Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979
LEOVILLO C. GUSTIN, petitioner,
vs.
!ON. ROMEO F. E"U, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& La$*
Tra$&(or)a)#o$ Co++#&&#o$er, !ON. -UN PONCE
ENRILE, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& M#$#&)er o. Na)#o$a/
"e.e$&e, !ON. LFRE"O L. -UINIO, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a&
M#$#&)er O. Pub/#' 0or1&, Tra$&(or)a)#o$ a$*
Co++u$#'a)#o$&, a$* !ON2 3LT4R 5UINO, #$ %#&
'a(a'#)y a& M#$#&)er o. Pub/#' !#6%7ay&, respondents.
Leovillo C. Agustin Law Ofce for petitioner.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor
General u!en E. Agpalo and Solicitor A"ado #. A$uino for
respondents.

FERNN"O, J.:
The validity of a letter of Instruction
1
providin for an early
sea!in device for !otor vehicles is assailed in this
prohibition proceedin as bein violative of the
constitutional uarantee of due process and, insofar as the
rules and reulations for its i!ple!entation are concerned,
for transressin the funda!ental principle of non"
deleation of leislative po#er. The $etter of Instruction is
sti!ati%ed by petitioner #ho is possessed of the re&uisite
standin, as bein arbitrary and oppressive. A te!porary
restrainin order as issued and respondents Ro!eo '. Edu,
$and Transportation Co!!issioner (uan Ponce Enrile,
Minister of National )efense* Alfredo $. (uinio, Minister of
Public +or,s, Transportation and Co!!unications* and
Balta%ar A&uino, Minister of Public -ih#ays* #ere to
ans#er. That they did in a pleadin sub!itted by .olicitor
/eneral Estelito P. Mendo%a.
2
I!pressed #ith a hihly
persuasive &uality, it !a,es devoid clear that the i!putation
of a constitutional in0r!ity is devoid of 1usti0cation The
$etter of Instruction on is a valid police po#er !easure. Nor
could the i!ple!entin rules and reulations issued by
respondent Edu be considered as a!ountin to an e2ercise
of leislative po#er. Accordinly, the petition !ust be
dis!issed.
The facts are undisputed. The assailed $etter of Instruction
No. 334 of President Marcos, issued on )ece!ber 3, 5467,
reads in full8 9:+hereas;, statistics sho# that one of the
!a1or causes of fatal or serious accidents in land
transportation is the presence of disabled, stalled or par,ed
!otor vehicles alon streets or hih#ays #ithout any
appropriate early #arnin device to sinal approachin
!otorists of their presence* :+hereas;, the ha%ards posed
by such obstructions to tra<c have been reconi%ed by
international bodies concerned #ith tra<c safety, the 54=>
?ienna Convention on Road .ins and .inals and the
@nited Nations Arani%ation B@.N.C* :+hereas;, the said
?ienna Convention #hich #as rati0ed by the Philippine
/overn!ent under P.). No. 3D6, reco!!ended the
enact!ent of local leislation for the installation of road
safety sins and devices* :No#, therefore, I, 'erdinand E.
Marcos;, President of the Philippines, in the interest of safety
on all streets and hih#ays, includin e2press#ays or
li!ited access roads, do hereby direct8 5. That all o#ners,
users or drivers of !otor vehicles shall have at all ti!es in
their !otor vehicles at least one B5C pair of early #arnin
device consistin of trianular, collapsible reEectori%ed
plates in red and yello# colors at least 5F c!s. at the base
and 7D c!s. at the sides. 3. +henever any !otor vehicle is
stalled or disabled or is par,ed for thirty BGDC !inutes or
5
!ore on any street or hih#ay, includin e2press#ays or
li!ited access roads, the o#ner, user or driver thereof shall
cause the #arnin device !entioned herein to be installed
at least four !eters a#ay to the front and rear of the !otor
vehicle staed, disabled or par,ed. G. The $and
Transportation Co!!issioner shall cause ReEectori%ed
Trianular Early +arnin )evices, as herein described, to be
prepared and issued to reistered o#ners of !otor vehicles,
e2cept !otorcycles and trailers, charin for each piece not
!ore than 5F H of the ac&uisition cost. -e shall also
pro!ulate such rules and reulations as are appropriate to
eIectively i!ple!ent this order. 7. All hereby concerned
shall closely coordinate and ta,e such !easures as are
necessary or appropriate to carry into eIect then
instruction.
8
Thereafter, on Nove!ber 5F, 546=, it #as
a!ended by $etter of Instruction No. 764 in this #ise.
9Pararaph G of $etter of Instruction No. 334 is hereby
a!ended to read as follo#s8 G. The $and transportation
Co!!issioner shall re&uire every !otor vehicle o#ner to
procure fro! any and present at the reistration of his
vehicle, one pair of a reEectori%ed early #arnin device, as d
bed of any brand or !a,e chosen by !id !otor vehicle .
The $and Transportation Co!!issioner shall also
pro!ulate such rule and reulations as are appropriate to
eIectively i!ple!ent this order.J9
4
There #as issued
accordinly, by respondent Edu, the i!ple!entin rules and
reulations on )ece!ber 5D, 546=.
9
They #ere not
enforced as President Marcos on (anuary 3F, 5466, ordered a
si2"!onth period of suspension insofar as the installation of
early #arnin device as a pre"reistration re&uire!ent for
!otor vehicle #as concerned.
:
Then on (une GD, 546>,
another $etter of Instruction
7
the liftin of such suspension
and directed the i!!ediate i!ple!entation of $etter of
Instruction No. 334 as a!ended.
;
It #as not until Auust 34,
546> that respondent Edu issued Me!orandu! Circular No.
G3, #orded thus8 9In pursuance of $etter of Instruction No.
65=, dated (une GD, 546>, the i!ple!entation of $etter of
Instruction No. 334, as a!ended by $etter of Instructions
No. 764, re&uirin the use of Early +arnin )evices BE+)C
on !otor vehicle, the follo#in rules and reulations are
hereby issued8 5. $TC Ad!inistrative Arder No. 5, dated
)ece!ber 5D, 546=* shall no# be i!ple!ented provided
that the device !ay co!e fro! #hatever source and that it
shall have substantially co!plied #ith the E+)
speci0cations contained in .ection 3 of said ad!inistrative
order* 3. In order to insure that every !otor vehicle , e2cept
!otorcycles, is e&uipped #ith the device, a pair of serially
nu!bered stic,ers, to be issued free of chare by this
Co!!ission, shall be attached to each E+). The E+).
serial nu!ber shall be indicated on the reistration
certi0cate and o<cial receipt of pay!ent of current
reistration fees of the !otor vehicle concerned. All Arders,
Circulars, and Me!oranda in conEict here#ith are hereby
superseded, This Arder shall ta,e eIect i!!ediately.
9
It
#as for i!!ediate i!ple!entation by respondent Alfredo $.
(uinio, as Minister of Public +or,s, transportation, and
Co!!unications.
1<
Petitioner, after settin forth that he 9is the o#ner of a
?ol,s#aen Beetle Car, Model 5GDGF, already properly
e&uipped #hen it ca!e out fro! the asse!bly lines #ith
blin,in lihts fore and aft, #hich could very #ell serve as
an early #arnin device in case of the e!erencies
!entioned in $etter of Instructions No. 334, as a!ended, as
#ell as the i!ple!entin rules and reulations in
Ad!inistrative Arder No. 5 issued by the land transportation
Co!!ission,9
11
alleed that said $etter of Instruction No.
334, as a!ended, 9clearly violates the provisions and
deleation of police po#er, :sic; K K K8 9 'or hi! they are
9oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, con0scatory, nay
unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of our
co!passionate Ne# .ociety.9
12
-e contended that they are
9infected #ith arbitrariness because it is harsh, cruel and
unconscionable to the !otorin public*9
18
are 9one"sided,
onerous and patently illeal and i!!oral because :they; #ill
!a,e !anufacturers and dealers instant !illionaires at the
e2pense of car o#ners #ho are co!pelled to buy a set of
the so"called early #arnin device at the rate of P F=.DD to
P63.DD per set.9
14
are unla#ful and unconstitutional and
3
contrary to the precepts of a co!passionate Ne# .ociety :as
bein; co!pulsory and con0scatory on the part of the
!otorists #ho could very #ell provide a practical alternative
road safety device, or a better substitute to the speci0ed set
of E+)Js.9
19
-e therefore prayed for a 1ud!ent both the
assailed $etters of Instructions and Me!orandu! Circular
void and unconstitutional and for a restrainin order in the
!ean#hile.
A resolution to this eIect #as handed do#n by this Court on
Actober 54, 546>8 9$"74553 B$eovillo C. Austin v. -on.
Ro!eo '. Edu, etc., et al.C L Considerin the alleations
contained, the issues raised and the aru!ents adduced in
the petition for prohibition #ith #rit of p prohibitory andMor
!andatory in1unction, the Court Resolved to Bre&uireC the
respondents to 0le an ans#er thereto #ithin ton B5DC days
fro! notice and not to !ove to dis!iss the petition. The
Court further Resolved to :issue; a :te!porary restrainin
order; eIective as of this date and continuin until
other#ise ordered by this Court.
1:
T#o !otions for e2tension #ere 0led by the A<ce of the
.olicitor /eneral and ranted. Then on Nove!ber 5F, 546>,
he Ans#er for respondents #as sub!itted. After ad!ittin
the factual alleations and statin that they lac,ed
,no#lede or infor!ation su<cient to for! a belief as to
petitioner o#nin a ?ol,s#aen Beetle car,9 they
9speci0cally deny the alleations and statin they lac,ed
,no#lede or infor!ation su<cient to for! a belief as to
petitioner o#nin a ?ol,s#aen Beetle Car,
17
they
speci0cally deny the alleations in pararaphs N and NI
Bincludin its subpararaphs 5, 3, G, 7C of Petition to the
eIect that $etter of Instruction No. 334 as a!ended by
$etters of Instructions Nos. 764 and 65= as #ell as $and
transportation Co!!ission Ad!inistrative Arder No. 5 and
its Me!orandu! Circular No. G3 violates the constitutional
provisions on due process of la#, e&ual protection of la#
and undue deleation of police po#er, and that the sa!e
are li,e#ise oppressive, arbitrary, con0scatory, one"sided,
onerous, i!!oral unreasonable and illeal the truth bein
that said alleations are #ithout leal and factual basis and
for the reasons alleed in the .pecial and A<r!ative
)efenses of this Ans#er.9
1;
@nli,e petitioner #ho contented
hi!self #ith a rhetorical recital of his litany of rievances
and !erely invo,ed the sacra!ental phrases of
constitutional litiation, the Ans#er, in de!onstratin that
the assailed $etter of Instruction #as a valid e2ercise of the
police po#er and i!ple!entin rules and reulations of
respondent Edu not susceptible to the chare that there #as
unla#ful deleation of leislative po#er, there #as in the
portion captioned .pecial and A<r!ative )efenses, a
citation of #hat respondents believed to be the authoritative
decisions of this Tribunal callin for application. They
are Calalang v. %illia"s,
19
Morfe v. Mutuc,
2<
and Edu v.
Ericta.
21
Reference #as li,e#ise !ade to the 54=> ?ienna
Conventions of the @nited Nations on road tra<c, road
sins, and sinals, of #hich the Philippines #as a sinatory
and #hich #as duly rati0ed.
22
.olicitor /eneral Mendo%a
too, pains to refute in detail, in lanuae cal! and
dispassionate, the viorous, at ti!es inte!perate,
accusation of petitioner that the assailed $etter of
Instruction and the i!ple!entin rules and reulations
cannot survive the test of riorous scrutiny. To repeat, its
hihly"persuasive &uality cannot be denied.
This Court thus considered the petition sub!itted for
decision, the issues bein clearly 1oined. As noted at the
outset, it is far fro! !eritorious and !ust be dis!issed.
5. The $etter of Instruction in &uestion #as issued in the
e2ercise of the police po#er. That is conceded by petitioner
and is the !ain reliance of respondents. It is the sub!ission
of the for!er, ho#ever, that #hile e!braced in such a
cateory, it has oIended aainst the due process and e&ual
protection safeuards of the Constitution, althouh the
latter point #as !entioned only in passin. The broad and
e2pansive scope of the police po#er #hich #as oriinally
Identi0ed by Chief (ustice Taney of the A!erican .upre!e
G
Court in an 5>76 decision as 9nothin !ore or less than the
po#ers of overn!ent inherent in every sovereinty9
28
#as
stressed in the afore!entioned case of Edu v. Ericta thus8
9(ustice $aurel, in the 0rst leadin decision after the
Constitution ca!e into force, Calalang v. %illia"s, Identi0ed
police po#er #ith state authority to enact leislation that
!ay interfere #ith personal liberty or property in order to
pro!ote the eneral #elfare. Persons and property could
thus Jbe sub1ected to all ,inds of restraints and burdens in
order to #e the eneral co!fort, health and prosperity of
the state.J .hortly after independence in 547>, Pri"icias v.
&ugosoreiterated the doctrine, such a co!petence bein
referred to as Jthe po#er to prescribe reulations to pro!ote
the health, !orals, peace, education, ood order or safety,
and eneral #elfare of the people. The concept #as set forth
in neative ter!s by (ustice Malcol! in a pre"
Co!!on#ealth decision as Jthat inherent and plenary po#er
in the .tate #hich enables it to prohibit all thins hurtful to
the co!fort, safety and #elfare of society. In that sense it
could be hardly distinuishable as noted by this Court in
Morfe v. Mutuc #ith the totality of leislative po#er. It is in
the above sense the reatest and !ost po#erful at. tribute
of overn!ent. It is, to &uote (ustice Malcol! ane#, Jthe
!ost essential, insistent, and at least table po#ers, I
e2tendin as (ustice -ol!es aptly pointed out Jto all the
reat public needs.J Its scope, ever"e2pandin to !eet the
e2iencies of the ti!es, even to anticipate the future #here
it could be done, provides enouh roo! for an e<cient and
Ee2ible response to conditions and circu!stances thus
assurin the reatest bene0ts. In the lanuae of (ustice
Cardo%o8 JNeeds that #ere narro# or parochial in the past
!ay be inter#oven in the present #ith the #ell"bein of the
nation. +hat is critical or urent chanes #ith the ti!e.J The
police po#er is thus a dyna!ic aency, suitably vaue and
far fro! precisely de0ned, rooted in the conception that
!en in orani%in the state and i!posin upon its
overn!ent li!itations to safeuard constitutional rihts did
not intend thereby to enable an individual citi%en or a roup
of citi%ens to obstruct unreasonably the enact!ent of such
salutary !easures calculated to co!!unal peace, safety,
ood order, and #elfare.9
24
3. It #as thus a heavy burden to be shouldered by
petitioner, co!pounded by the fact that the particular police
po#er !easure challened #as clearly intended to pro!ote
public safety. It #ould be a rare occurrence indeed for this
Court to invalidate a leislative or e2ecutive act of that
character. None has been called to our attention, an
indication of its bein non"e2istent. The latest decision in
point, Edu v. Ericta, sustained the validity of the ReEector
$a#,
29
an enact!ent conceived #ith the sa!e end in
vie#. Calalang v. %illia"s found nothin ob1ectionable in a
statute, the purpose of #hich #as8 9To pro!ote safe transit
upon, and. avoid obstruction on roads and streets
desinated as national roads K K K.
2:
As a !atter of fact, the
0rst la# souht to be nulli0ed after the eIectivity of the
54GF Constitution, the National )efense Act,
27
#ith
petitioner failin in his &uest, #as li,e#ise pro!pted by the
i!perative de!ands of public safety.
G. The futility of petitionerJs eIort to nullify both the $etter
of Instruction and the i!ple!entin rules and reulations
beco!es even !ore apparent considerin his failure to lay
the necessary factual foundation to rebut the presu!ption
of validity. .o it #as held in Er"ita'Malate (otel and Motel
Operators Association, )nc. v. Cit* Ma*or of Manila.
2;
The
rationale #as clearly set forth in an e2cerpt fro! a decision
of (ustice Branders of the A!erican .upre!e Court, &uoted
in the opinion8 9The statute here &uestioned deals #ith a
sub1ect clearly #ithin the scope of the police po#er. +e are
as,ed to declare it void on the round that the speci0c
!ethod of reulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence
deprives the plaintiI of due process of la#. As underlyin
&uestions of fact !ay condition the constitutionality of
leislation of this character, the presu!ption of
constitutionality !ust prevail in the absence of so!e factual
foundation of record in overthro#in the statute.
29
7
7. Nor did the .olicitor /eneral as he very #ell could, rely
solely on such rebutted presu!ption of validity. As #as
pointed out in his Ans#er 9The President certainly had in his
possession the necessary statistical infor!ation and data at
the ti!e he issued said letter of instructions, and such
factual foundation cannot be defeated by petitionerJs na,ed
assertion that early #arnin devices Jare not too vital to the
prevention of nihtti!e vehicular accidentsJ because
alleedly only G4D or 5.F per cent of the supposed 3=,DDD
!otor vehicle accidents that in 546= involved rear"end
collisions Bp. 53 of petitionC. PetitionerJs statistics is not
bac,ed up by de!onstrable data on record. As aptly stated
by this -onorable Court8 'urther8 9It ad!its of no doubt
therefore that there bein a presu!ption of validity, the
necessity for evidence to rebut it is unavoidable, unless the
statute or ordinance is void on its face, #hich is not the case
here9J K K K. But even as the verity of petitionerJs statistics,
is that not reason enouh to re&uire the installation of early
#arnin devices to prevent another G4D rear"end collisions
that could !ean the death of G4D or !ore 'ilipinos and the
deaths that could li,e#ise result fro! head"on or frontal
collisions #ith stalled vehiclesO9
8<
It is &uite !anifest then
that the issuance of such $etter of Instruction is encased in
the ar!or of prior, careful study by the E2ecutive
)epart!ent. To set it aside for alleed repunancy to the
due process clause is to ive sanction to con1ectural clai!s
that e2ceeded even the broadest per!issible li!its of a
pleaderJs #ell ,no#n penchant for e2aeration.
F. The rather #ild and fantastic nature of the chare of
oppressiveness of this $etter of Instruction #as e2posed in
the Ans#er of the .olicitor /eneral thus8 9.uch early
#arnin device re&uire!ent is not an e+pensive
redundanc*, nor oppressive, for car o#ners #hose cars are
already e&uipped #ith 5C blin,in lihts in the fore and aft of
said !otor vehicles,J 3C 9battery"po#ered blin,in lihts
inside !otor vehicles,9 GC 9built"in reEectori%ed tapes on
front and rear bu!pers of !otor vehicles,9 or 7C 9#ell"
lihted t#o B3C petroleu! la!ps Bthe ,in-eC K K K because8
Bein universal a!on the sinatory countries to the said
54=> ?ienna Conventions, and visible even under adverse
conditions at a distance of at least 7DD !eters, any !otorist
fro! this country or fro! any part of the #orld, #ho sees a
reEectori%ed rectanular early sea!in device installed on
the roads, hih#ays or e2press#ays, #ill conclude, #ithout
thin,in, that so!e#here alon the travelled portion of that
road, hih#ay, or e2press#ay, there is a !otor vehicle
#hich is stationary, stalled or disabled #hich obstructs or
endaners passin tra<c. An the other hand, a !otorist
#ho sees any of the afore!entioned other built in #arnin
devices or the petroleu! la!ps #ill not i!!ediately et
ade&uate advance #arnin because he #ill still thin, #hat
that blin,in liht is all about. Is it an e!erency vehicleO Is
it a la# enforce!ent carO Is it an a!bulanceO .uch
confusion or uncertainty in the !ind of the !otorist #ill thus
increase, rather than decrease, the daner of collision.
81
=. Nor did the other e2travaant assertions of constitutional
de0ciency o unrefuted in the Ans#er of the .olicitor
/eneral 9There is nothin in the &uestioned $etter of
Instruction No. 334, as a!ended, or in Ad!inistrative Arder
No. 5, #hich re&uires or co!pels !otor vehicle o#ners to
purchase the early #arnin device prescribed thereby. All
that is re&uired is for !otor vehicle o#ners concerned li,e
petitioner, to e&uip their !otor vehicles #ith a pair of this
early #arnin device in &uestion, procurin or obtainin the
sa!e fro! #hatever source. In fact, #ith a little of industry
and practical inenuity, !otor vehicle o#ners can even
personally !a,e or produce this early #arnin device so
lon as the sa!e substantially confor!s #ith the
speci0cations laid do#n in said letter of instruction and
ad!inistrative order. Accordinly the early #arnin device
re&uire!ent can neither be oppressive, onerous, i!!oral,
nor con0scatory, !uch less does it !a,e !anufacturers and
dealers of said devices Jinstant !illionaires at the e2pense
of car o#nersJ as petitioner so s#eepinly concludes K K K.
PetitionerJs fear that #ith the early #arnin device
re&uire!ent Ja !ore subtle rac,et !ay be co!!itted by
F
those called upon to enforce it K K K is an unfounded
speculation. Besides, that unscrupulous o<cials !ay try to
enforce said re&uire!ent in an unreasonable !anner or to
an unreasonable deree, does not render the sa!e illeal or
i!!oral #here, as in the instant case, the challened $etter
of Instruction No. 334 and i!ple!entin order disclose none
of the constitutional defects alleed aainst it.
82
6 It does appear clearly that petitionerJs ob1ection to this
$etter of Instruction is not pre!ised on lac, of po#er, the
1usti0cation for a 0ndin of unconstitutionality, but on the
pessi!istic, not to say neative, vie# he entertains as to its
#isdo!. That approach, it put it at its !ildest, is
distinuished, if that is the appropriate #ord, by its
unorthodo2y. It bears repeatin 9that this Court, in the
lanuae of (ustice $aurel, Jdoes not pass upon &uestions of
#isdo! 1ustice or e2pediency of leislation.J As e2pressed
by (ustice Tuason8 JIt is not the province of the courts to
supervise leislation and ,eep it #ithin the bounds of
propriety and co!!on sense. That is pri!arily and
e2clusively a leislative concern.J There can be no possible
ob1ection then to the observation of (ustice Monte!ayor. JAs
lon as la#s do not violate any Constitutional provision, the
Courts !erely interpret and apply the! reardless of
#hether or not they are #ise or salutary. 'or they, accordin
to (ustice $abrador, Jare not supposed to override leiti!ate
policy and K K K never in&uire into the #isdo! of the la#.J It
is thus settled, to paraphrase Chief (ustice Concepcion in
/on%ales v. Co!!ission on Elections, that only
conressional po#er or co!petence, not the #isdo! of the
action ta,en, !ay be the basis for declarin a statute
invalid. This is as it ouht to be. The principle of separation
of po#ers has in the !ain #isely allocated the respective
authority of each depart!ent and con0ned its 1urisdiction to
such a sphere. There #ould then be intrusion not allo#able
under the Constitution if on a !atter left to the discretion of
a coordinate branch, the 1udiciary #ould substitute its o#n.
If there be adherence to the rule of la#, as there ouht to
be, the last oIender should be courts of 1ustice, to #hich
rihtly litiants sub!it their controversy precisely to
!aintain uni!paired the supre!acy of leal nor!s and
prescriptions. The attac, on the validity of the challened
provision li,e#ise insofar as there !ay be ob1ections, even if
valid and coent on is #isdo! cannot be sustained.
88
>. The alleed infrine!ent of the funda!ental principle of
non"deleation of leislative po#er is e&ually #ithout any
support #ell"settled leal doctrines. -ad petitioner ta,en the
trouble to ac&uaint hi!self #ith authoritative
pronounce!ents fro! this Tribunal, he #ould not have the
te!erity to !a,e such an assertion. An e2e!pt fro! the
aforecited decision of Edu v. Ericta sheds liht on the
!atter8 9To avoid the taint of unla#ful deleation, there
!ust be a standard, #hich i!plies at the very least that the
leislature itself deter!ines !atters of principle and lays
do#n funda!ental policy. Ather#ise, the chare of co!plete
abdication !ay be hard to repel A standard thus de0nes
leislative policy, !ar,s its !aps out its boundaries and
speci0es the public aency to apply it. It indicates the
circu!stances under #hich the leislative co!!and is to be
eIected. It is the criterion by #hich leislative purpose !ay
be carried out. Thereafter, the e2ecutive or ad!inistrative
o<ce desinated !ay in pursuance of the above uidelines
pro!ulate supple!ental rules and reulations. The
standard !ay be either e2press or i!plied. If the for!er, the
non"deleation ob1ection is easily !et. The standard thouh
does not have to be spelled out speci0cally. It could be
i!plied fro! the policy and purpose of the act considered as
a #hole. In the ReEector $a# clearly, the leislative
ob1ective is public safety. +hat is souht to be attained as
in Calalang v. %illia"s is 9safe transit upon the roads.J This
is to adhere to the reconition iven e2pression by (ustice
$aurel in a decision announced not too lon after the
Constitution ca!e into force and eIect that the principle of
non"deleation 9has been !ade to adapt itself to the
co!ple2ities of !odern overn!ents, ivin rise to the
adoption, #ithin certain li!its, of the principle of
9subordinate leislation9 not only in the @nited .tates and
=
Enland but in practically all !odern overn!ents.J -e
continued8 JAccordinly, #ith the ro#in co!ple2ity of
!odern life, the !ultiplication of the sub1ects of
overn!ental reulation, and the increased di<culty of
ad!inisterin the la#s, there is a constantly ro#in
tendency to#ard the deleation of reater po#ers by the
leislature and to#ard the approval of the practice by the
courts.J Consistency #ith the conceptual approach re&uires
the re!inder that #hat is deleated is authority non"
leislative in character, the co!pleteness of the statute
#hen it leaves the hands of Conress bein assu!ed.9
84
4. The conclusion reached by this Court that this petition
!ust be dis!issed is reinforced by this consideration. The
petition itself &uoted these t#o #hereas clauses of the
assailed $etter of Instruction8 9:+hereas;, the ha%ards posed
by such obstructions to tra<c have been reconi%ed by
international bodies concerned #ith tra<c safety, the 54=>
?ienna Convention on Road .ins and .inals and the
@nited Nations Arani%ation B@.N.C* :+hereas;, the said
?ionna Convention, #hich #as rati0ed by the Philippine
/overn!ent under P.). No. 3D6, reco!!ended the
enact!ent of local leislation for the installation of road
safety sins and devices* K K K 9
89
It cannot be disputed then
that this )eclaration of Principle found in the Constitution
possesses relevance8 9The Philippines K K K adopts the
enerally accepted principles of international la# as part of
the la# of the land K K K.9
8:
The 54=> ?ienna Convention on
Road .ins and .inals is i!pressed #ith such a character.
It is not for this country to repudiate a co!!it!ent to #hich
it had pleded its #ord. The concept of Pacta sunt
servanda stands in the #ay of such an attitude, #hich is,
!oreover, at #ar #ith the principle of international !orality.
5D. That is about all that needs be said. The rather court
reference to e&ual protection did not even elicit any atte!pt
on the Part of Petitioner to substantiate in a !anner clear,
positive, and cateorical #hy such a casual observation
should be ta,en seriously. In no case is there a !ore
appropriate occasion for insistence on #hat #as referred to
as 9the eneral rule9 in Santiago v. &ar Eastern .roadcasting
Co.,
87
na!ely, 9that the constitutionality of a la# #i not be
considered unless the point is specially pleaded, insisted
upon, and ade&uately arued.9
8;
9E&ual protection9 is not a
talis!anic for!ula at the !ere invocation of #hich a party
to a la#suit can rihtfully e2pect that success #ill cro#n his
eIorts. The la# is anythin but that.
+-ERE'ARE, this petition is dis!issed. The restrainin
order is lifted. This decision is i!!ediately e2ecutory. No
costs.
Castro, C./., .arredo, Antonio, Santos, &ernandez, Guerrero,
A!ad Santos, #e Castro and Melencio'(errera, concur.
Ma-asiar, /, reserves t0e rig0t to 1le a separate opinion.
A$uino /., too- no part.
Concepcion /., is on leave.
Castro, C./., certi1es t0at /ustice Concepcion concurs in t0eir
decision.


Se(ara)e O(#$#o$&

TEE!N=EE, J., dissentin8
I dissent fro! the !a1orityJs pere!ptory dis!issal of the
petition and liftin of the restrainin order issued on Actober
6
54, 546> aainst the blan,et enforce!ent of the
re&uire!ent that all !otor vehicles be e&uipped #ith the so"
called early #arnin device, #ithout even hearin the
parties in oral aru!ent as enerally re&uired by the Court
in oriinal cases of far"reachin conse&uence such as the
case at bar.
$ac, of ti!e presents !y 0lin an e2tended dissent. I only
#ish to state that the petition advances rave and serious
rounds of assailin 9the rules and reulations issued by the
$and Transportation Co!!ission under Ad!inistrative Arder
No. 5 and Me!orandu! Circular No. G3 :#hich; do not
reEect the real intent, noble ob1ectives and spirit of $etter of
Instructions No. 334, as a!ended by $etter of Instructions
Nos. 764 and 65=, because it is oppressive, unreasonable,
arbitrary, con0scatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to
the precepts of our co!passionate Ne# .ociety,9 because of
the follo#in considerations, inter alia2
5. It is oppressive, arbitrary and discri!inatory to re&uire
o#ners of !otor vehicles #ith built"in and !ore eIective
and e<cient E.+.).J. such as 9aC blin,in lihts in the fore
and aft of said !otor vehicles, 5CC battery"po#ered blin,in
lihts inside !otor vehicles, cC built"in reEectori%ed tapes on
front and rear bu!pers of !otor vehicles....... to purchase
the E.+.). speci0ed in the challened ad!inistrative order,
#hose eIectivity and utility have yet to be de!onstrated.
3. The public necessity for the challened order has yet to
be sho#n. No valid refutation has been !ade of petitionerJs
assertion that the 9E.+.).Js are not too vital to the
prevention of nihtti!e vehicular accidents. .tatistics sho#s
that of the 3=,DDD !otor vehicle accidents that occurred in
546=, only G4D or 5.F per cent involved rear"end collisions,9
as to re&uire the purchase and installation of the &uestioned
E.+.). for al!ost 4DD,DDD vehicles throuhout the country*
G. The bi 0nancial burden to be i!posed on all !otorists is
staerin, and petitionerJs assertion that 9as of 546F, there
#ere at least >=F,DG6 !otor vehicles all over the country
re&uirin E.+.).J. and at the !ini!u! price of 55F=.DD per
set, this #ould !ean a consu!er outlay of P 7>,7F5,>63.DD,
or close to P FD !illion for the &uestioned E.+.).J. 9stands
unchallened*
7. No real eIort has been !ade to sho# that there can be
practical and less burdenso!e alternative road safety
devices for stalled vehicles than the prescribed E.+.)., such
as the co!!on petroleu! la!ps 9,in,e9 #hich can be
placed 1ust as eIectively in front of stalled vehicles on the
hih#ays* and
F. There is no i!perative need for i!posin such a bet
re&uire!ent on all vehicles. The respondents have not
sho#n that they have availed of the po#ers and
preroatives vested in their o<ces such as riddin the
country of dilapidated truc,s and vehicles #hich are the
!ain cause of the deplorable "hih#ay accidents due to
stoned vehicles, establishin an honest and foolproof
syste! of e2a!ination and licensin of !otor vehicle
drivers so as to ban the rec,less and irresponsible and a
sustained education ca!pain to instill safe drivin habits
and attitudes that can be carried out for !uch less than the
P FD !illion burden that #ould be i!posed by the
challened order.
I do feel that a reater 9deree of receptivity and sy!pathy9
could be e2tended to the petitioner for his civic !indedness
in havin 0led the present petition as capricious and
unreasonable the 9all pervadin police po#er9 of the .tate
instead of thro#in the case out of court and leavin the
#ron i!pression that the e2ercise of police po#er insofar
as it !ay aIect the life, liberty and property of any person is
no loner sub1ect to 1udicial in&uiry.


>
> Se(ara)e O(#$#o$&
TEE!N=EE, J., dissentin8
I dissent fro! the !a1orityJs pere!ptory dis!issal of the
petition and liftin of the restrainin order issued on Actober
54, 546> aainst the blan,et enforce!ent of the
re&uire!ent that all !otor vehicles be e&uipped #ith the so"
called early #arnin device, #ithout even hearin the
parties in oral aru!ent as enerally re&uired by the Court
in oriinal cases of far"reachin conse&uence such as the
case at bar.
$ac, of ti!e presents !y 0lin an e2tended dissent. I only
#ish to state that the petition advances rave and serious
rounds of assailin 9the rules and reulations issued by the
$and Transportation Co!!ission under Ad!inistrative Arder
No. 5 and Me!orandu! Circular No. G3 :#hich; do not
reEect the real intent, noble ob1ectives and spirit of $etter of
Instructions No. 334, as a!ended by $etter of Instructions
Nos. 764 and 65=, because it is oppressive, unreasonable,
arbitrary, con0scatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to
the precepts of our co!passionate Ne# .ociety,9 because of
the follo#in considerations, inter alia2
5. It is oppressive, arbitrary and discri!inatory to re&uire
o#ners of !otor vehicles #ith built"in and !ore eIective
and e<cient E.+.).J. such as 9aC blin,in lihts in the fore
and aft of said !otor vehicles, 5CC battery"po#ered blin,in
lihts inside !otor vehicles, cC built"in reEectori%ed tapes on
front and rear bu!pers of !otor vehicles....... to purchase
the E.+.). speci0ed in the challened ad!inistrative order,
#hose eIectivity and utility have yet to be de!onstrated.
3. The public necessity for the challened order has yet to
be sho#n. No valid refutation has been !ade of petitionerJs
assertion that the 9E.+.).Js are not too vital to the
prevention of nihtti!e vehicular accidents. .tatistics sho#s
that of the 3=,DDD !otor vehicle accidents that occurred in
546=, only G4D or 5.F per cent involved rear"end collisions,9
as to re&uire the purchase and installation of the &uestioned
E.+.). for al!ost 4DD,DDD vehicles throuhout the country*
G. The bi 0nancial burden to be i!posed on all !otorists is
staerin, and petitionerJs assertion that 9as of 546F, there
#ere at least >=F,DG6 !otor vehicles all over the country
re&uirin E.+.).J. and at the !ini!u! price of 55F=.DD per
set, this #ould !ean a consu!er outlay of P 7>,7F5,>63.DD,
or close to P FD !illion for the &uestioned E.+.).J. 9stands
unchallened*
7. No real eIort has been !ade to sho# that there can be
practical and less burdenso!e alternative road safety
devices for stalled vehicles than the prescribed E.+.)., such
as the co!!on petroleu! la!ps 9,in,e9 #hich can be
placed 1ust as eIectively in front of stalled vehicles on the
hih#ays* and
F. There is no i!perative need for i!posin such a bet
re&uire!ent on all vehicles. The respondents have not
sho#n that they have availed of the po#ers and
preroatives vested in their o<ces such as riddin the
country of dilapidated truc,s and vehicles #hich are the
!ain cause of the deplorable "hih#ay accidents due to
stoned vehicles, establishin an honest and foolproof
syste! of e2a!ination and licensin of !otor vehicle
drivers so as to ban the rec,less and irresponsible and a
sustained education ca!pain to instill safe drivin habits
and attitudes that can be carried out for !uch less than the
P FD !illion burden that #ould be i!posed by the
challened order.
I do feel that a reater 9deree of receptivity and sy!pathy9
could be e2tended to the petitioner for his civic !indedness
in havin 0led the present petition as capricious and
unreasonable the 9all pervadin police po#er9 of the .tate
instead of thro#in the case out of court and leavin the
#ron i!pression that the e2ercise of police po#er insofar
4
as it !ay aIect the life, liberty and property of any person is
no loner sub1ect to 1udicial in&uiry.
6u&)#$ ? E*u @1979A ;; SCR 199
'acts8
$eovillo Austin, the o#ner of a Beetle, challened the
constitutionality of $etter of Instruction 334 and its
i!ple!entin order No. 5 issued by $TA Co!!issioner
Ro!eo Edu. -is car already had #arnin lihts and did not
#ant to use this.
The letter #as pro!ulation for the re&uire!ent of an early
#arnin device installed on a vehicle to
reduce accidents bet#een !ovin vehicles and par,ed cars.
The $TA #as the issuer of the device at the rate of not !ore
than 5FH of the ac&uisition cost.
The trianular reEector plates #ere set #hen the car par,ed
on any street or hih#ay for GD !inutes. It #as !andatory.
Petitioner8 5. $AI violated the provisions and deleation
of police po#er, e&ual protection, and due processM
3. It #as oppressive because the !a,e !anufacturers
and car dealers !illionaires at the e2pense f car o#ners at
F="63 pesos per set.
-ence the petition.
The A./ denied the alleations in par N and NI of
the petition #ith reard to the unconstitutionality and undue
deleation of police po#er to such acts.
The Philippines #as also a !e!ber of the 54=> ?ienna
convention of @N on road sins as a reulation. To the
petitioner, this #as still an unla#ful deleation
of police po#er.
Issue8
Is the $AI constitutionalO If it is, is it a valid deleation
of police po#erO
-eld8 Pes on both. Petition dis!issed.
Ratio8
5D
Police po#er, accordin to the case of Edu v Ericta, #hich
cited (. Taney, is nothin !ore or less than the po#er of
overn!ent inherent in every sovereinty.
The case also says that police po#er is state authority to
enact leislation that !ay interfere #ith personal liberty or
property to pro!ote the eneral #elfare.
Pri!icias v 'uloso" It is the po#er to describe reulations to
pro!ote the health, !orals, peace, education, ood order,
and eneral #elfare of the people.
(. Cara%o" overn!ent li!itations to protect constitutional
rihts did not also intend to enable a citi%en to obstruct
unreasonable the enact!ent of !easures calculated
to insure co!!unal peace.
There #as no factual foundation on petitioner to refute
validity.
Er!ita Malate -otel"The presu!ption of constitutionality
!ust prevail in the absence of factual record in over
thro#in the statute.
Brandeis" constitutionality !ust prevail in the absence of
so!e factual foundation in overthro#in the statute.
Even if the car had blin,in lihts, he !ust still buy
reEectors. -is clai!s that the statute #as oppressive #as
fantastic because the reEectors #ere not e2pensive.
.C" blin,in lihts !ay lead to confusion #hether the nature
and purpose of the driver is concerned.
@nli,e the trianular reEectors, #hose nature is evident
because itQs installed #hen par,ed for GD !inutes and
placed fro! 7DD !eters fro! the car allo#in drivers to see
clearly.
There #as no constitutional basis for petitioner because the
la# doesnQt violate any constitutional provision.
$AI 334 doesnQt force !otor vehicle o#ners to purchase the
reEector fro! the $TA. It only prescribes re re&uire!ent
fro! any source.
The ob1ective is public safety.
The ?ienna convention on road rihts and P) 3D6 both
reco!!ended enforce!ent for installation of e#dQs. Bother
possess relevance in applyin rules #ith the decvlaration of
principles in the Constitution.
An the unla#ful deleation of leislative po#er, the
petitioners have no settled leal doctrines.
55
!EL"2 .uch early #arnin device re&uire!ent is not an
e2pensive redundancy, nor oppressive, for car o#ners
#hose cars are already e&uipped #ith 5C Rblin,in"lihts in
the fore and aft of said !otor vehicles,Q 3C Rbattery"po#ered
blin,in lihts inside !otor vehicles,Q GC Rbuilt"in
reEectori%ed tapes on front and rear bu!pers of !otor
vehicles,Q or 7C R#ell"lihted t#o B3C petroleu! la!ps Bthe
Sin,eC . . . because8 Bein universal a!on the sinatory
countries to the said 54=> ?ienna Conventions, and visible
even under adverse conditions at a distance of at least 7DD
!eters, any !otorist fro! this country or fro! any part of
the #orld, #ho sees a reEectori%ed rectanular early
#arnin device installed on the roads, hih#ays or
e2press#ays, #ill conclude, #ithout thin,in, that
so!e#here alon the travelled portion of that road,
hih#ay, or e2press#ay, there is a !otor vehicle #hich is
stationary, stalled or disabled #hich obstructs or endaners
passin tra<c. An the other hand, a !otorist #ho sees any
of the afore!entioned other built"in #arnin devices or the
petroleu! la!ps #ill not i!!ediately et ade&uate advance
#arnin because he #ill still thin, #hat that blin,in liht is
all about. Is it an e!erency vehicleO Is it a la# enforce!ent
carO Is it an a!bulanceO .uch confusion or uncertainty in
the !ind of the !otorist #ill thus increase, rather than
decrease, the daner of collision.
O$ Po/#'e Po7er
The $etter of Instruction in &uestion #as issued in the
e2ercise of the police po#er. That is conceded by petitioner
and is the !ain reliance of respondents. It is the sub!ission
of the for!er, ho#ever, that #hile e!braced in such a
cateory, it has oIended aainst the due process and e&ual
protection safeuards of the Constitution, althouh the
latter point #as !entioned only in passin. The broad and
e2pansive scope of the police po#er #hich #as oriinally
identi0ed by Chief (ustice Taney of the A!erican .upre!e
Court in an 5>76 decision, as Tnothin !ore or less than the
po#ers of overn!ent inherent in every sovereintyU #as
stressed in the afore!entioned case of Edu v. Ericta thus8
T(ustice $aurel, in the 0rst leadin decision after the
Constitution ca!e into force, Calalan v. +illia!s, identi0ed
police po#er #ith state authority to enact leislation that
!ay interfere #ith personal liberty or property in order to
pro!ote the eneral #elfare. Persons and property could
thus Rbe sub1ected to all ,inds of restraints and burdens in
order to secure the eneral co!fort, health and prosperity
of the state. .hortly after independence in 547>, Pri!icias v.
'uoso reiterated the doctrine, such a co!petence bein
referred to as Rthe po#er to prescribe reulations to pro!ote
the health, !orals, peace, education, ood order or safety,
and eneral #elfare of the people.Q The concept #as set
forth in neative ter!s by (ustice Malcol! in a pre"
Co!!on#ealth decision as Rthat inherent and plenary
53
po#er in the .tate #hich enables it to prohibit all thins
hurtful to the co!fort, safety and #elfare of society.Q In that
sense it could be hardly distinuishable as noted by this
Court in Morfe v. Mutuc #ith the totality of leislative po#er.
It is in the above sense the reatest and !ost po#erful
attribute of overn!ent. It is, to &uote (ustice Malcol!
ane#, Rthe !ost essential, insistent, and at least illi!itable
po#ers,Q e2tendin as (ustice -ol!es aptly pointed out Rto
all the reat public needs.Q Its scope, ever e2pandin to !eet the
e2iencies of the ti!es, even to anticipate the future #here it
could be done, provides enouh roo! for an e<cient and Ee2ible
response to conditions and circu!stances thus assurin the
reatest bene0ts. In the lanuae of (ustice Cardo%o8 RNeeds that
#ere narro# or parochial in the past !ay be inter#oven in the
present #ith the #ell"bein of the nation. +hat is critical or urent
chanes #ith the ti!e.Q The police po#er is thus a dyna!ic
aency, suitably vaue and far fro! precisely de0ned, rooted in
the conception that !en in orani%in the state and i!posin upon
its overn!ent li!itations to safeuard constitutional rihts did not
intend thereby to enable an individual citi%en or a roup of citi%ens
to obstruct unreasonably the enact!ent of such salutary !easures
calculated to insure co!!unal peace, safety, ood order, and
#elfare.U
It #as thus a heavy burden to be shouldered by Austin,
co!pounded by the fact that the particular police po#er !easure
challened #as clearly intended to pro!ote public safety. It #ould
be a rare occurrence indeed for this Court to invalidate a leislative
or e2ecutive act of that character. None has been called to our
attention, an indication of its bein non"e2istent. The latest
decision in point, Edu v. Ericta, sustained the validity of the
ReEector $a#, an enact!ent conceived #ith the sa!e end in vie#.
Calalan v. +illia!s found nothin ob1ectionable in a statute, the
purpose of #hich #as8 TTo pro!ote safe transit upon, and avoid
obstruction on roads and streets desinated as national roads . . .U
As a !atter of fact, the 0rst la# souht to be nulli0ed after the
eIectivity of the 54GF Constitution, the National )efense Act, #ith
petitioner failin in his &uest, #as li,e#ise pro!pted by the
i!perative de!ands of public safety.
5G