Agustin vs Edu, G.R. No.

L-49112 February 2, 1979

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.