Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor foun...
MMDA vs. Bel-Air
GR No. 135962 - March 27, 2000
FACTS:
Petitioner MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila.
Respondent Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private subdivision in Makati City. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
Respondent BAVA is the registered owner of Neptune Street, a road inside Bel-Air Village.
On December 30, 1995, respondent received from petitioner, through its Chairman, a notice dated December 22, 1995 requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
Read: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
ISSUES:
Does the MMDA have the mandate to open Neptune Street to public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers?
HELD:
No. The petition is denied. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
Under the 1987 Constitution, the local government units became primarily responsible for the governance of their respective political subdivisions.
The MMA's jurisdiction was limited to addressing common problems involving basic services that transcended local boundaries. It did not have legislative power.
Its power was merely to provide the local government units technical assistance in the preparation of local development plans.
Any semblance of legislative power it had was confined to a "review [of] legislation proposed by the local legislative assemblies to ensure consistency among local governments and with the comprehensive development plan of Metro Manila," and to "advise the local governments accordingly." MMDA vs. Bel-Air
The MMDA is not a political unit of government.
Read: Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of the MMDA's functions.
There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
The MMDA was created to put some order in the metropolitan transportation system, but unfortunately the powers granted by its charter are limited.
Its good intentions cannot justify the opening for public use of a private street in a private subdivision without any legal warrant.
The promotion of the general welfare is not antithetical to the preservation of the rule of law. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. 135962 - March 27, 2000
FACTS:
Petitioner MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila.
Respondent Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private subdivision in Makati City. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
Respondent BAVA is the registered owner of Neptune Street, a road inside Bel-Air Village.
On December 30, 1995, respondent received from petitioner, through its Chairman, a notice dated December 22, 1995 requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
Read: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
ISSUES:
Does the MMDA have the mandate to open Neptune Street to public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers?
HELD:
No. The petition is denied. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
Under the 1987 Constitution, the local government units became primarily responsible for the governance of their respective political subdivisions.
The MMA's jurisdiction was limited to addressing common problems involving basic services that transcended local boundaries. It did not have legislative power.
Its power was merely to provide the local government units technical assistance in the preparation of local development plans.
Any semblance of legislative power it had was confined to a "review [of] legislation proposed by the local legislative assemblies to ensure consistency among local governments and with the comprehensive development plan of Metro Manila," and to "advise the local governments accordingly." MMDA vs. Bel-Air
The MMDA is not a political unit of government.
Read: Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of the MMDA's functions.
There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
The MMDA was created to put some order in the metropolitan transportation system, but unfortunately the powers granted by its charter are limited.
Its good intentions cannot justify the opening for public use of a private street in a private subdivision without any legal warrant.
The promotion of the general welfare is not antithetical to the preservation of the rule of law. MMDA vs. Bel-Air
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment