THE Metro Manila Development Authority suffered a huge setback in its campaign against smoking after a Mandaluyong court issued a temporary restraining order stopping the agency from implementing its smoking ban.

The ruling stemmed from a complaint filed by Antony M. Clemente and Vrianne I. Lamson, who were accosted by MMDA’s environmental enforcers while smoking on a sidewalk in EDSA Cubao, Quezon City last July.

The two were issued environmental violation receipts and fined P500 each.

Judge Carlos A. Valenzuela said the MMDA has no police powers since the Supreme Court ruled in MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. that the MMDA’s functions are “administrative in nature.”

“Examining the provisions of RA 9211(Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003), the agency which has the exclusive power and function to implement the provisions of RA 9211 is the Inter-Agency Committee-Tobacco” which is headed by the Department of Trade and Industry and co-chaired by the Department of Health,” Valenzuela said.

The court said that “public place” as referred to under RA 9211 are enclosed or confined areas of hospitals, medical clinics, schools, public transportation terminals and offices, and building such as private and public offices, recreational places, shopping malls, movie houses, hotels, restaurants, and the like.

“To the mind of this court, the term ‘public places,’ as used under RA 9211, is specifically limited to ‘enclosed or confined’ areas. Consequently, open areas, such as thoroughfares or sidewalks, are not enclosed or confined areas. As such, they are not covered by the restricted definition of public places,” the judge said. “Certainly, the literal meaning of ‘enclosed or confined areas’ does not include wide open spaces such as thoroughfares and sidewalks like where (the two smokers) were apprehended.”

MMDA Chairman Francis Tolentino said they will appeal the ruling.

“The TRO issued by the court is saddening because it says that we don’t have the authority (to enforce the campaign). That’s why tomorrow morning we’ll file a motion for reconsideration,” Tolentino said.

“This is about implementation of a national law, R.A. 9211. It (court) did not consider our agreements with the DoH (Department of Health) and LTFRB (Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board). Our campaign is also in line with the Clean Air Act,” he said.