Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

G.R. No.

L-49112 February 2, 1979


LEOVILLO
C.
AGUSTIN,
petitioner,
vs.
HON. ROMEO F. EDU, in his capacity as Land Transportation Commissioner; HON. JUAN
PONCE ENRILE, in his capacity as Minister of National Defense; HON. ALFREDO L. JUINIO,
in his capacity as Minister Of Public Works, Transportation and Communications; and HON:
BALTAZAR AQUINO, in his capacity as Minister of Public Highways, respondents.
Facts: On December 2, 1974, President Marcos issued on Letter of Instruction No. 229 requiring all
motor vehicles to be equipped with and early warning device which shall be used whenever a vehicle is
stalled, disabled or parked for 30 minutes or more.
There are two reasons for the issuance of the letter:
a) Statistics show that one of the major causes of fatal or serious road accidents is the presence of
disabled, stalled or parked motor vehicles without early warning device.
b) The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Safety and the United Nations Organization
recommended the enactment of legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices. The
Philippines ratified said convention through PD No. 207.
It was amended by Letter of Instruction No. 479 which allows owners of motor vehicles to procure
from any source as long as it fits the specifications provided by the Land Transportation Commission.
Respondent Edu, Land Transportation Commissioner, issued Memorandum Circular No. 2 which
provides for the implementation of LOI 229 as amended,
Petitioner, an owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car Model 13035, already equipped when it came out
from the assembly lines with blinking lights which could well serve as early warning device, assailed
LOI 229 and Memorandum Circular No. 2 and filed a petition for prohibtion with pwrit of prohibitory
and/or mandatory injunction on the following grounds:
a) LOI 229 violates provision and delegation of police power because it is oppressive, unreasonable,
arbitrary, confiscatory and therefore unconstitutional.
b) It will make manufacturers and dealers of early warning device (EWD) instant millionaires. Owners
of motor vehicles can provide practical substitutes to the required EWD.
Issue: WON LOI 229 and Memorandum Circular No. 2 exceed the proper exercise of states police
power
Held: No. Police power is the states authority to enact legislation that may interfere with the personal
liberty and property in order to promote general welfare (Calalang v. Williams). It is the power to
prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general
welfare of the public (Primicias v. Furgoso).
The particular police power that was being challenged was clearly intended to promote public
safety. The president presented the necessary statistics to back his claim of the need to issue LOI 229.
It is also not true that LOI 229 as amended forces owners of motor vehicles to purchase EWD. In

fact, with a little of industry and practical ingenuity, motor vehicle owners can even personally make or
produce this EWD as long as the same substantially conforms with the specifications laid down in LOI
229.
The alleged infringement of fundamental principle of non-delegation of legislative power is equally
without any support from well-settled legal doctrines. To avoid any taint of unlawful delegation, there
must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislative itself determines and lays down
the fundamental policy. LOI 229 contains such standard which the Land Transportation Commission
followed in the issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 2.
*Finally, The declaration of Principles in the Constitution provides: The Philippines adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The 1968 Vienna
Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such character. Since we ratified it, we have
to abide by its provisions.