G.R. No. 215650 - Concurring Opinion

G.R. No. 215650, March 28, 2023,
♦ Decision, Lopez, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Gesmundo, [CJ]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J]

AUGUSTO L. SYJUCO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS; HONORITO D. CHANECO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY; AND RENATO Z. SAN JOSE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE METRO RAIL TRANSPORT 3 OFFICE, RESPONDENTS.

BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL, RENATO REYES, JR.; TEODORO CASIÑO; MELQUIADES A. ROBLES; ELMER C. LABOG; SAMMY T. MALUNES; FERDINAND R. GAITE; VENCER CRISOSTOMO; JOSSEL I. EBESATE; GLORIA G. ARELLANO; HERMAN TIU LAUREL; MYRLEON E. PERALTA; AMORSOLO L. COMPETENTE; ELVIRA Y. MEDINA; MARIA DONNA GREY MIRANDA; ANGELO VILLANUEVA SUAREZ; JOSE SONNY G. MATULA; DAVID L. DIWA; JAMES BERNARD E. RELATIVO; AND GIOVANNI A. TAPANG, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS; RENATO Z. SAN JOSE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF METRO RAIL TRANSPORT 3 OFFICE; LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY HONORITO D. CHANECO AS ADMINISTRATOR; METRO RAIL TRANSIT CORPORATION; AND LIGHT RAIL MANILA CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

UNITED FILIPINO CONSUMERS AND COMMUTERS, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, RODOLFO B. JAVELLANA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS; METRO RAIL TRANSIT CORPORATION; AND LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE NERI JAVIER COLMENARES; BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE; ANTHONY IAN CRUZ; IMELDA V. LUNA; AND CARL ANTHONY ALA, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS; LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY; AND RENATO Z. SAN JOSE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF METRO RAIL TRANSIT 3 OFFICE, RESPONDENTS.

JOSEPH VICTOR G. EJERCITO, JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., IRWIN C. TIENG, MARIANO MICHAEL DEL MONTE VELARDE, JR., LEAH D. PAQUIZ, GUSTAVO S. TAMBUNTING, JESUS CRISPIN C. REMULLA, ALAN A. TANJUSAY, ALLAN S. MONTAÑO, LEODY Q. DE GUZMAN, RENATO B. MAGTUBO; AND ANNIE E. GERON, PETITIONERS, VS. WINSTON M. GINEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD; JOSE EMILIO A. ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS; RENATO Z. SAN JOSE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF METRO RAIL TRANSIT 3 OFFICE; LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY; METRO RAIL TRANSPORT CORPORATION; AND LIGHT RAIL MANILA CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

I agree with the ponencia of my esteemed colleague Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez that Department Order No. 2014-014 (DO 2014-014) of the then Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) complied with Book VII, Chapter 2, Section 9(2) of the Administrative Code of 1987.

Fares for the trains at the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Lines 1 and 2 and the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) Line 3 were subsidized by our taxpayers, riders, and non-riders alike. In August 2010, to reduce the subsidies, the Office of the President directed the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers and an attached agency to the DOTC, to conduct studies on the feasibility of fare rate hikes. Later, the DOTC was itself involved in this staff work. The study was vetted by top officials of the LRTA and the DOTC.

In October 2010, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Budget and Management, the Secretary of Transportation and Communications, and the Secretary of Socio-Economic Planning (economic managers) executed a Memorandum for the Office of the President regarding the LRT fare adjustment.1aшphi1 Eventually, the study report was submitted to the LRTA Board for its approval during its regular meeting in January 2011. During the meeting, the LRTA Board provisionally approved the proposed fare adjustment of PHP 11.00 boarding fare plus PHP 1.00/km, with the corresponding fare matrices.

Apparently, in compliance with the above-quoted Section 9, the LRTA Board scheduled public consultation to be held on two occasions - February 4 and 5, 2011. It also published the Notice of Public Consultation in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on January 20, 2011 and The Manilla Bulletin on January 27, 2011.

The result of the public consultations was unfavorable to the proposed fare adjustment. The LRTA Board, nevertheless, finally approved at its level the fare adjustment based on the distance-based fare scheme. The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) concurred in the proposed fare adjustment.

In May 2011, however, the LRTA Board and the DOTC decided to indefinitely defer the implementation of the fare increase. The proposed fare adjustment was dormant until June 26, 2013 when the LRTA Board revived the proposed fare adjustment with its amendment to remove student discounts. On July 22, 2013, in his State of the Nation Address, then President Benigno Simeon Aquino III announced the policy to remove subsidies to the MRT and LRT fares.

On November 26, 2013, the LRTA Board simply resurrected the 2011 proposed fare adjustment, i.e., PHP 11.00 plus PHP 1.00/km fare adjustment for LRT-1 and LRT-2, as its provisional fare adjustment proposal. This was the first step fare adjustment. It was scheduled to be implemented on August 1, 2013. A second step implementation was decided to run through a public consultation that was held on December 12, 2013.

On December 18, 2013, the LRTA Board confirmed at its level the LRT fare adjustment using the same PHP 11.00 plus PHP 1.00/km formula, subject to consultation with the LTFRB. On December 19, 2013, the LTFRB Chair signified that the LTFRB had no objections to the fare adjustment.

On December 18, 2014, respondent Abaya, then DOTC Secretary, issued the assailed DO 2014-014. This was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on December 20, 2014 and became effective on January 4, 2015. DO 2014-014 imposed the uniform base fare of PHP 11.00 plus PHP 1.00 per kilometer of distance traveled.

The proposed fare adjustment was the same 2011 proposed fare adjustment that was published in a newspaper of general circulation on January 20, 2011, or at least two weeks prior to the first public consultation on February 4, 2011. In due course, this same proposed fare adjustment resulted in the assailed DO 2014-014.

Clearly, DO 2014-014 complied with Section 9(2) as above-quoted. The proposed fare adjustment was in fact published on January 20, 2011, or at least two weeks prior to the first hearing, which was the first public consultation on February 4, 2011. The end-product-DO 2014-014-must be upheld since the proposed rates were published as instructed by Section 9(2).

First, the statutory requirement of publication at least two weeks prior to the first hearing or public consultation is distinct from the element of the public participation itself where the public may be heard. They should not be confused with each other.

In any event, there is no requirement in Section 9(2) or anywhere in the Administrative Code of 1987 that the hearings or public consultations ought to be held within a particular time frame before the adoption of the final order of fare or rate adjustments.

Second, the mandatory publication in Section 9(2) has nothing to do with the time interval between the public consultations held and the date of actual publication of the final order of fare or rate adjustments, which here is DO 2014-014. Section 9(2) is clear that the publication refers to the proposed rates and the time interval of at least two weeks prior to the first hearing. Thus, respondents clearly adhered to Section 9(2).

The purpose of the publication requirement is to give notice to the public to vent their sentiments on the proposed fare adjustment. The notice precisely gave that desired result. The first two public consultations resulted in the deferral of the implementation of the proposed fare hike. The third one allowed further vetting of the proposal. The solicitation of the LTFRB' s position gave a government third-party objective assessment thereof. It cannot be said that Section 9(2) publication did not accomplish its purpose.

Third, Section 9(1) of Book VII, Chapter 2 of the Administrative Code of 1987 itself defines public participation in the fixing of rates (or fares in the case at bar) as simply the opportunity to interested parties to submit their views prior to the adoption of the final order of fare or rate adjustments, as far as practicable.1 Here, there were three public consultations and two referrals to the LTFRB, which is not obliged by law but was nonetheless done as a check-and-balance mechanism.

To be sure, even if there were oppositions to the proposed fare adjustments, the rules on contested case did not come into play. Under Section 9(3) of Book VII, Chapter 2 of the Administrative Code of 1987, "[i]n case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed." Section 2(5) of Book VII, Chapter 1, however, defines a contested case as:

x x x any proceeding, including licensing, in which the legal rights, duties or privileges asserted by specific parties as required by the Constitution or by law are to be determined after hearing. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, the proposed fare adjustments were to impact en masse. No specific parties were involved. To apply the rules2 on contested cases where millions of riders are potential parties and witnesses would grind agency proceeding and action to a halt. Further, as the Court has stressed several times, rate-fixing looks to the future and not to past events for which a hearing to ascertain these past disputed facts are determined. Hence, a judicial-type notice and hearing is inappropriate.

Senior Associate Justice Leonen was emphatic of this rule when his ponencia5 ruled:

However, notice and hearing are not required when an administrative agency exercises its quasi-legislative power. The reason is that in the exercise of quasi-legislative power, the administrative agency makes no "determination of past events or facts."6 (Emphasis supplied)

In Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Ports Authority,7 the Court equated the fixing of rates affecting en masse with a quasi-legislative power where generally no notice and hearing are mandatory:

The above rulings echoed precedents such as Alliance for the Family Foundation, Philippines, Inc. v. Garin,9 Dagan v. Philippine Racing Commission,10 and Abella v. Civil Service Commission.11

The hearing or public participation element in Section 9(2) is fulfilled where consultations were held to give interested personalities the opportunity to attend and submit their views. In Carbonilla v. Board of Airlines Representatives,12 the Court thus decided:

Notably, the public participation called for in Section 9 does not guarantee a result in favor of anyone, especially any oppositor. The actual process is governed by what is practicable, which in turn must also account for the nature of the decision involved and the process that the agency itself sees to be reasonable. It is a hearing on what the future holds. It is not a hearing to correct past grievances, though this may be a relevant backdrop to the future. In any event, the agency proceeding is not required by any law to set a timeline between the holding of the public consultations and the making of a final order. Ideally, there should only be a short gap. It is unlike the requirement for courts to decide within a certain period after the termination of the court proceedings - but even then the court decision does not become void just because it was rendered late.

Finally, we cannot hamstring the political branches of government in their manner of arriving at policy decisions. The string of precedents above-mentioned is the clearest indicator of our sincerest respect for the proceedings and work of these counterpart political agencies.

Respondents were confounded with decisions whether to continue with subsidies or allow the user-pays principle to determine the price of riding the LRT and MRT. Telling them how to conduct their unearthing of legislative and policy-related facts, I most respectfully submit, is beyond our competence to dictate. Telling them what legislative and policy-related facts are relevant and what are already stale is also beyond our institutional ability to determine. We look only at whether they have complied with the law, here, Book VII, Chapter 2, Section 9 of the Administrative Code of 1987, on publication and public participation. As shown, respondents faithfully have.

ACCORDINGLY, I concur in the dismissal of the petitions and vote to confirm the validity of the Department Order No. 2014-014.