Notes by: Maria Resper S.

Lagas
JD-WT I
Constitutional Law II
EH303

Valentino Legaspi v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 159110, 10 December 2013.

DOCTRINE WHO CAN HOW WHAT IS LIMITATIONS SET (2) SEPARATE

BE EXERCISE DELEGATED FOR THE EXERCISE LIMITS ON
DELEGATED IS OF POLICE POWER GOVERNMENT
WITH DELEGATED WITH REGARDS TO
DUE PROCESS
Police LGUs the National Power to Due process of law – 1. Procedural
Power Legislature enact and a constitutional due process
has adopt safeguard against - refers to
devolved ordinances any arbitrariness on the
the three (ex.: the part of the procedures
great regulate government (notices
inherent vehicular and
powers of traffic and to 1. If the law hearings)
the State to prohibit itself that the
the LGUs illegal unreasonably government
through the parking deprives a must follow
Local within their person of his before it
Government jurisdictions) life, liberty, deprives a
Code or property, person of
he is denied life, liberty,
the or property
protection of
due process. 2. Substantive
due process
2. If the - asks
enjoyment of whether the
his rights is government
conditioned has an
on an adequate
unreasonable reason for
requirement, taking
due process away a
is violated. person’s
life, liberty,
or property

Facts:

Respondent, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Cebu, enacted Ordinance

No. 1664 to authorize the traffic enforcers of Cebu City to immobilize any motor vehicle
violating the parking restrictions and prohibitions defined in Ordinance No. 801.

Atty. Jaban, Sr. and his son Atty. Jaban, Jr. brought suit in the RTC against the
City of Cebu, then represented by Hon. Alvin Garcia, its City Mayor, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Cebu City and its Presiding Officer, Hon. Renato V. Osme, and the chairman
and operatives or officers of the City Traffic Operations Management (CITOM), seeking the
 Notes by: Maria Resper S. Lagas
JD-WT I
Constitutional Law II
EH303
declaration of Ordinance No. 1644 as unconstitutional for being in violation of due process
and for being contrary to law.

The complaint of Jaban, Sr. and company alleged that:

On June 23, 1997, Jaban Sr. had properly parked his car in a paying parking area on
Manalili Street, Cebu City to get certain records and documents from his office and after less
than 10 minutes, he had found his car being immobilized by a steel clamp. His car was
impounded for three days, and was informed at the office of the CITOM that he had first to
pay P4,200.00 as a fine to the City Treasurer of Cebu City for the release of his car but such
imposition the fine was without any court hearing and without due process of law. He was
also compelled to pay P1,500.00 (itemized as P500.00 for the clamping and P1,000.00 for the
violation) without any court hearing and final judgment;

On May 19, 1997, Jaban, Jr. parked his car in a very secluded place where there was
no sign prohibiting parking; that his car was immobilized by CITOM operative and that he was
compelled to pay the total sum of P1,400.00 for the release of his car without a court hearing
and a final judgment rendered by a court of justice.

On August 11, 1997, Valentino Legaspi, petitioner, likewise sued. He stated that on
July 29, 1997, he had left his car occupying a portion of the sidewalk and the street outside
the gate of his house to make way for the vehicle of the anay exterminator, upon returning
outside, his car was towed by the group even if it was not obstructing the flow of traffic.

The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision declaring Ordinance No. 1664 as null and
void. The Court of Appeals overturned the decision and declared the said ordinance as valid.

Issue:

1. Whether or not Ordinance No. 1664 complied with the requirements for validity and
constitutionality, particularly the limitations set by the Constitution (due process
clause) and the relevant statutes.

Held:

With regards to substantive due process:

Yes. Ordinance No. 1664 met the substantive tests of validity and constitutionality by
its conformity with the limitations under the Constitution and the statutes. The said ordinance
was enacted in order to fulfill the compelling government purpose of immediately addressing
the traffic congestions caused by illegally parked vehicles obstructing the streets of the City
of Cebu.

Firstly, Ordinance No. 1664 was far from oppressive and arbitrary. Any driver or
vehicle owner whose vehicle was immobilized by clamping could protest such action of a traffic
enforcer or PNP personnel enforcing the ordinance.

Secondly, the immobilization of a vehicle by clamping pursuant to the ordinance was

not necessary if the driver or vehicle owner was around at the time of the apprehension for
 Notes by: Maria Resper S. Lagas
JD-WT I
Constitutional Law II
EH303
illegal parking or obstruction. The clamping is done only to prevent the transgress or from
using the vehicle itself to escape the due sanctions.

Lastly, the towing away of the immobilized vehicle was not equivalent to a summary
impounding, but designed to prevent the immobilized vehicle from obstructing traffic in the
vicinity of the apprehension and thereby ensure the smooth flow of traffic. The owner of the
towed vehicle would not be deprived of his property.

With regards to procedural due process:

Yes. Ordinance No. 1664 meet the requirements of procedural due process. The
absence of notices and hearings under our laws is not necessarily a denial or deprivation of
due process. The immobilization of illegally parked vehicles by clamping the tires was
necessary because the violators were not around at the time of clamping. Under such
situation, notice and hearing would be unnecessary. (In non-legal terms, walay chance na
mag hearing pa kay dali-dali ang dagan sa nahitabo unya wala ang violator ana na time.)

The lack of a hearing prior to the clamping constitute a breach of procedural due
process, forgiving the violators the chance to reverse the clamping through a timely protest
could equally satisfy the need for a hearing. In other words, the prior intervention of a court
of law was not necessary to ensure a compliance with the guaranty of due process.