Taxicab Operators vs Board of Transportation
22 11 2010
Police Power
Petitioner Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc.
(TOMMI) is a domestic corporation composed of taxicab operators, who are
grantees of Certificates of Public Convenience to operate taxicabs within the
City of Manila and to any other place in Luzon accessible to vehicular traffic.
On October 10, 1977, respondent Board of
Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 which reads:
SUBJECT: Phasing out and Replacement of
Old and Dilapidated Taxis
On January 27, 1981, petitioners filed a Petition
with the BOT, docketed as Case No. 80-7553, seeking to nullify MC No. 77-42 or
to stop its implementation; to allow the registration and operation in 1981 and
subsequent years of taxicabs of model 1974, as well as those of earlier models
which were phased-out, provided that, at the time of registration, they are
roadworthy and fit for operation.
ISSUE
“A. Did BOT and BLT promulgate the questioned
memorandum circulars in accord with the manner required by Presidential Decree
No. 101, thereby safeguarding the petitioners’ constitutional right to
procedural due process?
B. Granting arguendo, that respondents did
comply with the procedural requirements imposed by Presidential Decree No. 101,
would the implementation and enforcement of the assailed memorandum circulars
violate the petitioners’ constitutional rights to.
(1) Equal protection of the law;
(2) Substantive due process; and
(3) Protection against arbitrary and
unreasonable classification and standard?
HELD
As enunciated in the preambular clauses of the
challenged BOT Circular, the overriding consideration is the safety and comfort
of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated taxis. The
State, in the exercise of its police power, can prescribe regulations to
promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of
the people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare
of society. [5] It may also regulate property rights. [6] In the language of
Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando “the necessities imposed by public welfare
may justify the exercise of governmental authority to regulate even if thereby
certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded”.
