LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., petitioner, vs. JAC LINER, INC., respondent G.R. No. 148339. February 23, 2005
Respondent JAC Liner, Inc., a common carrier operating buses which ply various routes to and from Lucena City, assailed City Ordinance Nos. 1631 and 1778 as unconstitutional on the ground that these constituted an invalid exercise of police power, an undue taking of private property, and a violation of the constitutional prohibition against monopolies. Ordinance No. 1631 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING GRANTING THE LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., A FRANCHISE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, CONSTRUCT, FINANCE, FINANCE, ESTABLISH, ESTABLISH, OPERATE OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A COMMON BUS-JEEPNEY TERMINAL FACILITY IN THE CITY OF LUCENA Ordinance No. 1778 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING REGULATING THE ENTRANCE ENTRANCE TO THE CITY OF LUCENA OF ALL BUSES, BUSES, MINI-BUSES MINI-BUSES AND OUT-OF-TOWN OUT-OF-TOWN PASSENGER PASSENGER JEEPNEYS JEEPNEYS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE, AMENDING ORDINACE NO. 1420, SERIES OF 1993, AND ORDINANCE NO. 1557, SERIES OF 1995
The above-mentioned ordinances, by granting an exclusive franchise for twenty five years, renewa renewable ble for another another twenty twenty five years, years, to Lucena Lucena Grand Centra Centrall Terminal Terminal,, Inc., Inc., its successors or assigns, for the construction and operation of one common bus and jeepney terminal facility in Lucena City, to be located outside the city proper, were professedly aimed aimed toward towards s alleviat alleviating ing the traffic congestion congestion alleged alleged to have have been been caused caused by the existence of various bus and jeepney terminals within the city. Further, the subject ordinances prohibit the operation of all bus and jeepney terminals within within Lucena Lucena,, includin including g those those already already existing, existing, and allow allow the operatio operation n of only one common terminal located outside the city proper, the franchise for which was granted to petitioner. The common carriers plying routes to and from Lucena City are thus compelled to close down their existing terminals and use the facilities of petitioner. Respondent, who had maintained a terminal within the city, was one of those affected by the ordinances. The petitioner via petition for review, sought the wisdom of Supreme Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Issue:
Whethe Whetherr the City of Lucena Lucena properly properly exercis exercised ed its police power when when it enacted enacted City Ordinance Nos. 1631 and 1778
Ruling:
. As with the State, State, the local government government may be considered considered as having properly exercised its police police power only if the following following requisit requisites es are met: (1) the interest interests s 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 sought to be accomplished and not unduly unduly oppressive oppressive upon individuals. individuals. Otherwise Otherwise stated, there must be a concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful method. The questio questioned ned ordinan ordinances ces having having been been enacte enacted d with the objectiv objective e of relievi relieving ng traffic traffic congestion in the City of Lucena, involve public interest warranting the interference of the State. The first requisite for the proper exercise o off police power is thus present But the ordinances go beyond what is reasonably necessary to solve the traffic problem. Additionally, Additionally, since the compulsory compulsory use of the terminal terminal operated by petitioner petitioner would subject subject the users thereof to fees, rentals and charges, such measure is unduly oppressive, as correctly found by the appellate court. Bus terminals per se do not, however, however, impede or help impede impede the flow of traffic. traffic. How the outright proscription against the existence of all terminals, apart from that franchised to petitioner, can be considered as reasonably necessary to solve the traffic problem, this Court has not been enlightened. The true role of Constitutional Constitutional Law is to effect an equilibrium between 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. As for petitioner’s petitioner’s claim claim that the the challenged challenged ordinances ordinances have have actually actually been been proven effective effective in easing traffic congestion: Whether an ordinance is effective is an issue different from whether whether it is reasonably reasonably necessary. It is its reasonableness, reasonableness, not its effectiveness, which bears bears upon its constitut constitutiona ionality lity.. If the constit constitutio utionalit nality y of a law were measured measured by its effectiveness, then even tyrannical laws may be justified whenever they happen to be effective. Hence, Ordinance No. 1631 is valid, having been issued in the exercise of the police power of the City Government of Lucena insofar as the grant of franchise to the Lucena Grand Grand Centr Central al Termi Termina nal, l, Inc. Inc.,, to const construc ruct, t, finan finance ce,, estab establis lish, h, opera operate te and and maint maintain ain common bus-jeepney terminal facility in the City of Lucena. Sec. 4(c) of Ordinance No. 1631 is illegal and ultra vires because it contravenes the provisions of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as “The Local Government Code”. City Ordinance No. 1778 is null and void, the same being also an ultra vires act of the City Government of Lucena arising from an invalid, oppressive and unreasonable exercise of the police power. Affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, the petition of Lucena Grand Central Central Terminal, Inc.is DENIED by the Supreme Court, #
