Agustin v. Edu, G.R. No.

L-49112 February 2, 1979, 88

SCRA 195
CASE DIGEST

FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme Court for prohibition.Petitioner was an owner
of a volkswagen beetle car,model 13035 already properly equipped when it came out from the
assembly lines with blinking lights which could serve as an early warning device in case of the
emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No 229, as amended, as well as the
Implementing rules and regulations in Administrative Order No 1 issued by Land transportation
Commission.Respondent Land Transportation commissioner Romeo Edu issued memorandum
circular no 32 pursuant to Letter of Instructions No.229,as amended. It required the use of early
Warning Devices (EWD) on motor vehicles. Petitioner alleged that the letter of instructions, as
well as the implementing rules and regulations were unlawful and unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether the Letter of Instruction imposes valid measure of police power?

HELD: YES, The court held that the letter of Instruction No.229,as amended as well as the
implementing rules and regulations were valid and constitutional as a valid measure of police
power. The Vienna Convention on Road signs and signals and the United Nations Organization
was ratified by the Philippine local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and
devices.It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution
possesses relevance,between the International law and municipal law in applying the rule
municipal law prevails
.

AGUSTIN V. EDU - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL

LAW
AGUSTIN V. EDU G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979

FACTS:

Petitioner, Agustin assails the validity of the Letter of Instruction No. 229 which requires an early warning device to
be carried by users of motor vehicles as being violative of the constitutional guarantee of due process and
transgresses the fundamental principle of non-delegation of legislative power.

Herein respondent Romeo Edu in his capacity as Land Transportation Commisioner set forth the implementing rules
and regulations of the said instruction.

Petitioner make known that he "is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car, Model 13035, already properly equipped
when it came out from the assembly lines with blinking lights fore and aft, which could very well serve as an early
warning device in case of the emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No. 229, as amended, as well as the
implementing rules and regulations in Administrative Order No. 1 issued by the land transportation Commission,"
Furthermore, he contends that the law is "one-sided, onerous and patently illegal and immoral because [they] will
make manufacturers and dealers instant millionaires at the expense of car owners who are compelled to buy a set
of the so-called early warning device at the rate of P 56.00 to P72.00 per set." are unlawful and unconstitutional and
contrary to the precepts of a compassionate New Society [as being] compulsory and confiscatory on the part of the
motorists who could very well provide a practical alternative road safety device, or a better substitute to the
specified set of Early Warning Device (EWD)."

This instruction, signed by President Marcos, aims to prevent accidents on streets and highways, including
expressways or limited access roads caused by the presence of disabled, stalled or parked motor vehicles without
appropriate early warning devices. The hazards posed by these disabled vehicles are recognized by international
bodies concerned with traffic safety. The Philippines is a signatory of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and
Signals and the United Nations Organizations and the said Vienna Convention was ratified by the Philippine
Government under PD 207.

ISSUE:

WON the LOI 229 is invalid and violated constitutional guarantees of due process.

HELD:

NO. The assailed Letter of Instruction was a valid exercise of police power and there was no unlawful delegation of
legislative power on the part of the respondent. As identified, police power is a state authority to enact legislation
that may interfere personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. In this case, the particular
exercise of police power was clearly intended to promote public safety.

It cannot be disputed that the Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance: “The Philippines
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.”

Thus, as impressed in the 1968 Vienna Convention it is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it
had pledged its word. Our country’s word was resembled in our own act of legislative ratification of the said Hague
and Vienna Conventions thru P.D. No. 207 .

The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude which is, moreoever, at war with the
principle of international morality.

Petition dismissed.

FACTS:

On December 2, 1974, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 229,
which required all motor vehicles to secure early warning devices (EWD) consisting of a pair of
triangular, collapsible, reflectorized plates in red and yellow to be purchased from the Land
Transportation Commission. The purposes of this LOI were to prevent accidents caused by
vehicular obstructions and to adhere to the road safety standards outlined in the 1968 Vienna
Convention on Road Signs and Signals, which the Philippines had ratified as per PD No. 207.
LOI No. 229 was later amended by LOI No. 479 issued on November 15, 1976. Unlike before
where owners of motor vehicles were required to purchase the reflectorized plates from the
Land Transportation Commission, LOI No. 479 now made it possible for said owners to buy early
warning devices anywhere so long as they adhere to the standards prescribed by the Land
Transportation Commissioner.

President Marcos issued a six-month suspension of said LOI, after which he issued another LOI
lifting its suspension. On August 29, 1978, Land Transportation Commissioner Romeo Edu issued
Memorandum Circular No. 32, which contained LTC Administrative Order No. 1 or the rules and
regulations in the implementation of LOI No. 229 as amended.

Leovilo Agustin, a private citizen and owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car, filed a petition before
the SC, assailing the constitutionality of both LOI No. 229 as amended and LTC Administrative
Order No. 1. Among others, Agustin claimed that LOI No. 229 was violative of the provisions
and delegation of police power, an oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, and
unconstitutional order that was contrary to the precepts of the New Society. Pending its final
resolution, the Court issued a temporary restraining order preventing agencies concerned from
implementing both LOI No. 229 as amended and LTC Administrative Order No. 1.

ISSUE:

Whether or not LOI No. 229 as amended violated the constitutional provision on undue
delegation of power.

HELD:

No, the Court ruled that LOI No. 229 as amended falls within the State's police power, and
President Marcos' issuance of the same was clearly an exercise of such power. The intent of the
law can be clearly seen in the WHEREASes of the assailed LOI (to prevent accidents, safeguard
the safety of the public, and adhere to the State's commitment to public international law).
The Court later went on a lengthy discourse in defining what police power is:
1. "Nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty."
(Chief Justice Taney, US Supreme Court Chief Justice, 1847)
2. "The State authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or
property in order to promote the general welfare. Persons and property could thus be
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to achieve the general comfort,
health, and prosperity of the State." (Calalang v. Williams)
3. "The power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education, good
order or safety, and general welfare of the people." (Primicias v. Fugoso)
4. "Inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to all things hurtful to the
comfort, safety, and welfare of society." (Justice Malcolm)
5. "The totality of legislative power." (Morfe v. Mutuc)
6. "A dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in the
conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its government
limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable an
individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such
salutary measures calculated to communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare."