agustin v edu 88 scra 195 (1979)

5/27/2018 Agustin v Edu 88 SCRA 195 (1979)

1/12

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME 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/ "ee$&e !ON.LFRE"O L. UINIO, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& M#$#&)er O Pub/#' 0or&, Tra$&(or)a)#o$ a$*Co++u$#'a)#o$& a$* !ON 3LTR 5UINO, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& M#$#&)er o Pub/#'!#6%ay&, respondents.

Leovillo C. Agustin Law Office for petitioner.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Ruen E. Agpalo andSolicitor A!ado ". A#uino for respondents.

FERNN"O, J.:

The validity of a letter of Instruction 1providin for an early sea!in device for !otor vehiclesis assailed in this prohibition proceedin as bein violative of the constitutional uarantee ofdue 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 $etterof 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 respondentsRo!eo '. Edu, $and Transportation Co!!issioner (uan Ponce Enrile, Minister of National)efense* Alfredo $. (uinio, Minister of Public +ors, Transportation and Co!!unications*and Balta%ar A&uino, Minister of Public -ih#ays* #ere to ans#er. That they did in apleadin sub!itted by olicitor /eneral Estelito P. Mendo%a. 2I!pressed #ith a hihlypersuasive &uality, it !aes devoid clear that the i!putation of a constitutional infir!ity isdevoid of 0ustification The $etter of Instruction on is a valid police po#er !easure. Nor couldthe i!ple!entin rules and reulations issued by respondent Edu be considered asa!ountin to an e1ercise of leislative po#er. Accordinly, the petition !ust be dis!issed.

The facts are undisputed. T%e a&&a#/e* Le))er o I$&)ru')#o$ No. 229of President Marcos,issued on )ece!ber 2, 3456, reads in full7 89+hereas:, statistics sho# that one of the !a0or

causes of fatal or serious accidents in land transportation is the presence of disabled, stalledor pared !otor vehicles alon streets or hih#ays #ithout any appropriate early #arnindevice to sinal approachin !otorists of their presence* 9+hereas:, the ha%ards posed bysuch obstructions to traffic have been reconi%ed by international bodies concerned #ithtraffic safety, the 34;< =ienna Convention on Road ins and inals and the >nitedNations ?rani%ation @>.N.* 9+hereas:, the said =ienna Convention #hich #as ratified bythe Philippine /overn!ent under P.). No. 25, reco!!ended the enact!ent of localleislation for the installation of road safety sins and devices* 9No#, therefore, I, 'erdinandE. Marcos:, President of the Philippines, in the interest of safety on all streets and hih#ays,includin e1press#ays or li!ited access roads, do hereby direct7 3. That all o#ners, users or


2/12

drivers of !otor vehicles shall have at all ti!es in their !otor vehicles at least one @3 pair ofearly #arnin deviceconsistin of trianular, collapsible reflectori%ed plates in red and yello#colors at least 3 c!s. at the base and 6 c!s. at the sides. 2. +henever any !otor vehicleis stalled or disabled or is pared for thirty @D !inutes or !ore on any street or hih#ay,includin e1press#ays or li!ited access roads, the o#ner, user or driver thereof shall causethe #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 pared. D. The $and TransportationCo!!issioner shall cause Reflectori%ed Trianular Early +arnin )evices, as hereindescribed, to be prepared and issued to reistered o#ners of !otor vehicles, e1cept!otorcycles and trailers, charin for each piece not !ore than 3 of the ac&uisition cost.-e shall also pro!ulate such rules and reulations as are appropriate to effectivelyi!ple!ent this order. 6. All hereby concerned shall closely coordinate and tae such!easures as are necessary or appropriate to carry into effect then instruction. 8Thereafter,on Nove!ber 3, 345;, it #as a!ended by $etter of Instruction No. 654 in this #ise.8Pararaph D of $etter of Instruction No. 224 is hereby a!ended to read as follo#s7 D. The$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 reflectori%ed early #arnindevice, as d bed of any brand or !ae chosen by !id !otor vehicle . The $andTransportation Co!!issioner shall also pro!ulate such rule and reulations as are

appropriate to effectively i!ple!ent this order.F8 4There #as issued accordinly, byrespondent Edu, the i!ple!entin rules and reulations on )ece!ber 3, 345;. They #erenot enforced as President Marcos on (anuary 2, 3455, ordered a si1"!onth period ofsuspension insofar as the installation of early #arnin device as a pre"reistrationre&uire!ent for !otor vehicle #as concerned. :Then on (une D, 345


3/12

the so"called early #arnin device at the rate of P ;. to P52. per set.8 14are unla#fuland unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of a co!passionate Ne# ociety 9as bein:co!pulsory and confiscatory on the part of the !otorists #ho could very #ell provide apractical alternative road safety device, or a better substitute to the specified set of E+)Fs.81-e therefore prayed for a 0ud!ent both the assailed $etters of Instructions andMe!orandu! Circular void and unconstitutional and for a restrainin order in the !ean#hile.

A resolution to this effect #as handed do#n by this Court on ?ctober 34, 345nlie petitioner #ho contented hi!self#ith a rhetorical recital of his litany of rievances and !erely invoed the sacra!entalphrases of constitutional litiation, the Ans#er, in de!onstratin that the assailed $etter of

Instruction #as a valid e1ercise of the police po#er and i!ple!entin rules and reulationsof respondent Edu not susceptible to the chare that there #as unla#ful deleation ofleislative po#er, there #as in the portion captioned pecial and Affir!ative )efenses, acitation of #hat respondents believed to be the authoritative decisions of this Tribunal callinfor application.They are Calalang v. $illia!s, 19Morfe v. Mutuc, 2nited Nations on roadtraffic, road sins, and sinals, of #hich the Philippines #as a sinatory and #hich #as dulyratified. 22olicitor /eneral Mendo%a too pains to refute in detail, in lanuae cal! anddispassionate, the viorous, at ti!es inte!perate, accusation of petitioner that the assailed$etter of Instruction and the i!ple!entin rules and reulations cannot survive the test ofriorous scrutiny. To repeat, its hihly"persuasive &uality cannot be denied.

This Court thus considered the petition sub!itted for decision, the issues bein clearly0oined. As noted at the outset, it is far fro! !eritorious and !ust be dis!issed.

3. The $etter of Instruction in &uestion #as issued in the e1ercise of the police po#er. That isconceded by petitioner and is the !ain reliance of respondents. It is the sub!ission of thefor!er, ho#ever, that #hile e!braced in such a cateory, it has offended aainst the dueprocess and e&ual protection safeuards of the Constitution, althouh the latter point #as!entioned only in passin. The broad and e1pansive scope of the police po#er #hich #asoriinally Identified by Chief (ustice Taney of the A!erican upre!e Court in an 3


4/12

decision as 8nothin !ore or less than the po#ers of overn!ent inherent in everysovereinty8 28#as stressed in the afore!entioned case of Edu v. Ericta thus7 8(ustice$aurel, in the first leadin decision after the Constitution ca!e into force, Calalang v.$illia!s, Identified 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 andproperty could thus Fbe sub0ected to all inds of restraints and burdens in order to #e the

eneral co!fort, health and prosperity of the state.F hortly after independence in 346


5/12

possession the necessary statistical infor!ation and data at the ti!e he issued said letter ofinstructions, and such factual foundation cannot be defeated by petitionerFs naed assertionthat early #arnin devices Fare not too vital to the prevention of nihtti!e vehicular accidentsFbecause alleedly only D4 or 3. per cent of the supposed 2;, !otor vehicle accidentsthat in 345; involved rear"end collisions @p. 32 of petition. PetitionerFs statistics is not bacedup by de!onstrable data on record. As aptly stated by this -onorable Court7 'urther7 8It

ad!its of no doubt therefore that there bein a presu!ption of validity, the necessity forevidence to rebut it is unavoidable, unless the statute or ordinance is void on its face, #hichis not the case here8F G G G. But even as the verity of petitionerFs statistics, is that not reasonenouh to re&uire the installation of early #arnin devices to prevent another D4 rear"endcollisions that could !ean the death of D4 or !ore 'ilipinos and the deaths that couldlie#ise result fro! head"on or frontal collisions #ith stalled vehiclesK8 8


6/12

i!!oral #here, as in the instant case, the challened $etter of Instruction No. 224 andi!ple!entin order disclose none of the constitutional defects alleed aainst it. 82

5 It does appear clearly that petitionerFs ob0ection to this $etter of Instruction is not pre!isedon lac of po#er, the 0ustification for a findin 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 unorthodo1y. It bears repeatin 8thatthis Court, in the lanuae of (ustice $aurel, Fdoes not pass upon &uestions of #isdo!

0ustice or e1pediency of leislation.F As e1pressed by (ustice Tuason7 FIt is not the province ofthe courts to supervise leislation and eep it #ithin the bounds of propriety and co!!onsense. That is pri!arily and e1clusively a leislative concern.F There can be no possibleob0ection then to the observation of (ustice Monte!ayor. FAs lon as la#s do not violate anyConstitutional provision, the Courts !erely interpret and apply the! reardless of #hether ornot they are #ise or salutary. 'or they, accordin to (ustice $abrador, Fare not supposed tooverride leiti!ate policy and G G G never in&uire into the #isdo! of the la#.F It is thus settled,to paraphrase Chief (ustice Concepcion in /on%ales v. Co!!ission on Elections, that onlyconressional po#er or co!petence, not the #isdo! of the action taen, !ay be the basisfor declarin a statute invalid. This is as it ouht to be. The principle of separation of po#ershas in the !ain #isely allocated the respective authority of each depart!ent and confined its

0urisdiction to such a sphere. There #ould then be intrusion not allo#able under theConstitution if on a !atter left to the discretion of a coordinate branch, the 0udiciary #ouldsubstitute its o#n. If there be adherence to the rule of la#, as there ouht to be, the lastoffender should be courts of 0ustice, to #hich rihtly litiants sub!it their controversyprecisely to !aintain uni!paired the supre!acy of leal nor!s and prescriptions. The attacon the validity of the challened provision lie#ise insofar as there !ay be ob0ections, even ifvalid and coent on is #isdo! cannot be sustained. 88

nited tates and Enland but inpractically all !odern overn!ents.F -e continued7 FAccordinly, #ith the ro#in co!ple1ityof !odern life, the !ultiplication of the sub0ects of overn!ental reulation, and theincreased difficulty of ad!inisterin the la#s, there is a constantly ro#in tendency to#ardthe deleation of reater po#ers by the leislature and to#ard the approval of the practice bythe courts.F Consistency #ith the conceptual approach re&uires the re!inder that #hat is


7/12

deleated is authority non"leislative in character, the co!pleteness of the statute #hen itleaves the hands of Conress bein assu!ed.8 84

4. The conclusion reached by this Court that this petition !ust be dis!issed is reinforced bythis consideration. The petition itself &uoted these t#o #hereas clauses of the assailed $etterof Instruction7 89+hereas:, the ha%ards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been

reconi%ed by international bodies concerned #ith traffic safety, the 34;< =ienna Conventionon Road ins and inals and the >nited Nations ?rani%ation @>.N.* 9+hereas:, the said=ionna Convention, #hich #as ratified by the Philippine /overn!ent under P.). No. 25,reco!!ended the enact!ent of local leislation for the installation of road safety sins anddevices* G G G 8 8It cannot be disputed then that this )eclaration of Principle found in theConstitution possesses relevance7 8The Philippines G G G adopts the enerally acceptedprinciples of international la# as part of the la# of the land G G G.8 8:The 34;< =iennaConvention on Road ins and inals is i!pressed #ith such a character. It is not for thiscountry to repudiate a co!!it!ent to #hich it had pleded its #ord. The concept of Pactasunt servandastands in the #ay of such an attitude, #hich is, !oreover, at #ar #ith theprinciple of international !orality.

3. That is about all that needs be said. The rather court reference to e&ual protection didnot 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 taen seriously. In nocase is there a !ore appropriate occasion for insistence on #hat #as referred to as 8theeneral rule8 in Santiago v. %ar Eastern -roadcasting Co., 87na!ely, 8that theconstitutionality of a la# #i not be considered unless the point is specially pleaded, insistedupon, and ade&uately arued.8 8;8E&ual protection8 is not a talis!anic for!ula at the !ereinvocation of #hich a party to a la#suit can rihtfully e1pect that success #ill cro#n hisefforts. The la# is anythin but that.

+-ERE'?RE, this petition is dis!issed. The restrainin order is lifted. This decision isi!!ediately e1ecutory. No costs.

Castro, C.., -arredo, Antonio, Santos, %ernandez, Guerrero, Aad Santos, "e Castro andMelencio&'errera, concur.

Maasiar, , reserves t/e rig/t to file a separate opinion.

A#uino ., too no part.

Concepcion ., is on leave.

Castro, C.., certifies t/at ustice Concepcion concurs in t/eir decision.

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

TEE!N=EE, J., dissentin7


8/12

I dissent fro! the !a0orityFs pere!ptory dis!issal of the petition and liftin of the restraininorder issued on ?ctober 34, 345< aainst the blanet enforce!ent of the re&uire!ent that all!otor vehicles be e&uipped #ith the so"called early #arnin device, #ithout even hearin theparties in oral aru!ent as enerally re&uired by the Court in oriinal cases of far"reachinconse&uence such as the case at bar.

$ac of ti!e presents !y filin an e1tended dissent. I only #ish to state that the petitionadvances rave and serious rounds of assailin 8the rules and reulations issued by the$and Transportation Co!!ission under Ad!inistrative ?rder No. 3 and Me!orandu!Circular No. D2 9#hich: do not reflect the real intent, noble ob0ectives and spirit of $etter ofInstructions No. 224, as a!ended by $etter of Instructions Nos. 654 and 53;, because it isoppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to theprecepts of our co!passionate Ne# ociety,8 because of the follo#in considerations, interalia0

3. It is oppressive, arbitrary and discri!inatory to re&uire o#ners of !otor vehicles #ith built"in and !ore effective and efficient E.+.).F such as 8a blinin lihts in the fore and aft ofsaid !otor vehicles, 3 battery"po#ered blinin lihts inside !otor vehicles, c built"in

reflectori%ed tapes on front and rear bu!pers of !otor vehicles....... to purchase the E.+.).specified in the challened ad!inistrative order, #hose effectivity and utility have yet to bede!onstrated.

2. The public necessity for the challened order has yet to be sho#n. No valid refutation hasbeen !ade of petitionerFs assertion that the 8E.+.).Fs are not too vital to the prevention ofnihtti!e vehicular accidents. tatistics sho#s that of the 2;, !otor vehicle accidentsthat occurred in 345;, only D4 or 3. per cent involved rear"end collisions,8 as to re&uire thepurchase and installation of the &uestioned E.+.). for al!ost 4, vehicles throuhoutthe country*

D. The bi financial burden to be i!posed on all !otorists is staerin, and petitionerFsassertion that 8as of 345, there #ere at least


9/12

of court and leavin the #ron i!pression that the e1ercise of police po#er insofar as it !ayaffect the life, liberty and property of any person is no loner sub0ect to 0udicial in&uiry.

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

TEE!N=EE, J., dissentin7

I dissent fro! the !a0orityFs pere!ptory dis!issal of the petition and liftin of the restraininorder issued on ?ctober 34, 345< aainst the blanet enforce!ent of the re&uire!ent that all!otor vehicles be e&uipped #ith the so"called early #arnin device, #ithout even hearin theparties in oral aru!ent as enerally re&uired by the Court in oriinal cases of far"reachinconse&uence such as the case at bar.

$ac of ti!e presents !y filin an e1tended dissent. I only #ish to state that the petition

advances rave and serious rounds of assailin 8the rules and reulations issued by the$and Transportation Co!!ission under Ad!inistrative ?rder No. 3 and Me!orandu!Circular No. D2 9#hich: do not reflect the real intent, noble ob0ectives and spirit of $etter ofInstructions No. 224, as a!ended by $etter of Instructions Nos. 654 and 53;, because it isoppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to theprecepts of our co!passionate Ne# ociety,8 because of the follo#in considerations, interalia0

3. It is oppressive, arbitrary and discri!inatory to re&uire o#ners of !otor vehicles #ith built"in and !ore effective and efficient E.+.).F such as 8a blinin lihts in the fore and aft ofsaid !otor vehicles, 3 battery"po#ered blinin lihts inside !otor vehicles, c built"inreflectori%ed tapes on front and rear bu!pers of !otor vehicles....... to purchase the E.+.).

specified in the challened ad!inistrative order, #hose effectivity and utility have yet to bede!onstrated.

2. The public necessity for the challened order has yet to be sho#n. No valid refutation hasbeen !ade of petitionerFs assertion that the 8E.+.).Fs are not too vital to the prevention ofnihtti!e vehicular accidents. tatistics sho#s that of the 2;, !otor vehicle accidentsthat occurred in 345;, only D4 or 3. per cent involved rear"end collisions,8 as to re&uire thepurchase and installation of the &uestioned E.+.). for al!ost 4, vehicles throuhoutthe country*

D. The bi financial burden to be i!posed on all !otorists is staerin, and petitionerFsassertion that 8as of 345, there #ere at least


10/12

. There is no i!perative need for i!posin such a bet re&uire!ent on all vehicles. Therespondents have not sho#n that they have availed of the po#ers and preroatives vested intheir offices such as riddin the country of dilapidated trucs and vehicles #hich are the !aincause of the deplorable "hih#ay accidents due to stoned vehicles, establishin an honestand foolproof syste! of e1a!ination and licensin of !otor vehicle drivers so as to ban therecless 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 !illion burden that #ouldbe i!posed by the challened order.

I do feel that a reater 8deree of receptivity and sy!pathy8 could be e1tended to thepetitioner for his civic !indedness in havin filed the present petition as capricious andunreasonable the 8all pervadin police po#er8 of the tate instead of thro#in the case outof court and leavin the #ron i!pression that the e1ercise of police po#er insofar as it !ayaffect the life, liberty and property of any person is no loner sub0ect to 0udicial in&uiry.

>Foo)$o)e&

3 $etter of Instruction No. 224 @3456 as a!ended by $etter of Instruction No.

654 @345;.

2 -e #as assisted by Assistant olicitor Ruben E. Apalo and olicitorA!ado ). A&uino.

D Petition, par. III.

6 (id, par. I=.

(id, par. =.

; (id, par. =III.

5 No. 53;.

< Petition, par. =II.

4 (id,par. =III.

3 (id.

33 (id,par. IJ.

32 (id,par. J.

3D (id,par. JI.

36 (id,par. J.

3 (id,par. JI.

3; Resolution of the Court dated ?ctober 34, 345


11/12

35 Ans#er, pars. 3";.

3< (id, par.


12/12

Nove!ber 4, 34;5, 23 CRA 556. Cf. Province of Panasinan v. ecretaryof Public +ors, 25

agustin v edu 88 scra 195 (1979)

Documents