|
THE
Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the legality of two
circulars issued by the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH) imposing additional standards and
regulations in the construction and maintenance of
advertising billboards as an offshoot of Typhoon
Milenyo’s onslaught two years ago.
DPWH Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane Jr. has
issued National Building Code Development Office
Memorandum (NBCDO) Circulars 5, Series of 2006 and 2,
Series of 2007, pursuant to President Arroyo’s
Administrative Order 160, directing the department to
conduct inspections, assessments and dismantling of
billboards posing imminent danger to life and property.
The presidential order and the DPWH
circulars were issued after giant billboard structures
along major thoroughfares in Metro Manila collapsed at
the height of Super-typhoon Milenyo in late September.
The billboards fell on trees, lamp-
posts and passing vehicles, injuring residents and
motorists, and killing a driver of an “FX” vehicle.
The matter led to demands for stricter
standards for billboard structures.
In 16-page ruling penned by Associate
Justice Martin Villarama Jr., the CA’s Third Division
granted the petition filed by the DPWH seeking to
nullify the February 29, 2008, ruling of Judge Emma S.
Young, of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 36,
enjoining it from implementing the assailed circulars.
The appellate court held that the
department has the power to regulate the installation of
billboards for the purpose of protecting public safety.
“As a private entity engaged in the
business of advertising using signboards and billboards,
private respondent is subject to regulation by the
government,” the CA said.
“Regulation as to size and height,
manner of construction, and maintenance of billboards
and signboards, and the prohibition of indecent or
immoral advertising will be upheld if they have a
reasonable tendency to protect the public safety,
health, morals or general welfare, and do not
unnecessarily invade property rights. Moreover, police
power has been used to justify public safety measures
such as building regulations,” it added.
Based on records, the Outdoor
Advertising Association of the Philippines (OAAP) filed
on September 20, 2007, a petition for certiorari before
the lower court seeking to prohibit the implementation
of the circulars.
The OAAP argued that the circulars’
provisions are unconstitutional for unduly restricting
and regulating the construction of signs and billboards
without any basis in law.
It said the issuance of the circulars is
tantamount to executive legislation, which should be
declared invalid.
However, before the lower court could
rule on the petition, the OAAP withdrew the case,
prompting its individual members led by Astro
Advertising to file a motion for intervention.
The petitioners raised the same
arguments cited by OAAP in the original petition.
In an order dated February 29, 2008, the
trial court granted the petitioners’ application for
preliminary injunction and enjoined DPWH from
implementing the subject circulars.
But the appellate court held that the
trial court erred in ruling against the DPWH.
It agreed with the DPWH’s contention
that Astro Advertising failed to show evidence to
establish its claim that the provisions of the subject
circulars are “restrictive and have no basis in the
National Building Code.”
Although
the additional guidelines with respect to billboard
construction under the two circulars are not prescribed
in the NBC, this does not render the issuance void and
illegal, the CA said.
Concurring with the ruling were
Associate Justices Noel Tijam and Arturo Tayag. |
