AGUSTIN vs. EDU Facts -December 2, 1974- Letter of Instruction No. 229,was issued by President Ferdinand E.

Marcos, requiring all vehicle owners, users or drivers to procure early warning device (EWD) to be installed a distance away from such vehicle when it stalls or is disabled. The Land Transportation Commissioner was tasked to promulgate the rules and regulations to effectively implement the said instruction. - November 15,1976- its 3rd paragraph was amended by Letter of Instruction No. 479 allowing the Land Transportation Commissioner to require every motor vehicle owner to procure from ANY SOURCE, one pair of REFLECTORIZED TRIANGULAR EARLY WARNING DEVICE. - August 29,1978- the Commissioner of the Land Transportation Office Edu issued Memorandum Circular no. 32 in compliance with such letter of instruction. LTC Administrative Order No. 1 was issued as directing implementing rules and regulations. (EWD must substantially comply with EWD specifications contained in the A.O.; to insure that every vehicle is equipped with device, serial numbered stickers are to be issued free of charged to be attached to each EWD.) - The Leovillo Agustin, petitioner as an 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 devise in case of emergencies, alleged that the Letters of Instruction clearly VIOLATES the PROVISIONS and DELEGATION FO POLICE POWER. He says that it is harsh and cruel to motoring public and the implementation will make manufacturers and dealers instant millionaires at the expense of the car owners compelled to buy the EWD. - Court issued TRO IssueS 1.)Whether or not the Letter of Instruction was a valid exercise of police power. YES. These were definitely in the exercise of police power as such was established to promote public welfare and public safety. Police power (originally identified by CJ Tanney in American Supreme Court) is nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty. In Calalang v. Williams it has been identified as the authority of the state to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. Persons could therefore be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state. In Primicias v. Fugosso it is the POWER TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS TO PROMOTE HEALTH, MORALS, PEACE, EDUCATION, GOOD ORDER OR SAFETY AND THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE. It is rooted in the conception that that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonable the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to insure communal peace, safety, good, order and welfare. 2. WON IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL a.) DUE PROCESS - Letter of Instruction is not repugnant to the due process clause. Conjectural claims of petitioner as to umber of nighttime vehicular collisions cannot be a basis for setting aside a requirement of law that was promulgated after careful study of the Executive Department. President had in his possession the necessary statistical information and data which serves as the factual foundation that cannot be

defeated by the petitioners naked assertion that EWDs are not too vital to the prevention of nghtime vehicular accidents (petitioner alleged that only 390 or 1.5 percent of 26,000 vehicular accidents in 1976 were due to rear end collisions) b.) DELEGATION OF POWERS The alleged infringement of the fundamental principle of nondelegation of legislative power is equally without any support in well-settled legal doctrines. Had the petitioner taken the trouble to acquaint himself with authoritative pronouncements from this Tribunal, he would not have the temerity to make such an assertion. It has already been reiterated that to avoid taint of unlawful delegation of power, the legislature must set defined standards. In the case at bar, the clear objective is PUBLIC SAFETY 3. WON EWD requirement is expensive redundancy. - The EARLY WARNING DEVICE is NOT AN EXPENSIVE REDUNDANCY. 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. Additionally, there is nothing in the Letter of Instruction No. 229 which compels car owners to purchase the EWDs. Vehicle owners can produce the device themselves with a little ingenuity. **The objections of the petitioner were not premised on lack of power, but on the pessimistic view he entertains as to the wisdom of the said orders. It bears repeating that the court does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice of expediency of legislation- principle of separation of powers PETITION DISMISSED. RESTRAINING ORDER LIFTED. TEehankee Dissenting: 1.Letters of Instruction, Memorandum circular issued by LTC is oppressive and discriminatory because it requires vehicle owners to purchase a specific EWD 2. Public necessity for issuance of administrative order no.1 has not been shown- no valid refutation on petitioners assertion of statistics 3, The EWD is too burdensome on the public- EWDs- minimum price of P56 per set, meaning a consumer outlay of close to P50 million considering there are atleast 865,037 motor vehicles in the country 4. No effort was shown that there can be other less expensive and practical devices 5. There is no imperative need or imposing such a blanket requirement on all vehicles. (dilapidated trucks and vehicles are the main casue of deplorable highway accidents due to stalled vehicles)