Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979LEOVILLO 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 $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 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 $etter of Instruction No. 334 of President Marcos, issued on )ece!ber 3, 5467, reads in full8 9:+hereas;, statistics sho# that one of the !a1or causes of fatal or serious accidents in land transportation is the presence of disabled, stalled or par,ed !otor vehicles alon streets or hih#ays #ithout any appropriate early #arnin device to sinal approachin !otorists of their presence* :+hereas;, the ha%ards posed by such obstructions to tra8 9$"74553 B$eovillo C. Austin v. -on. Ro!eo '.Edu, etc., et al.C L Considerin the alleations contained, the issues raised and the aru!ents adduced in the petition for prohibition #ith #rit of p prohibitory andMor !andatory in1unction, the Court Resolved to Bre&uireC the respondents to 0le an ans#er thereto #ithin ton B5DC days fro! notice and not to !ove to dis!iss the petition. The Court further Resolved to :issue;a :te!porary restrainin order; eIective as of this date and continuin until other#ise ordered by this Court. 1:T#o !otions for e2tension #ere 0led by the A, he Ans#er for respondents #as sub!itted. After ad!ittin the factual alleations and statin that they lac,ed ,no#lede or infor!ation su, Pri"icias v. &ugosoreiterated the doctrine, such a co!petence bein referred to as Jthe po#er to prescribe reulations to pro!ote the health, !orals, peace, education, ood order or safety, and eneral #elfare of the people. The concept #as set forth in neative ter!s by (ustice Malcol! in a pre"Co!!on#ealth decision as Jthat inherent and plenary po#er in the .tate #hich enables it to prohibit all thins hurtful to the co!fort, safety and #elfare of society. In that sense it could be hardly distinuishable as noted by this Court in Morfe v. Mutuc #ith the totality of leislative po#er. It is in the above sense the reatest and !ost po#erful at. tribute of overn!ent. It is, to &uote (ustice Malcol! ane#, Jthe !ost essential, insistent, and at least table po#ers, I e2tendin as (ustice -ol!es aptly pointed out Jto allthe reat public needs.J Its scope, ever"e2pandin to !eet the e2iencies of the ti!es, even to anticipate the future #here it could be done, provides enouh roo! for an e Se(ara)e O(#$#o$&TEE!N=EE, J., dissentin8I dissent fro! the !a1orityJs pere!ptory dis!issal of the petition and liftin of the restrainin order issued on Actober 54, 546> aainst the blan,et enforce!ent of the re&uire!ent that all !otor vehicles be e&uipped #ith the so"called early #arnin device, #ithout even hearin the parties in oral aru!ent as enerally re&uired by the Court in oriinal cases of far"reachin conse&uence such as the case at bar.$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 $etter of Instructions Nos. 764 and 65=, because it is oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, con0scatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of our co!passionate Ne# .ociety,9 because of the follo#in considerations, inter alia25. It is oppressive, arbitrary and discri!inatory to re&uire o#ners of !otor vehicles #ith built"in and !ore eIective and eFoo)$o)e&5 $etter of Instruction No. 334 B5467C as a!ended by $etter of Instruction No. 764 B546=C.3 -e #as assisted by Assistant .olicitor Ruben E. Apalo and .olicitor A!ado ). A&uino.G Petition, par. III.7 )!id, par. I?.F )!id, par. ?.= )!id, par. ?III.6 No. 65=.> Petition, par. ?II.4 )!id, par. ?III.5D )!id.55 )!id, par. IN.53 )!id, par. N.5G )!id, par. NI.57 )!id, par. N.5F )!id, par. NI.5= Resolution of the Court dated Actober 54, 546>.56 Ans#er, pars. 5"=.5> )!id, par. >.54 6D Phil. 63= B547DC. The opinion #as penned by (ustice $aurel.3D $"3DG>6, (anuary G5, 54=>* 33 .CRA 737. The #riter of this opinion is the ponente.35 $"G3D4=, Actober 37, 546D, GF .CRA 7>5. The #riter of this opinion #as li,e#ise the ponente.33 Ans#er, par. 5> BaC and BbC.3G $icense Cases, F -o#. FD7, F>G.37 GF .CRA 7>5, 7>6"7>>. There is no need to repeat #here Calalan and Morfe are reported. Pri!icias v. 'uoso is reported in >D Phil. 65* Rubi v. Provincial Board, #here the 0rst &uotation fro! (ustice Malcol! ca!e, in G4 Phil. ==D, 6D> B5454C* and .!ith Bell and Co. v. Natividad, his other decision cited, in 7D Phil. 5G=B5454C* -elverin v. )avis, #ith (ustice Cardo%o #ritin the opinion, in GD5 @. =54 B54G6C.3F Republic Act No. F65F B54=4C.3= Co!!on#ealth Act No. F7> B547DC.36 Cf. People v. $a!an == Phil. 5G B54G>C. Even earlier in @nited .tates v. Po!peya, G5 Phil. 37F B545FC, thisCourt, by virtue of the police po#er, held valid a provision of the then Municipal Code re&uirin 9 able"bodied9!ales in the vicinity bet#een aes to perfor! patrol duty not e2 one day each #ee,.3> $"37=4G, (uly G5, 54=6, 3D .CRA >74.34 )!id. >=6. The e2cerpt ca!e fro! AJ/or!an and Poun v. -artford 'ire Insurance Co., 3>3 @. 3F5, G3> B54G5C.GD Ans#er, par. 5> BaC. The e2cerpt ca!e fro! .a!son v. Mayor of Bacolod City, $"3>67F* Actober 3G, 5467* =D .CRA 3=6* 36D.G5 )!id, par. 5> BcC.G3 )!id, par. 5> BdC and BeC,GG Morfe v. Mutuc, 33 .CRA 737, 7FD"7F5. The citation fro! (ustice $aurel !ay be traced to Anara v. Electoral Co!!ission, =G Phil. 5G4, 5=D B54G=C* fro! (ustice $aurel to People v. Carlos, 6> Phil. FGF, F7> B5476C* fro! (ustice Monte!ayor to Quintos v. $acson, 46 Phil. 34D, 34G B54FFC* and fro! (ustice $abrador to Ichon v. -ernande%, 5D5 Phil. 55FF, 55== B54F6C. Chief (ustice ConcepcionJs reiteration of the doctrine, paraphrased in the &uoted opinion, #as !ade by hi! in /on%ales v. Co!!ission on Elections, $"3>54=, Nove!ber 4, 54=6, 35 .CRA 667. Cf. Province of Panasinan v. .ecretary of Public +or,s, 36>=5, Actober Gl,54=4, GD .CRA 5G7.G7 .CRA 7>5, 746"74>. The follo#in cases #ere also cited. People v. E2conde, 5D5 Phil. 553F B54F6C, and People v. (olliIe, 5DF Phil. =66 B54F4C.GF Petition, par. III.G= Article 55, .ection G of the Constitution reads in full 9The Philippines renounces #ar as an instru!ent of national policy, adopts the enerally accepted principles of international la# as part of the la# of the land, and adheres to the Policy of peace, e&uality, 1ustice, freedo!, cooperation, and a!ity #ith all nations.G6 6G Phil. 7D> B5475C.G> )!id, 753.C) Austin v EduTopic: Doctrine of Incorporation, sec 2 Article II 1987 ConstitutionAgustin v Edu88 SCRA 195, GR No. L-49112February 2, 1979FACTS:Peititioner, Agutin aai! t"e #a!i$ity o% t"e Letter o% &ntru'tion No. 229 ("i'" re)uire an ear!y (arning $e#i'e to be 'arrie$ byuer o% *otor #e"i'!e a being #io!ati#e o% t"e 'ontitutiona! guarantee o% $ue +ro'e an$ trangree t"e %un$a*enta! +rin'i+!e o% non-$e!egation o% !egi!ati#e +o(er. ,"i intru'tion, igne$ by Prei$ent -ar'o, ai* to +re#ent a''i$ent on treet an$ "ig"(ay, in'!u$ing e.+re(ay or !i*ite$ a''e roa$ 'aue$ by t"e +reen'e o% $iab!e$, ta!!e$ or +ar/e$ *otor #e"i'!e (it"out a++ro+riate ear!y (arning $e#i'e. ,"e "a0ar$ +oe$ by t"ee $iab!e$ #e"i'!e are re'ogni0e$ by internationa! bo$ie 'on'erne$ (it" tra%%i' a%ety. ,"e P"i!i++ine i a ignatory o% t"e 1918 2ienna Con#ention on Roa$ Sign an$ Signa! an$ t"e 3nite$ Nation 4rgani0ation an$ t"e ai$ 2ienna Con#ention (a rati%ie$ by t"e P"i!i++ine Go#ern*ent un$er P5 267.ISSUE:& t"e !etter o% intru'tion #a!i$7HELD:8e. ,"e !etter o% intru'tion i a #a!i$ e.er'ie o% +o!i'e +o(er an$ t"ere i a!o no trangreion o% t"e %un$a*enta! +rin'i+!e o% non-$e!egation o% !egi!ati#e +o(er. 3n$er t"e 5e'!aration o% Prin'i+!e o% t"e P"i!i++ine Contitution 9197:; it i (ritten< =,"e P"i!i++ine...a$o+t t"e genera!!y a''e+te$ +rin'i+!e o% internationa! !a( a +art o% t"e !a( o% t"e !an$...> ,"e 1918 2ienna Con#ention on Roa$ Sign an$ Signa! i i*+ree$ (it" a '"ara'ter o% an a''e+te$ +rin'i+!e o% internationa! !a( in'e it (a rati%ie$ by t"e P"i!i++ine Go#ern*ent un$er P5 267. &t i not %or t"e 'ountry to re+u$iate a 'o**it*ent to ("i'" it "a$ +!e$ge$ it (or$. ,"e 'on'e+t o% Pacta sunt servanda tan$ in t"e (ay o% u'" an attitu$e, ("i'" i, *oreo#er, at (ar (it" t"e +rin'i+!e o% internationa! *ora!ity.