Scribd
Upload
128 views2 pages

Agustin V. Edu Scra 88 Scra 1 (1979) : Notes, If Any

The Court ruled that Letter of Instruction No. 229 requiring motorists to use warning triangles when vehicles are disabled did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power. While the legislature must determine matters of principle and policy, it can delegate supplemental rulemaking authority to executive agencies as long as it provides standards to guide the agency. Here, the letter set the standard of promoting public safety on roads and the transportation commissioner's rules were within the policy and purpose of protecting travelers from hazards caused by stalled vehicles. The Court also found the letter was a valid exercise of state police power and did not violate the Constitution, as it was consistent with international agreements on road safety that the Philippines had ratified.

Uploaded by

Zepht Badilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views2 pages

Agustin V. Edu Scra 88 Scra 1 (1979) : Notes, If Any

The Court ruled that Letter of Instruction No. 229 requiring motorists to use warning triangles when vehicles are disabled did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power. While the legislature must determine matters of principle and policy, it can delegate supplemental rulemaking authority to executive agencies as long as it provides standards to guide the agency. Here, the letter set the standard of promoting public safety on roads and the transportation commissioner's rules were within the policy and purpose of protecting travelers from hazards caused by stalled vehicles. The Court also found the letter was a valid exercise of state police power and did not violate the Constitution, as it was consistent with international agreements on road safety that the Philippines had ratified.

Uploaded by

Zepht Badilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

AGUSTIN V.

EDU SCRA 88 SCRA 1 [1979]


G.R. NO. L-49112 DATE: February 2, 1979
PONENTE: FERNANDO, J TOPIC: Test of Delegability
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Letter of Instruction No. 229 (1974) as amended by Letter of Instruction No. 479 (1976) required
every motor vehicle owner to procure and use one pair of a reflectorized triangular early warning device
whenever any vehicle is stalled or disabled or is parked for thirty (30) minutes or more on any street, or
highway, including expressways or limited access roads.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Petitioner alleged to the court that Letter of Instruction 229, as amended, clearly violates the
provisions of the New Constitution on due process, equal protection and delegation of police power. That
it is oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory and contrary to the precepts of our compassionate
New Society. The respondents' Answer demonstrated that the assailed Letter of Instruction was a valid
exercise of the police power; that the implementing rules and regulations of respondent Land
Transportation Commissioner do not constitute unlawful delegation of legislative power and that the
hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned
with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals of which Philippines was a
signatory. The Court dismissed the petition for prohibition.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
Whether or not there has been undue delegation of legislative power.

HOLDING
The Court ruled that the Letter of Instruction in question was issued in the exercise of the State's
police power intended to promote public safety; that there has been no undue delegation of legislative
power as a standard has been set; and that the country cannot repudiate its commitment to international
bodies and the accepted principles of international law.
The alleged infringement of the principle of non-delegation of legislative power is without any support in
well-settled legal doctrines. An excerpt from the aforecited decision of Edu v. Ericta sheds light on the
matter: "To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least
that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise,
the charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks
its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances
under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may
be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative once designated may in pursuance of the above
guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations. The standard may be either express or
implied. If the former, the non-delegation is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled
out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. . . ."
notes, if any:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; POLICE POWER OF THE STATE; ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION TO
PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE; JURISPRUDENCE. — originally identified by Chief Justice Taney of
the American Supreme Court in an 1847 decision, as "nothing more or less than the powers of
government inherent in every sovereignty". "Justice Laurel identified police power with the state
authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the
general welfare. Persons and property could thus 'be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in
order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state.'
- 'the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or
safety, and general welfare of the people.'
- It is in the above sense the greatest and most powerful attribute of government. It is, to quote Justice
Malcolm, 'the most essential, insistent, and at least illimitable powers,' extending as Justice Holmes,
aptly pointed out 'to all the great public needs.' Its scope, over-expanding to meet the exigencies of the
times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and
flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; STATE RECOGNITION OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS. — Where the two
whereas clauses of the assailed Letter of Instruction read: "(Whereas), the hazards posed by such
obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the
1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization (U.N.);
(Whereas), the said Vienna Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine Government under P.D.
No. 207, recommended the enactment of 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: "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 a character. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had
pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude, which is,
moreover, at war with the principle of international morality.

You might also like