MAXIMO CALALANG, petitioner vs A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL.

, respondent
G.R. No. 47800, December 2, 1940
Ponente: J. LAUREL
Case No. 10 Dita, Juhanizah M.
Doctrine: Social Justice

Summary: Calalang filed a petition for writ of prohibition against certain officials in enforcing the
prohibition of animal-drawn vehicles in certain areas and during certain periods of the day. The Court
ruled that Commonwealth Act No. 548, the law in question, is constitutional.

FACTS:

 Maximo Calalang brought a petition for a writ of prohibition against the following
respondents: Chairman of the National Traffic Commission (A.D Williams), Director of
public Works (Vicente fragante), Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications
(Sergio Bayan), Mayor of the City of Manila (Eulogio Rodriguiz), and the Acting Chief of
Police of Manila (Juan Dominguez).

 It is alleged in the petition that the respondents have caused and enforced the prohibition of
animal-drawn vehicles from passing along de las Barca to Dasmarinas Street (from 7:30am-
12:30pm and from 1:30-5:30pm); and Rizal Avenue extending from the railroad crossing at
Antipolo Street to Echague Street (from 7-11am) for a period of one year from the date of the
opening of the Colgante Bridge, to the detriment not only of their owners but of the riding
public as well (all animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick up passengers in the
places above mentioned).

 The petitioner avers that the rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic
on national roads, pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 548, infringe upon the constitution
precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic
security of all the people.

ISSUES:

(1) WOT CA No. 548 is unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative power.

(2) WON CA No 548 constitutes as an unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade and
abridge the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion.

(3) WON CA No 548 infringes upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social
justice.

HELD:

(1) NO. The provision of CA No. 548 DO NOT confer legislative power upon the Director of Public
Works and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.

(2) NO. Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the
paramount police power of the state. In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was
prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve
congestion of traffic, a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the
enactment of said law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with
personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations.

(3) NO. The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken sympathy towards
any given group. Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,"
but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State
so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be
approximated…

DISPOSITIVE: In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed for is hereby DENIED,
with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.