This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Further, both petitioner Cruz, as Punong Barangay, and petitioner Dela Cruz, as Barangay Tanod, claim to have acted in their official capacities in the exercise of their powers under the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code. However, petitioners could cite no barangay nor city ordinance that would have justified their summary abatement through the exercise of police powers found in the said clause. No barangay nor city ordinance was violated; neither was there one which specifically declared the said basketball ring as a nuisance per se that may be summarily abated. Though it has been held that a nuisance per se may be abated via an ordinance, without judicial proceedings,[41] We add that, in the case at bar, petitioners were required to justify their abatement via such an ordinance because the power they claim to have exercised - the police power under the general welfare clause - is a power exercised by the government mainly through its legislative, and not the executive, branch. The prevailing jurisprudence is that local government units such as the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies.[42] | |||||
|
2009-12-16 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is futile for MMDA to simply invoke its legal mandate to justify the dismantling of Trackworks' billboards, signages and other advertising media. MMDA simply had no power on its own to dismantle, remove, or destroy the billboards, signages and other advertising media installed on the MRT3 structure by Trackworks. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[14] Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc.,[15] and Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin,[16] the Court had the occasion to rule that MMDA's powers were limited to the formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system, and administration. Nothing in Republic Act No. 7924 granted MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.[17] | |||||
|
2007-08-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Even the MMDA's claimed authority under the police power must necessarily fail in consonance with the above-quoted ruling in MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. and this Court's subsequent ruling in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin[43] that the MMDA is not vested with police power. | |||||
|
2007-08-10 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| (g) Perform other related functions required to achieve the objectives of the MMDA, including the undertaking of delivery of basic services to the local government units, when deemed necessary subject to prior coordination with and consent of the local government unit concerned. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[8] this Court, speaking through then Associate Justice (now Chief Justice) Reynato S. Puno, defined "metro-wide services" as those "services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual local government units comprising Metro Manila." These basic "metro-wide services" include: (1) development planning; (2) transport and traffic management; (3) solid waste disposal and management; (4) flood control and sewerage management; (5) urban renewal, zoning and land use planning, and shelter services; (6) health and sanitation, urban protection, and pollution control; and (7) public safety. The "powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system, and administration." The Court then holds that the MMDA is a "development authority." In other words, the MMDA is "an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies, people's organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services" in the Metropolitan Manila area. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin,[9] these pronouncements were reiterated. Petitioner, therefore, cannot seek relief from the MMDA as its services only involve laying down policies and coordination with other agencies relative to its primary functions. | |||||