MAXIMO CALALANG V A.

D WILLIAMS
70 PHIL 726
FACTS:
Petitioner Calalang, in his own capacity as private citizen and a taxpayer filed a
petition for prohibition against the Respondents.
It was alleged in the petition that the National Traffic Commission, in its
resolution, resolved and recommend to the Director of Public Works and
Communication that animal-drawn vehicle be prohibited from passing along the
following, within the period of 1 year from the date of the opening of Colgante
Bridge to traffic:

(1) Rosario Street extending from Plaza Calderon de a Barca to Dasmarinas

Street from 7:30am-12:30pm and from 1:30pm-5:30pm; and

(2) Along Rizal Avenue extending from railroad crossing at Antipolo Street
to Echague Street from 7am-11pm.

The adoption of said measure was pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act
No. 548, which authorizes said director of Public Works, with the approval of
Secretary of Public Works and Communication, to promulgate rules and regulations
to regulate and control the use of traffic on National Roads.

ISSUE: WON CA 548 is a delegation of legislative power;

WON CA 548 is a valid exercise of Police Power.

HELD:

NO. It cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is making of the
law. The authority therein conferred upon them is merely to carry out the
legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly. In the said act, to promulgate
rules and regulations and the requirement of public convenience and the interest is
an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the National
Assembly.

YES. The enactment of the CA 548, was inspired by a desire to relieve

congestion of traffic which is a menace to public safety. Public welfare lies at the
bottom of its enactment, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may
interfere with the personal liberty, property, and business and occupation.