The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) is filing an appeal on the Court of Appeals ruling declaring the MMDA without any power and authority under the law to enforce the anti-smoking drive in the metro by apprehending smokers in public buildings and facilities.
During the agency’s weekly radio program, MMDA Chair Francis Tolentino said on Sunday they have not to received an official copy of the decision for them to be able to file a motion for consideration with the appellate court or an appeal to the Supreme Court.
“It is just sad that it has come to that decision because the agency was deputized by the Department of Health (DOH) and it is under our health mandate to take care of the public’s health. It will be a lost opportunity if it will just be scrapped,” Tolentino added.
On Wednesday last week, the CA ruled that the MMDA could not implement the anti-smoking campaign, a decision, which also upheld the ruling of the Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court Branch No. 213 two years ago.
MMDA Chair Francis Tolentino elevated the case to the Court of Appeals after the agency lost in the case filed by Mandaluyong residents Anthony Clemente and Vrianne Lamsen, who were apprehended for smoking on a footbridge along Edsa in Cubao, Quezon City in 2011. The two were fined P500 each.
The appellate court has declared in its ruling that the MMDA is not one of the members of the Inter-Agency Committee-Tobacco who have the “exclusive power and function to administer the provisions” of the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2013 or Republic Act No. 9211.
The decision also declared invalid the MMDA Resolution No. 11-19, which implemented the provisions of the Tobacco Regulations Act of 2003.
Tolentino added that the agency has apprehended thousands of violators since 2011 when they started their deputation for the anti-smoking campaign.
“We think the decision has not enough legal basis since the appellate court usually just affirms the decision of the the judge in the lower court,” the MMDA chair noted adding that they would carefully study what to do about the issue.
Since the decision has not yet been rendered “final and executory,” the agency will continue enforcing the law, according to Tolentino.
In addition, MMDA General Manager Cora Jimenez said that the agency’s environmental enforcers have been commended by commuters, especially women who commonly complain of smoking PUV drivers and individuals smoking in public places.
“One of our mandates is health and sanitation including environmental protection based on Republic Act No. 7924 (An Act Creating the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Defining its Powers and Functions, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes),” Jimenez explained.
She added that the MMDA also got a deputation memorandum order from the Department of Health and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board in 2011.
“The 17 local government units in Metro Manila have completed their respective ordinances on anti-smoking advocacy. Through a Metro Manila Council (MMC) Resolution, the mayors have agreed we enforce RA 9211,” noted Jimenez.
Tolentino raised the question on who could actively enforce the anti-smoking law if they were stopped from doing it.
Asked where the fines the MMDA have been collecting in line with the anti-smoking drive have gone, the MMDA chair said they have been using the money as a maintenance fund for the agency.