AGUSTIN vs.

EDU
Gr. No. L-49112

Facts: Pursuant to the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United
Nations Organization which was ratified by the Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207,
recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and
devices to reduce accidents between moving vehicles and parked cars, former President
Marcos issued Letter of Instruction No. 229 mandating all owners, users or drivers of motor
vehicles to have at all times in their motor vehicles at least one pair of early warning devices
(EWD) consisting of triangular, collapsible reflectorized plates in red and yellow colors at least
15 cms at the base and 40 cms at the sides.

Initially, LOI 229 provided that the EWD was to be issued at a cost by the Land Transportation
Commission. However, LOI 229 was later amended to allow motor vehicle owners to procure
the EWD from any source, with any brand or make of their choice. The EWD is to be presented
at the time of registration of the vehicle.

Land Transportation Commissioner Romeo Edu later promulgated Administrative Order No. 1
providing for the implementing rules and regulations of the EWD requirement.

Petitioner Leovillo Agustin, owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car Model 13035, challenged the
constitutionality of LOI 229 and its implementing order Administrative Order No. 1. His car is
already properly equipped when it came out from the assembly lines with blinking lights fore and
aft, which could be very well serve as an EWD in case of emergencies.

Petitioner filed a petition to the Supreme Court assailing that LOI 229 as amended by LOI Nos.
479 and 716 as well as Land Transportation Commission AO No. 1 and its Memorandum
Circular No. 32 void and unconstitutional for below:
(1) One-sided, illegal and immoral because this will make manufacturers and dealers
instant millionaires at the expense of car owners who are compelled to buy
(2) Oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay, unconstitutional and contrary to
the precepts of our compassionate New Society on the part of the motorists who could
provide a substitute
(3) Violating the constitutional provisions on due process of law, equal protection of law and
undue delegation of police power

Issue: Whether or not there is unlawful delegation of legislative power of LOI and its IRR.

Held: No. The Court ruled that the implementing rules and regulations issued by Commissioner
Edu cannot be considered as amounting to exercise of legislative power.
To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies the very least
that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. A
standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies
the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative
command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out. In
the Reflector Law, clearly, the legislative objective is public safety. It would be a rare occurrence
for the Supreme Court to invalidate a legislative or executive act of a character that is intended
to promote public safety.

Presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record
in overthrowing the statute. As long as laws do not violate any Constitutional provision, the
Courts merely interpret and apply them regardless of whether or not they are wise or salutary.
Court is not supposed to override legitimate policy and never inquire into the wisdom of the law.
The principle of separation of powers has in the main wisely allocated the respective authority of
each department and confined its jurisdiction to such a sphere.