Article 2 Sec 2

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 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

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

Article 2 Sec 2

instructions, as well as the implementing rules and regulationswere unlawful and

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

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

Article 2 Sec 2

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 countrys 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.