ILOILO City – The city government will continue enforcing its local ordinance that allows traffic aides to confiscate driver’s licenses despite a contrary opinion of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, in a legal opinion issued on Monday, May 15, said local government units (LGUs) do not have the authority to confiscate the driver’s licenses of erring motorists.
It was Undersecretary for External, Legal and Legislative Affairs Juan Victor Llamas of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) who sought the opinion of the DOJ on the matter.
The DOJ opinion upholds a joint memorandum circular (JMC) of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the DILG which prohibits LGUs from confiscating driver’s licenses for traffic violations.
However, Mayor Jerry P. Treñas emphasized that the city has an existing ordinance, particularly Regulation Ordinance No. 338, which was approved by the Iloilo City Council on the authority of the city thru the traffic aides, who are under the Public Safety and Transportation Management Office (PSTMO), to confiscate driver’s licenses.
“The said ordinance was questioned in court and the constitutionality of the same was upheld,” Treñas stressed.
The city mayor also maintained that it is his responsibility to implement the ordinance through the traffic aides.
“We will follow the rule of law,” he added.
He said the opinions of the DOJ and DILG cannot supersede an ordinance duly approved by the city council.
“The city council is a legislative body duly created by the Local Government Code. There is a process for declaring an ordinance unconstitutional and it is through the courts of justice. Otherwise, any secretary of the Department of Justice or local government can declare an ordinance unconstitutional by mere opinion,” Treñas added.
In a decision dated May 22, 2017, Regional Trial Court (RTC) – Branch 26 ruled that the city government’s TMTRO (Transportation Management and Traffic Regulation Office, old name of PSTMO) has the power to confiscate driver’s licenses for certain violations.
The court junked for lack of merit the petition of Atty. Daniel Cartagena questioning the validity of Regulation Ordinance No. 338.
The court held, among others, that “Section 62 of Republic Act 4136 (or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code) juxtapose(s) with Ordinance No. 338, contrary to the concept of the petitioner, there is no conflict between the two provisions and complement each other in the exercise of traffic management.”
Treñas also previously emphasized that “the LTO (Land Transportation Office) law was approved in 1964 while the Local Government Code under which the ordinance creating the traffic aides was enacted in the 1980s. Traffic aide positions were created to fill a gap when the Philippine National Police concentrated only in peace and order. The ordinance of the city was questioned in the RTC and was upheld.”
In September 2022, the city government refrained from confiscating the driver’s licenses of erring motorists in compliance with the memorandum issued by the DILG that only the personnel of LTO are authorized to do so.
By that time, the city mayor endeavored to have all traffic aides deputized by the LTO. He wrote a letter to the LTO about the deputation. But he also stressed that the city government would enforce Regulation Ordinance No. 338 that allows traffic aides to confiscate driver’s licenses if it gets no response from the LTO.
A few weeks after or in the first week of October 2022, Treñas has given traffic aides the go signal to resume confiscating the licenses of erring drivers after he has not received a response from the LTO relative to his request to deputize the city’s traffic aides.
“That is part of local autonomy. If the Supreme Court will finally rule that the ordinance is unconstitutional then we will not implement it,” he previously stated.
Meanwhile, in seeking the opinion of the DOJ, Llamas asked whether the LGUs can confiscate driver’s license pursuant to Section 16 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7160 or the “Local Government Code of 1991”, without the necessary deputation provided under RA No. 4136 or the “ Land Transportation and Traffic Code.”
Llamas cited Section 29 of RA No. 4136 which provides that law enforcement and peace officers designated by the LTO may confiscate the license of a driver who has violated the provisions of RA No. 4136 or any rules issued pursuant to the said RA or the local traffic rules and regulations.
In response, Remulla said that RA No. 7160, which is a general law, does not provide for an express authority for LGUs to confiscate drivers’ licenses.
On the other hand, RA No. 4136, which is a special law, expressly provides that only duly deputized law enforcement and peace officers of other agencies are authorized to confiscate the license of an apprehended driver.
“As between a general law and special law, the latter shall prevail – generalia specialibus non derogant (a general law does not nullify a specific or a special law),” Remulla added.
“The foregoing considered, the guidelines provided under JMC No. 01, s. 2008, and as reiterated in DILG Memorandum dated 14 September 2022, which provides that only the LTO and their deputized agents can confiscate drivers’ licenses, while LGUs can only issue traffic citation tickets, must be accorded full consideration by the LGUs,” he added./PN
