Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 - Francisco v. Fernando, G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006

    Uploaded by

    Lord Jester Aguirre
    10 views1 page
    1) Petitioner Ernesto Francisco Jr., a lawyer and taxpayer, sought to prohibit the further implementation of the wet flag scheme of MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando, arguing it had no legal basis and violated constitutional rights. 2) The wet flag scheme involved spraying jaywalkers with colored dye from a water gun. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the wet flag scheme was legally valid, as all cities under MMDA jurisdiction had enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances, and MMDA was tasked with implementing rules enacted by proper authorities.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    15 - ☺ Francisco v. Fernando, G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Petitioner Ernesto Francisco Jr., a lawyer and taxpayer, sought to prohibit the further implementation of the wet flag scheme of MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando, arguing it had no legal basis and violated constitutional rights. 2) The wet flag scheme involved spraying jaywalkers with colored dye from a water gun. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the wet flag scheme was legally valid, as all cities under MMDA jurisdiction had enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances, and MMDA was tasked with implementing rules enacted by proper authorities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views1 page

    15 - Francisco v. Fernando, G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006

    Uploaded by

    Lord Jester Aguirre
    1) Petitioner Ernesto Francisco Jr., a lawyer and taxpayer, sought to prohibit the further implementation of the wet flag scheme of MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando, arguing it had no legal basis and violated constitutional rights. 2) The wet flag scheme involved spraying jaywalkers with colored dye from a water gun. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the wet flag scheme was legally valid, as all cities under MMDA jurisdiction had enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances, and MMDA was tasked with implementing rules enacted by proper authorities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    15

    Francisco v. Fernando
    G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006
    CARPIO, J.

    Facts:

     Petitioner Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and taxpayer
    prays for the prohibition of further implementing wet flag scheme of the MMDA chairman
    Bayani Fernando.
     Petitioner argues that MMDA has no legal basis, It violates due process as it act as a summary
    punishment, It disregards constitutional rights against cruel, degrading, and inhuman
    punishment and it violates "pedestrian rights" as it exposes pedestrians to various potential
    hazards.
     Respondent Bayani Fernando sought the dismissal of the petition for petitioner’s lack of
    standing to litigate and for violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the wet flag scheme of the MMDA has legal basis

    Ruling:

    Yes, it has legal basis. With Valenzuela as an exemption, all cities and municipalities within the
    jurisdiction of the MMDA have enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances. MMDA is an administrative
    agency which is task to implement rules and regulation enacted by the proper authorities.

    You might also like