [sic] or drenched with water is likely to get sick if he or she
does not change clothes;
g) Employees coming back from strenuous work are
likely to have health problems if hit by the wet flag or wet or drenched with
water;
h) Old men and women and children are most
likely to be hit and drenched by the wet flag because they do not have the
speed and agility to avoid the wet flag on board a moving MMDA vehicle;
i) As observed, the manner of throwing water
into the wet flag is so crude and primitive that other pedestrians and
bystanders on the sidewalk are likely to get wet by spilled water as water is
being thrown by a [sic] MMDA personnel into the wet flag; and,
j) Likewise, as observed, the wet flag itself is already so dirty after just a day or two of use that using it to wet or drench pedestrians is so unsanitary and exposes pedestrians to possible health problems.
[3] Telecommunications & Broadcast Attorneys of the
Philippines, Inc. v. COMELEC, 352 Phil. 153 (1998).
[4]
[5]
[6] Senate of the
[7] MMDA has jurisdiction over the
cities of
[8] Metropolitan
[9] Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 433 Phil. 506 (2002).
[10] People v. Cuaresma, G.R. No.
67787,