Renewing the Public Realm

CA upholds circulars on billboards

By admin ⋅ July 21, 2008 ⋅  Email this post ⋅  Print this post ⋅ Post a comment

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.

The Business Mirror