Agustin v Edu (1979) 88 SCRA 195Facts:

Leovillo Agustin, the owner of a Beetle, challenged the constitutionality of Letter of Instruction 229

and its implementing order No. 1 issued by LTO Commissioner Romeo Edu.  His car already had

warning lights and did not want to use this.

The letter was promulgation for the requirement of an early warning device installed on a vehicle to

reduce accidents between moving vehicles and parked cars.

The LTO was the issuer of the device at the rate of not more than 15% of the acquisition cost.

The triangular reflector plates were set when the car parked on any street or highway for 30 minutes.

It was mandatory.

Petitioner: 1. LOI violated the provisions and delegation of police power, equal protection, and due

process/

2. It was oppressive because the make manufacturers and car dealers millionaires at the expense f

car owners at 56-72 pesos per set.

Hence the petition.

The OSG denied the allegations in par X and XI of the petition with regard to the unconstitutionality

and undue delegation of police power to such acts.

The Philippines was also a member of the 1968 Vienna convention of UN on road signs as a

regulation. To the petitioner, this was still an unlawful delegation of police power.

Issue:

Is the LOI constitutional? If it is, is it a valid delegation of police power?

Held: Yes on both. Petition dismissed.

Ratio:

Police power, according to the case of Edu v Ericta, which cited J. Taney, is nothing more or less

than the power of government inherent in every sovereignty.

The case also says that police power is state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with

personal liberty or property to promote the general welfare.

Primicias v Fulgoso- It is the power to describe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,

education, good order, and general welfare of the people.

J. Carazo- government limitations to protect constitutional rights did not also intend to enable a

citizen to obstruct unreasonable the enactment of measures calculated to insure communal peace.

There was no factual foundation on petitioner to refute validity.

Ermita Malate Hotel-The presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of factual

record in over throwing the statute.

Brandeis- constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation in overthrowing

the statute.

Even if the car had blinking lights, he must still buy reflectors. His claims that the statute was

oppressive was fantastic because the reflectors were not expensive.

SC- blinking lights may lead to confusion whether the nature and purpose of the driver is concerned.

Unlike the triangular reflectors, whose nature is evident because it’s installed when parked for 30

minutes and placed from 400 meters from the car allowing drivers to see clearly.

There was no constitutional basis for petitioner because the law doesn’t violate any constitutional

provision.

LOI 229 doesn’t force motor vehicle owners to purchase the reflector from the LTO. It only

prescribes rge requirement from any source.

The objective is public safety.

The Vienna convention on road rights and PD 207 both recommended enforcement for installation of

ewd’s. Bother possess relevance in applying rules with the decvlaration of principles in the

Constitution.

On the unlawful delegation of legislative power, the petitioners have no settled legal doctrines.

Agustin vs Edu 88 SCRA 195Facts

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.

Agustin is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car. He is assailing the validity of Letter

of Instruction No 229 which requires all motor vehicles to have early warning devices

particularly to equip them with a pair of “reflectorized triangular early warning devices”.

Agustin is arguing that this order is unconstitutional, harsh, cruel and unconscionable to the

motoring public. Cars are already equipped with blinking lights which is already enough to

provide warning to other motorists. And that the mandate to compel motorists to buy a set of

reflectorized early warning devices is redundant and would only make manufacturers and

dealers instant millionaires.

ISSUE: Whether or not the said is EO is valid.

HELD: Such early warning device requirement is not an expensive redundancy, nor

oppressive, for car owners whose cars are already equipped with 1) ‘blinking-lights in the

fore and aft of said motor vehicles,’ 2) ‘battery-powered blinking lights inside motor

vehicles,’ 3) ‘built-in reflectorized tapes on front and rear bumpers of motor vehicles,’ or 4)

‘well-lighted two (2) petroleum lamps (the Kinke) . . . because: Being universal among the

signatory countries to the said 1968 Vienna Conventions, and visible even under adverse

conditions at a distance of at least 400 meters, any motorist from this country or from any

part of the world, who sees a reflectorized rectangular early warning device installed on the

roads, highways or expressways, will conclude, without thinking, that somewhere along the

travelled portion of that road, highway, or expressway, there is a motor vehicle which is

stationary, stalled or disabled which obstructs or endangers passing traffic. On the other

hand, a motorist who sees any of the aforementioned other built-in warning devices or the

petroleum lamps will not immediately get adequate advance warning because he will still

think what that blinking light is all about. Is it an emergency vehicle? Is it a law enforcement

car? Is it an ambulance? Such confusion or uncertainty in the mind of the motorist will thus

increase, rather than decrease, the danger of collision.

AGUSTIN vs EDUAGUSTIN vs EDU

88 SCRA 195

FACTS: This was an original action in the Supreme Court for prohibition.Petitioner was an owner

of a volkswagen beetle car,model 13035 already properly equipped when it came out from the

assembly lines with blinking lights which could serve as an early warning device in case of the

emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No 229, as amended, as well as the

Implementing rules and regulations in Administrative Order No 1 issued by Land transportation

Commission.Respondent Land Transportation 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 instructions, as

well as the implementing rules and regulations were 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 the

implementing 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 by the Philippine local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and

devices.It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution

possesses relevance,between the International law and municipal law in applying the rule

municipal law prevails.

Petition is DISMISSED.