Billboard builders sue MMDA chairman
Ad group to Tolentino: You can’t make own rules
10:13 pm | Wednesday, March 28th, 2012
The battle over the Metro Manila skyline resumes.
An organization of outdoor advertisers on Wednesday accused Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Chairman Francis Tolentino of overstepping the agency’s authority in implementing his campaign against oversized billboards along major thoroughfares.
The Outdoor Media Advocacy Group Inc. (OMAG) is questioning four memorandum circulars issued by Tolentino that imposed additional size and content restrictions on billboards.
Long before the MMDA campaign, the proliferation of outdoor ads in the metropolis has drawn criticism especially from advocates of urban planning and beautification, who see the giant billboards both as eyesores marring the cityscape and as deadly hazards during typhoons.
The MMDA website features a page identifying the ads and outdoor ad companies cited for violations, like failure to secure building permits from the local government and noncompliance with the space clearance required for such structures.
The OMAG complained that Tolentino “evidently acted beyond the scope of his authority and in excess of his jurisdiction.”
“[The Department of Public Works and Highways] did not delegate to MMDA the power to promulgate its own rules or promulgate additional implementing rules,” according to the group’s 11-page complaint filed at the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office.
The group said Tolentino had “arrogated unto himself legislative powers by promulgating the aforesaid memorandum circulars containing provisions that are not found” in the National Building Code and its implementing rules and regulations.
MMDA legal service director Rochelle Macapili-Ona deferred comment when reached by the Inquirer, pending receipt of the complaint.
Represented by its executive director, Winthrop Bañez, OMAG mainly assailed the MMDA’s issuance of the four memos last year, which the group alleged to be a criminal usurpation of legislative power.
The four memos spelled out additional restrictions on the size and content of billboards, required advertisers to secure another set of permits from the MMDA, and prescribed a new schedule of fees and penalties.
Like in the previous complaints faced by the MMDA on the matter, the OMAG said the agency does not have any legislative function and therefore could not create its own set of rules to govern outdoor billboards in Metro Manila.
The regulation of billboards is under the National Building Code, which the DPWH implements. In a memorandum of agreement signed in August 2010, the department authorized the MMDA to implement sections of the code related to billboards.
But the OMAG argued that the MMDA chairman could only implement regulations already set by the code and not “issue implementing rules of his own governing the installation and maintenance of outdoor billboards, advertising and display signs … in Metro Manila.”
“Chair Tolentino’s acts are a clear violation of the law and a manifest encroachment upon the power of the DPWH,” the complaint stressed.
The suit is the second complaint filed against the MMDA in connection with its anti-billboard campaign.
Late last year, the Outdoor Advertisers Association of the Philippines also tried to stop the MMDA following what it claimed to be the illegal dismantling of billboards put up by its member groups.
The association initially secured a temporary restraining order from a Makati City court. But the judge later junked the complaint, saying the group did not represent members who were directly affected by the policy.
