University of San Agustin College of Law

MARZAN 1-E

Case Name Lique v. Villegas

Topic Police Power of the State
Case No. |
G.R. No. L-22545 | November 28, 1969
Date
Ponente Associate Justice Conrado V. Sanchez
Petitioners challenge the constitutionality and validity of two identical bus ban measures,
issued by the Public Service Commission and the City of Manila, respectively. The Court
Case has found no reason to find these measures unconstitutional, and finds them within the
Summary reasonable exercise of police power, in promoting the general welfare of the public, to
ease traffic congestion in the City of Manila and to prevent any untoward happenings that
may occur as a consequence.
Public welfare lies at the bottom of any regulatory measure designed to relieve congestion
of traffic, which is, to say the least, a menace to public safety. As a corollary, measures
Doctrine calculated to promote the safety and convenience of the people using the thoroughfares
by the regulation of vehicular traffic present a proper subject for the exercise of police
power.

RELEVANT FACTS

 The following identical bus ban measures are being challenged before the Court as unconstitutional:

Name of Measure Relevant Authority Date of Issue/Approval Brief Summary

Ordinance No. 4986 titled: City of Manila Approved on July 13, 1964  Regulates time windows
“An Ordinance Rerouting of provincial buses
Traffic on Roads and Streets (PUBs) and jeepneys
in the City of Manila, and for (PUJs) entering and
Other Purposes” operating in the City of
Manila
 Regulates and entry
points and routes of
PUBs and PUJs
 Regulates PUB
companies providing
shuttle services to
passengers
inconvenienced by the
ordinance
Administrative Order No. 1, Public Service Issued on February 7, 1964  Mandates all public
series of 1964 Commission utilities operating from
Manila to any point in
Luzon to carry the words
“For Provincial Operation”
on its bodies
 Prohibits the
aforementioned vehicles
to enter or operate
beyond the boundary line
set in an earlier order in
1963
Administrative Order No. 3, Issued on April 21, 1964  Modifies A.O. No. 1,
series of 1964 wherein:
 University of San Agustin College of Law
MARZAN 1-E

o Only 10% of PUBs and

PUJs will be allowed to
enter Manila
o PUBs and PUJs
operating within 50
kms. from Manila and
those nearer to Manila
than the provincial end,
are allowed to operate
15% of their units to
prevent dislocation,
provide they have more
than five units
 Allocated the number of
units each provincial bus
operator is allowed to
operate within the City of
Manila

 Original petitioners are passengers from the provinces of Cavite and Batangas who ride on buses
plying along the routes between the provinces and Manila. Other petitioners are PUB and PUJ
operators with terminals in Manila.
 The Court had already ruled on the validity of Ordinance No. 4986 and Administrative Order No. 1,
series of 1964, as follows:
o The Court in Lagman v. City of Manila (17 SCRA 579) had already ruled that Ordinance No.
4986 is valid, in that:
 Republic Act No. 409, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila
supersedes and prevails over the Public Service Law, and such Charter is deemed
an exception to previous laws.
 The powers conferred by law over the Public Service Commission were not intended
to supersede regulatory power of local governments over motor traffic.
o The Court in Lagman v. Medina (26 SCRA 442) upheld the validity of Administrative Order
No. 1, series of 1964, for similar reasons, and finding petitioner Lagman’s contentions as
devoid of merit.
 Petitioners likewise allege that the Ordinance likewise impairs passengers’ vested rights to be
transported directly to downtown Manila, while petitioning public services aver that they have
acquired a vested right to operate their public utility vehicles to and from Manila as it appears on
their certificates of public convenience.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
Validity of  The Court sees no reason to break away from their rulings in the Lagman
Ordinance No. 4986 cases, despite specific facts that have not been ruled upon b the Court in
and Administrative these previous cases.
Order No. 1, series
of 1964
Petitioners’ vested  A certificate of public convenience constitutes neither a franchise nor a
rights contract, confers no property right, and is a mere license or a privilege.
 The Public Service Commission has the power of regulation over operation
of all public services and their enforcement, and thus may revoke the
certificates.
 University of San Agustin College of Law
MARZAN 1-E

 Public services must also reckon with provincial resolutions and municipal
ordinances relating to the operation of public utilities within the province or
municipality concerned, The Commission can require compliance with these
provincial resolutions or municipal ordinances.
 The alleged right of bus passengers is dependent upon the manner public
services are allowed to operate within a given area, because regulations
imposed upon public services directly affect passengers.
Reasonable  Reasonable restrictions have to be provided for the use of the thoroughfares.
exercise of police  The operation of public services may be subjected to restraints and burdens,
power in order to secure the general comfort.
 No franchise or right can be availed of to defeat the proper exercise of police
power —the authority "to enact rules and regulations for the promotion of the
general welfare."
 Both measures fit into the concept of promotion of the general welfare, as
their common purpose is to relieve the worsening traffic congestion in the
City of Manila, likewise to keep the streets safe from any accidents that such
congestion may cause.
Discriminatory  Ordinance No. 4986 is a not a class discrimination measure because there Is
nature of Ordinance no evident unjust discrimination, and likewise does not entrench upon the
No. 4986 equal protection clause of the constitution.

RULING

Petition is DENIED.