The Court of Appeals has upheld the legality of the single ticketing system for traffic violators imposed by local government units.

In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Edwin Sorongon, the appellate court’s Sixth Division declared the implementation of the Uniform Ordinance Violation Receipt system, which was passed by government units in Metro Manila as legal and constitutional.

The Appeals court denied for lack of merit the petition for injunction and mandamus filed by several transport organizations against the ordinance.

The ordinance provides that a motorist should not be issued a new ticket if he has been issued a ticket for the same violation in another area. The ticket will serve as a temporary license if the motorist’s license is confiscated. But if a violator is apprehended for a different violation, he will still be issued another ticket.

The petitioners, which include the Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines, Alliance of Concerned Transport Organizations, Pinagkaisang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Opereytor Nationwide and Pasang-Masda, assailed the traffic ordinances of the government agencies composed of the cities of Quezon, Makati, Navotas, Las Piñas, Taguig, Pasig, Pasay, Valenzuela, San Juan, Parañaque, Caloocan, Muntinlupa, Mandaluyong and the municipality of Pateros for being unconstitutional and violative of Republic Act 4136 and Section 5(f) of Act 7924.

Act 4136 is the “act to compile the laws relative to land transportation and traffic rules, to create a land transportation and traffic rules, to create a land transportation commission.”

The groups sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing only the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) to immediately draw up, install and administer a “single ticketing system” for all traffic violations in the whole Metro Manila and not the government units.

The petitioners argued that the implementation of the ordinances, specifically the confiscation of driver’s licenses, constitutes unlawful deprivation of property as guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution “thereby making such ordinances unconstitutional.”

Respondent government agencies vehemently opposed the petition, reasoning that their respective ordinances are not unconstitutional as they were enacted within the bounds of the law.

In its decision, the Appeals court held that “the petitioners failed to come up with a strong evidence of neglect on the part of the MMDA in the enforcement of its duty to draw up a single ticketing system.”

“They failed to show that the MMDA has absolutely abdicated its duty as provided under Section 5(f) of RA 7924,” the CA pointed out.

The appellate court said that the assailed ordinances are not legally infirm, “neither were they enacted in violation of the Constitution.”