High court rules that MMDA's 'wet flag' scheme is legal

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the controversial "wet flag" scheme to keep pedestrians on the sidewalks is legal. The high court said that the city and municipal ordinances against jaywalking were sufficient basis for the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) to implement schemes such as the wet flag. "After all, the MMDA is an administrative agency tasked with the implementation of rules and regulations enacted by proper authorities," the Supreme Court said. In a six-page en banc resolution penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the high court dismissed the petition filed by lawyer Ernesto Francisco which sought to stop the MMDA from implementing the wet flag scheme. The wet flag, measuring about seven by five feet, hangs on the side of MMDA vehicles deployed along major thoroughfares in Metro Manila. MMDA chairman Bayani Fernando said it was intended to keep pedestrians on the sidewalks while waiting for a ride and to discourage jaywalking. The flag is kept wet by MMDA personnel on board the van by regularly throwing water on it. As the van moves, the pedestrians who insist on walking or standing on the roads, instead of keeping to the sidewalks, are drenched. In seeking to stop the wet flag scheme, Francisco said in his petition that the MMDA had no legal basis to implement the scheme because it was not authorized by the Metro Manila Council, the MMDA’s policy-making and governing body. The Metro Manila Council is comprised of the mayors of the capital’s 14 cities and three municipalities, and other officials. Francisco said the wet flag scheme is unconstitutional because it violates pedestrians’ right to due process and disregards Constitutional provisions against "cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment." He said the wet flag is also likely to cause accidents and injuries to pedestrians who scamper to avoid getting wet. In ruling in favor of the MMDA, the Supreme Court said it could not make a factual determination of whether the scheme is a reasonable enforcement of anti-jaywalking ordinances because it is not a "trier of facts." "The petitioner proffers mere surmises and speculations on the potential hazards of the flag scheme. This Court cannot determine the reasonableness of the flag scheme based on mere surmises and speculations," the Supreme Court said. It added that Francisco violated the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts when he filed his petition directly with the Supreme Court instead of bringing the issue first to the lower courts. -GMANews.TV