CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. L-50908 January 31, 1984 - (Constitutional Law – Police Power, LOI, No
Violation of Equal Protection Clause)

MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA and ENRIQUE D. BAUTISTA, petitioners,

vs.
ALFREDO L. JUINIO, ROMEO F. EDU and FIDEL V. RAMOS, respondents.

PONENTE: Justice Enrique Medina Fernando

(July 25, 1915 – October 13, 2004) was the 13th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines. A noted constitutionalist and law professor, he served in the Supreme Court
for 18 years, including 6 years as Chief Justice -- July 2, 1979 – July 24, 1985
(6 years, 22 days).

Fernando was born in Malate, Manila. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree at the
University of the Philippines College of Law, graduating magna cum laude in 1938.[1] He
was a member of the Upsilon Sigma Phi fraternity.[2]

Shortly after admission to the bar, he joined the faculty of his alma mater, where he taught
as a full-time member of the faculty until 1953, and as a professorial lecturer for decades
afterwards. He was eventually appointed as the George A. Malcolm Professor of
Constitutional Law. Later, he would also teach constitutional law at the Lyceum of the
Philippines.[3] Fernando was feared for his rather tyrannical manner in the classroom,[4]
yet many of his law students would emerge as Supreme Court justices or prominent
practitioners in their own right.

In 1947, he was admitted by the Yale Law School as the first Filipino Sterling Fellow,
earning his Master of Law degree the following year.[1]

Fernando was appointed as a Code Commissioner in 1953 and served in that capacity until
1964. In the 1950s, he served as a Presidential adviser to Presidents Ramon Magsaysay and
Carlos P. Garcia. He likewise engaged in an extensive private practice prior to his
appointment to the Supreme Court. Among his law partners was Senator Lorenzo Tañada,
with whom he would co-author a popular hornbook on constitutional law. In his lifetime,
Fernando would author several books on constitutional and administrative law.[5]
FACTS:

The PETITIONERS ASSAILED the validity of an energy conservation measure, Letter of

Instruction No. 869, issued on May 31, 1979 — the response to the protracted oil crisis that
dates back to 1974 — is put in issue in this prohibition proceeding filed by petitioners,
spouses Mary Concepcion Bautista and Enrique D. Bautista, for being allegedly violative of
the due process and equal protection guarantees.

The PETITIONERS ALSO ASSAILED that Memorandum Circular No. 39 imposing

penalties of fine, confiscation of the vehicle and cancellation of license is likewise
unconstitutional, for being violative of the doctrine of "undue delegation of legislative
power."

Notes: The use of private motor vehicles with H (HEAVY) and EH (EXTRA HEAVY)
plates on week-ends and holidays was banned from "[12:00] a.m. Saturday morning to 5:00
a.m. Monday morning, or 1:00 a.m. of the holiday to 5:00 a.m. of the day after the
holiday."

ISSUE: Whether or not Letter of Instruction 869 as implemented by Memorandum

Circular No. 39 is violative of certain constitutional rights.

HELD:

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed.

The objection of the petitioners is shown to be lacking in merit on the following grounds:

The contention of the petitioner fall squarely within the “unchallenged rule”. Quote the
language of Justice Laurel in the leading case of People v. Vera, 16 "that the person who
impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement”.

The "presumption of constitutionality" of all memorandum issued by the Executive. "It

admits of no doubt therefore that there being a presumption of validity, the necessity for
evidence to rebut it is unavoidable, UNLESS the statute or ordinance is void on its face,
which is not the case here.
'The statute here questioned deals with a subject clearly within the scope of the police
power.

A recital of the whereas clauses of the Letter of Instruction makes it clear. Thus:
"[Whereas], developments in the international petroleum supply situation continue to
follow a trend of limited production and spiralling prices thereby precluding the possibility
of immediate relief in supplies within the foreseeable future; [Whereas], the uncertainty of
fuel supply availability underscores a compelling need for the adoption of positive
measures designed to insure the viability of the country's economy and sustain its
developmental growth; [Whereas], to cushion the effect of increasing oil prices and avoid
fuel supply disruptions, it is imperative to adopt a program directed towards the judicious
use of our energy resources complemented with intensified conservation efforts and
efficient utilization thereof

As stressed in the cited Ermita-Malate Hotel decision: "To hold otherwise would be to
unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police power which has been properly
characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as
it does 'to all the great public needs.' It would be, to paraphrase another leading decision,
to destroy the very purpose of the state if it could be deprived or allowed itself to be
deprived of its competence to promote public health, public morals, public safety and the
general welfare. Negatively put, police power is 'that inherent and plenary power in the
State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of
society.' "

To assure that the general welfare be promoted and NOT ONLY THE INTEREST OF
THE PETITIONERS. Affairs of men governed by that serene and impartiality.