Article 2 Sec 2 CONSTI 1

Agustin vs Edu 88 SCRA 195Facts

This case is a petition assailing the validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction No. 229, issued by

President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all vehicle owners, users or drivers to procure early warning devices

to be installed a distance away from such vehicle when it stalls or is disabled. In compliance with such letter of

instruction, the Commissioner of the Land Transportation Office issued Administrative Order No. 1 directing the

compliance thereof. 

This petition alleges that such letter of instruction and subsequent administrative order are unlawful and

unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due process, equal protection of the law and undue delegation

of police power. 

Issue

Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the subsequent Administrative Order issued is

unconstitutional

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the petition. The statutes in question are deemed not

unconstitutional. These were definitely in the exercise of police power as such was established to promote

public welfare and public safety. In fact, the letter of instruction is based on the constitutional provision of

adopting to the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The letter of

instruction mentions, as its premise and basis, the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs

and Signals and the discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations - that such letter was issued in

consideration of a growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parked vehicles on the streets and

highways.

Article 2 Sec 2 CONSTI 1

Agustin vs Edu 88 SCRA 195

Facts

This case is a petition assailing the validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction No. 229,issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all vehicle owners, users or drivers to procure earlywarning devices to be installed a distance away from such vehicle when it stalls or is disabled. Incompliance with such letter of instruction, the Commissioner of the Land Transportation Office issuedAdministrative Order No. 1 directing the compliance thereof.This petition alleges that such letter of instruction and subsequent administrative order are unlawfuland unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due process, equal protection of the law and unduedelegation of police power.

Issue

Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the subsequent Administrative Order issued isunconstitutional

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the petition. The statutes in question are deemed notunconstitutional. These were definitely in the exercise of police power as such was established topromote public welfare and public safety. In fact, the letter of instruction is based on the constitutionalprovision of adopting to the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of theland. The letter of instruction mentions, as its premise and basis, the resolutions of the 1968 ViennaConvention on Road Signs and Signals and the discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations - thatsuch letter was issued in consideration of a growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parkedvehicles on the streets and highways.

Digest #2

AGUSTIN vs EDU88 SCRA 195

FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme Court for prohibition.Petitioner was an owner of avolkswagen beetle car,model 13035 already properly equipped when it came out from the assemblylines with blinking lights which could serve as an early warning device in case of the emergenciesmentioned in Letter of Instructions No 229, as amended, as well as the Implementing rules andregulations in Administrative Order No 1 issued by Land transportation Commission.Respondent LandTransportation 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 regulationswere unlawful and unconstitutional.

ISSUE: Whether the Letter of Instruction were considered valid and constitutional?

Article 2 Sec 2 CONSTI 1

HELD: YES, The court held that the letter of Instruction No.229,as amended as well as theimplementing 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 bythe Philippine local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices.It cannot bedisputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance,betweenthe International law and municipal law in applying the rule municipal law prevails.Petition is DISMISSED.VPA Notes:Bernas Page 60

Agustin vs Edu, 88 SCRA 195, L- 49112, February 22, 1979

Facts : This is a petition questioning the validity of a Letter of Instruction providing for an early warning

device mandatory for motor vehicles. It is assailed in this prohibition proceeding as being violative to the

constitutional guarantee of due process in as far as the rules and regulations for its implementation are

concerned.

The assailed Letter of Instruction No. 229 of President Ferdinand Marcos aimed to prevent road accidents

and in the interest of safety on all streets, highways including expressways. All motorist and motor vehicle

owners shall have at all times one pair of early warning device. These hazards posed by such obstructions to

traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna

Convention on Roads and Signs and the United Nations Organization (UN). Philippine Government under P.D.

No. 207 ratified the said Vienna convention requiring the installation of road signs and devices.

Herein respondent Edu in his capacity as Land Transportation Commisioner set forth the implementing rules

and regulations of the said instruction.

Issue : Whether or not the assailed Letter of Instruction is invalid and violated constitutional guarantees of

due process.

Held : 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

Article 2 Sec 2 CONSTI 1

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. 

In Santiago vs Far Eatern Broadcasting Company , it was held that the constitutionality of the law will not be

considered unless the point is specially pleaded, insisted upon and adequately argued. Equal protection is

not a talismanic formula at the mere invocation of which a party to a lawsuit can rightfully expect success

will crown his efforts. The law is anything but that.

Petition is DISMISSED and the restraining order is lifted.