POLICE
POWER
LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., petitioner, vs. JAC LINER, INC., respondent.
G.R. No. 148339. February 23, 2005
Facts:
LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., petitioner, vs. JAC LINER, INC., respondent.
G.R. No. 148339. February 23, 2005
Facts:
The City of Lucena enacted an ordinance which provides, inter alia,
that: all buses, mini-buses and out-of-town passenger jeepneys shall be
prohibited from entering the city and are hereby directed to proceed to the
common terminal, for picking-up and/or dropping of their passengers; and (b)
all temporary terminals in the City of Lucena are hereby declared inoperable starting
from the effectivity of this ordinance. It also provides that all jeepneys,
mini-buses, and buses shall use the grand central terminal of the city. JAC
Liner, Inc. assailed the city ordinance as unconstitutional on the ground that,
inter alia, the same constituted an invalid exercise of police power, an undue
taking of private property, and a violation of the constitutional prohibition
against monopolies.
Issue:
Issue:
Whether or not the ordinance satisfies the requisite of valid exercise
of police power, i.e. lawful subject and lawful means.
Held:
Held:
The local government may be considered as having properly exercised its
police power only if the following requisites are met: (1) the interests of the
public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require
the interference of the State, and (2) the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals. Otherwise stated, there must be a
concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful method
The questioned ordinances having been enacted with the objective of relieving traffic congestion in the City of Lucena, they involve public interest warranting the interference of the State. The first requisite for the proper exercise of police power is thus present. This leaves for determination the issue of whether the means employed by the Lucena Sangguniang Panlungsod to attain its professed objective were reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The ordinances assailed herein are characterized by overbreadth. They go beyond what is reasonably necessary to solve the traffic problem. Additionally, since the compulsory use of the terminal operated by petitioner would subject the users thereof to fees, rentals and charges, such measure is unduly oppressive, as correctly found by the appellate court. What should have been done was to determine exactly where the problem lies and then to stop it right there.
The questioned ordinances having been enacted with the objective of relieving traffic congestion in the City of Lucena, they involve public interest warranting the interference of the State. The first requisite for the proper exercise of police power is thus present. This leaves for determination the issue of whether the means employed by the Lucena Sangguniang Panlungsod to attain its professed objective were reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The ordinances assailed herein are characterized by overbreadth. They go beyond what is reasonably necessary to solve the traffic problem. Additionally, since the compulsory use of the terminal operated by petitioner would subject the users thereof to fees, rentals and charges, such measure is unduly oppressive, as correctly found by the appellate court. What should have been done was to determine exactly where the problem lies and then to stop it right there.
The true role of Constitutional Law is to effect an equilibrium between authority and liberty so that rights are exercised within the framework of the law and the laws are enacted with due deference to rights. It is its reasonableness, not its effectiveness, which bears upon its constitutionality. If the constitutionality of a law were measured by its effectiveness, then even tyrannical laws may be justified whenever they happen to be effective.