Republic of the Philippines accidents in land transportation is the presence of

SUPREME COURT disabled, stalled or parked motor vehicles along streets

Manila or highways without any appropriate early warning
device to signal approaching motorists of their
EN BANC presence; [Whereas], the hazards posed by such
obstructions to traffic have been recognized by
international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the
G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and
the United Nations Organization (U.N.); [Whereas], the
LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN, petitioner, said Vienna Convention which was ratified by the
vs. Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207,
HON. ROMEO F. EDU, in his capacity as Land recommended the enactment of local legislation for the
Transportation Commissioner; HON. JUAN PONCE installation of road safety signs and devices; [Now,
ENRILE, in his capacity as Minister of National therefore, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos], President of the
Defense; HON. ALFREDO L. JUINIO, in his capacity as Philippines, in the interest of safety on all streets and
Minister Of Public Works, Transportation and highways, including expressways or limited access
Communications; and HON: BALTAZAR AQUINO, in roads, do hereby direct: 1. That all owners, users or
his capacity as Minister of Public drivers of motor vehicles shall have at all times in their
Highways, respondents. motor vehicles at least one (1) pair of early warning
device consisting of triangular, collapsible reflectorized
Leovillo C. Agustin Law Office for petitioner. plates in red and yellow colors at least 15 cms. at the
base and 40 cms. at the sides. 2. Whenever any motor
vehicle is stalled or disabled or is parked for thirty (30)
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor minutes or more on any street or highway, including
General Ruben E. Agpalo and Solicitor Amado D. Aquino expressways or limited access roads, the owner, user or
for respondents. driver thereof shall cause the warning device
mentioned herein to be installed at least four meters
away to the front and rear of the motor vehicle staged,
disabled or parked. 3. The Land Transportation
FERNANDO, J.: Commissioner shall cause Reflectorized Triangular
Early Warning Devices, as herein described, to be
prepared and issued to registered owners of motor
The validity of a letter of Instruction 1 providing for an vehicles, except motorcycles and trailers, charging for
early seaming device for motor vehicles is assailed in each piece not more than 15 % of the acquisition cost.
this prohibition proceeding as being violative of the He shall also promulgate such rules and regulations as
constitutional guarantee of due process and, insofar as are appropriate to effectively implement this order. 4.
the rules and regulations for its implementation are All hereby concerned shall closely coordinate and take
concerned, for transgressing the fundamental principle such measures as are necessary or appropriate to carry
of non- delegation of legislative power. The Letter of into effect then instruction. 3 Thereafter, on November
Instruction is stigmatized by petitioner who is 15, 1976, it was amended by Letter of Instruction No.
possessed of the requisite standing, as being arbitrary 479 in this wise. "Paragraph 3 of Letter of Instruction
and oppressive. A temporary restraining order as issued No. 229 is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. The
and respondents Romeo F. Edu, Land Transportation Land transportation Commissioner shall require every
Commissioner Juan Ponce Enrile, Minister of National motor vehicle owner to procure from any and present
Defense; Alfredo L. Juinio, Minister of Public Works, at the registration of his vehicle, one pair of a
Transportation and Communications; and Baltazar reflectorized early warning device, as d bed of any
Aquino, Minister of Public Highways; were to answer. brand or make chosen by mid motor vehicle . The Land
That they did in a pleading submitted by Solicitor Transportation Commissioner shall also promulgate
General Estelito P. Mendoza. 2 Impressed with a highly such rule and regulations as are appropriate to
persuasive quality, it makes devoid clear that the effectively implement this order.'" 4 There was issued
imputation of a constitutional infirmity is devoid of accordingly, by respondent Edu, the implementing rules
justification The Letter of Instruction on is a valid police and regulations on December 10, 1976. 5 They were not
power measure. Nor could the implementing rules and enforced as President Marcos on January 25, 1977,
regulations issued by respondent Edu be considered as ordered a six-month period of suspension insofar as the
amounting to an exercise of legislative power. installation of early warning device as a pre-registration
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. requirement for motor vehicle was concerned. 6 Then
on June 30, 1978, another Letter of Instruction 7 the
The facts are undisputed. The assailed Letter of lifting of such suspension and directed the immediate
Instruction No. 229 of President Marcos, issued on implementation of Letter of Instruction No. 229 as
December 2, 1974, reads in full: "[Whereas], statistics amended. 8 It was not until August 29, 1978 that
show that one of the major causes of fatal or serious respondent Edu issued Memorandum Circular No. 32,
worded thus: "In pursuance of Letter of Instruction No. the allegations contained, the issues raised and the
716, dated June 30, 1978, the implementation of Letter arguments adduced in the petition for prohibition with
of Instruction No. 229, as amended by Letter of writ of p prohibitory and/or mandatory injunction, the
Instructions No. 479, requiring the use of Early Warning Court Resolved to (require) the respondents to file an
Devices (EWD) on motor vehicle, the following rules answer thereto within ton (10) days from notice and
and regulations are hereby issued: 1. LTC not to move to dismiss the petition. The Court further
Administrative Order No. 1, dated December 10, 1976; Resolved to [issue] a [temporary restraining order]
shall now be implemented provided that the device may effective as of this date and continuing until otherwise
come from whatever source and that it shall have ordered by this Court.16
substantially complied with the EWD specifications
contained in Section 2 of said administrative order; 2. In Two motions for extension were filed by the Office of
order to insure that every motor vehicle , except the Solicitor General and granted. Then on November
motorcycles, is equipped with the device, a pair of 15, 1978, he Answer for respondents was submitted.
serially numbered stickers, to be issued free of charge After admitting the factual allegations and stating that
by this Commission, shall be attached to each EWD. The they lacked knowledge or information sufficient to form
EWD. serial number shall be indicated on the a belief as to petitioner owning a Volkswagen Beetle
registration certificate and official receipt of payment of car," they "specifically deny the allegations and stating
current registration fees of the motor vehicle they lacked knowledge or information sufficient to form
concerned. All Orders, Circulars, and Memoranda in a belief as to petitioner owning a Volkswagen Beetle
conflict herewith are hereby superseded, This Order Car, 17 they specifically deny the allegations in
shall take effect immediately. 9 It was for immediate paragraphs X and XI (including its subparagraphs 1, 2,
implementation by respondent Alfredo L. Juinio, as 3, 4) of Petition to the effect that Letter of Instruction
Minister of Public Works, transportation, and No. 229 as amended by Letters of Instructions Nos. 479
Communications. 10 and 716 as well as Land transportation Commission
Administrative Order No. 1 and its Memorandum
Petitioner, after setting forth that he "is the owner of a Circular No. 32 violates the constitutional provisions on
Volkswagen Beetle Car, Model 13035, already properly due process of law, equal protection of law and undue
equipped when it came out from the assembly lines delegation of police power, and that the same are
with blinking lights fore and aft, which could very well likewise oppressive, arbitrary, confiscatory, one-sided,
serve as an early warning device in case of the onerous, immoral unreasonable and illegal the truth
emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No. being that said allegations are without legal and factual
229, as amended, as well as the implementing rules and basis and for the reasons alleged in the Special and
regulations in Administrative Order No. 1 issued by the Affirmative Defenses of this Answer."18 Unlike
land transportation Commission," 11 alleged that said petitioner who contented himself with a rhetorical
Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended, "clearly recital of his litany of grievances and merely invoked
violates the provisions and delegation of police power, the sacramental phrases of constitutional litigation, the
[sic] * * *: " For him they are "oppressive, unreasonable, Answer, in demonstrating that the assailed Letter of
arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and Instruction was a valid exercise of the police power and
contrary to the precepts of our compassionate New implementing rules and regulations of respondent Edu
Society." 12 He contended that they are "infected with not susceptible to the charge that there was unlawful
arbitrariness because it is harsh, cruel and delegation of legislative power, there was in the portion
unconscionable to the motoring public;" 13 are "one- captioned Special and Affirmative Defenses, a citation of
sided, onerous and patently illegal and immoral because what respondents believed to be the authoritative
[they] will make manufacturers and dealers instant decisions of this Tribunal calling for application. They
millionaires at the expense of car owners who are are Calalang v. Williams, 19 Morfe v. Mutuc, 20 and Edu v.
compelled to buy a set of the so-called early warning Ericta. 21 Reference was likewise made to the 1968
device at the rate of P 56.00 to P72.00 per set." 14 are Vienna Conventions of the United Nations on road
unlawful and unconstitutional and contrary to the traffic, road signs, and signals, of which the Philippines
precepts of a compassionate New Society [as being] was a signatory and which was duly ratified. 22 Solicitor
compulsory and confiscatory on the part of the General Mendoza took pains to refute in detail, in
motorists who could very well provide a practical language calm and dispassionate, the vigorous, at times
alternative road safety device, or a better substitute to intemperate, accusation of petitioner that the assailed
the specified set of EWD's." 15 He therefore prayed for a Letter of Instruction and the implementing rules and
judgment both the assailed Letters of Instructions and regulations cannot survive the test of rigorous scrutiny.
Memorandum Circular void and unconstitutional and To repeat, its highly-persuasive quality cannot be
for a restraining order in the meanwhile. denied.

A resolution to this effect was handed down by this This Court thus considered the petition submitted for
Court on October 19, 1978: "L-49112 (Leovillo C. decision, the issues being clearly joined. As noted at the
Agustin v. Hon. Romeo F. Edu, etc., et al.) — Considering outset, it is far from meritorious and must be dismissed.
1. The Letter of Instruction in question was issued in the our attention, an indication of its being non-existent.
exercise of the police power. That is conceded by The latest decision in point, Edu v. Ericta, sustained the
petitioner and is the main reliance of respondents. It is validity of the Reflector Law, 25 an enactment conceived
the submission of the former, however, that while with the same end in view. Calalang v. Williams found
embraced in such a category, it has offended against the nothing objectionable in a statute, the purpose of which
due process and equal protection safeguards of the was: "To promote safe transit upon, and. avoid
Constitution, although the latter point was mentioned obstruction on roads and streets designated as national
only in passing. The broad and expansive scope of the roads * * *. 26 As a matter of fact, the first law sought to
police power which was originally Identified by Chief be nullified after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution,
Justice Taney of the American Supreme Court in an the National Defense Act, 27 with petitioner failing in his
1847 decision as "nothing more or less than the powers quest, was likewise prompted by the imperative
of government inherent in every sovereignty" 23 was demands of public safety.
stressed in the aforementioned case of Edu v.
Ericta thus: "Justice Laurel, in the first leading decision 3. The futility of petitioner's effort to nullify both the
after the Constitution came into force, Calalang v. Letter of Instruction and the implementing rules and
Williams, Identified police power with state authority to regulations becomes even more apparent considering
enact legislation that may interfere with personal his failure to lay the necessary factual foundation to
liberty or property in order to promote the general rebut the presumption of validity. So it was held
welfare. Persons and property could thus 'be subjected in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association,
to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to we the Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila. 28 The rationale was clearly
general comfort, health and prosperity of the state.' set forth in an excerpt from a decision of Justice
Shortly after independence in 1948, Primicias v. Branders of the American Supreme Court, quoted in the
Fugoso reiterated the doctrine, such a competence being opinion: "The statute here questioned deals with a
referred to as 'the power to prescribe regulations to subject clearly within the scope of the police power. We
promote the health, morals, peace, education, good are asked to declare it void on the ground that the
order or safety, and general welfare of the people. The specific method of regulation prescribed is
concept was set forth in negative terms by Justice unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due
Malcolm in a pre-Commonwealth decision as 'that process of law. As underlying questions of fact may
inherent and plenary power in the State which enables condition the constitutionality of legislation of this
it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and character, the presumption of constitutionality must
welfare of society. In that sense it could be hardly prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of
distinguishable as noted by this Court in Morfe v. Mutuc record in overthrowing the statute. 29
with the totality of legislative power. It is in the above
sense the greatest and most powerful at. tribute of
government. It is, to quote Justice Malcolm anew, 'the 4. Nor did the Solicitor General as he very well could,
most essential, insistent, and at least table powers, I rely solely on such rebutted presumption of validity. As
extending as Justice Holmes aptly pointed out 'to all the was pointed out in his Answer "The President certainly
great public needs.' Its scope, ever-expanding to meet had in his possession the necessary statistical
the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the future information and data at the time he issued said letter of
where it could be done, provides enough room for an instructions, and such factual foundation cannot be
efficient and flexible response to conditions and defeated by petitioner's naked assertion that early
circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits. In the warning devices 'are not too vital to the prevention of
language of Justice Cardozo: 'Needs that were narrow or nighttime vehicular accidents' because allegedly only
parochial in the past may be interwoven in the present 390 or 1.5 per cent of the supposed 26,000 motor
with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or vehicle accidents that in 1976 involved rear-end
urgent changes with the time.' The police power is thus collisions (p. 12 of petition). Petitioner's statistics is not
a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely backed up by demonstrable data on record. As aptly
defined, rooted in the conception that men in organizing stated by this Honorable Court: Further: "It admits of no
the state and imposing upon its government limitations doubt therefore that there being a presumption of
to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby validity, the necessity for evidence to rebut it is
to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to unavoidable, unless the statute or ordinance is void on
obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary its face, which is not the case here"' * * *. But even as g
measures calculated to communal peace, safety, good the verity of petitioner's statistics, is that not reason
order, and welfare." 24 enough to require the installation of early warning
devices to prevent another 390 rear-end collisions that
could mean the death of 390 or more Filipinos and the
2. It was thus a heavy burden to be shouldered by deaths that could likewise result from head-on or
petitioner, compounded by the fact that the particular frontal collisions with stalled vehicles?" 30 It is quite
police power measure challenged was clearly intended manifest then that the issuance of such Letter of
to promote public safety. It would be a rare occurrence Instruction is encased in the armor of prior, careful
indeed for this Court to invalidate a legislative or study by the Executive Department. To set it aside for
executive act of that character. None has been called to
alleged repugnancy to the due process clause is to give that unscrupulous officials may try to enforce said
sanction to conjectural claims that exceeded even the requirement in an unreasonable manner or to an
broadest permissible limits of a pleader's well known unreasonable degree, does not render the same illegal
penchant for exaggeration. or immoral where, as in the instant case, the challenged
Letter of Instruction No. 229 and implementing order
5. The rather wild and fantastic nature of the charge of disclose none of the constitutional defects alleged
oppressiveness of this Letter of Instruction was exposed against it.32
in the Answer of the Solicitor General thus: "Such early
warning device requirement is not an expensive 7 It does appear clearly that petitioner's objection to
redundancy, nor oppressive, for car owners whose cars this Letter of Instruction is not premised on lack of
are already equipped with 1) blinking lights in the fore power, the justification for a finding of
and aft of said motor vehicles,' 2) "battery-powered unconstitutionality, but on the pessimistic, not to say
blinking lights inside motor vehicles," 3) "built-in negative, view he entertains as to its wisdom. That
reflectorized tapes on front and rear bumpers of motor approach, it put it at its mildest, is distinguished, if that
vehicles," or 4) "well-lighted two (2) petroleum lamps is the appropriate word, by its unorthodoxy. It bears
(the Kinke) * * * because: Being universal among the repeating "that this Court, in the language of Justice
signatory countries to the said 1968 Vienna Laurel, 'does not pass upon questions of wisdom justice
Conventions, and visible even under adverse conditions or expediency of legislation.' As expressed by Justice
at a distance of at least 400 meters, any motorist from Tuason: 'It is not the province of the courts to supervise
this country or from any part of the world, who sees a legislation and keep it within the bounds of propriety
reflectorized rectangular early seaming device installed and common sense. That is primarily and exclusively a
on the roads, highways or expressways, will conclude, legislative concern.' There can be no possible objection
without thinking, that somewhere along the travelled then to the observation of Justice Montemayor. 'As long
portion of that road, highway, or expressway, there is a as laws do not violate any Constitutional provision, the
motor vehicle which is stationary, stalled or disabled Courts merely interpret and apply them regardless of
which obstructs or endangers passing traffic. On the whether or not they are wise or salutary. For they,
other hand, a motorist who sees any of the according to Justice Labrador, 'are not supposed to
aforementioned other built in warning devices or the override legitimate policy and * * * never inquire into
petroleum lamps will not immediately get adequate the wisdom of the law.' It is thus settled, to paraphrase
advance warning because he will still think what that Chief Justice Concepcion in Gonzales v. Commission on
blinking light is all about. Is it an emergency vehicle? Is Elections, that only congressional power or
it a law enforcement car? Is it an ambulance? Such competence, not the wisdom of the action taken, may be
confusion or uncertainty in the mind of the motorist will the basis for declaring a statute invalid. This is as it
thus increase, rather than decrease, the danger of ought to be. The principle of separation of powers has in
collision. 31 the main wisely allocated the respective authority of
each department and confined its jurisdiction to such a
6. Nor did the other extravagant assertions of sphere. There would then be intrusion not allowable
constitutional deficiency go unrefuted in the Answer of under the Constitution if on a matter left to the
the Solicitor General "There is nothing in the questioned discretion of a coordinate branch, the judiciary would
Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended, or in substitute its own. If there be adherence to the rule of
Administrative Order No. 1, which requires or compels law, as there ought to be, the last offender should be
motor vehicle owners to purchase the early warning courts of justice, to which rightly litigants submit their
device prescribed thereby. All that is required is for controversy precisely to maintain unimpaired the
motor vehicle owners concerned like petitioner, to supremacy of legal norms and prescriptions. The attack
equip their motor vehicles with a pair of this early on the validity of the challenged provision likewise
warning device in question, procuring or obtaining the insofar as there may be objections, even if valid and
same from whatever source. In fact, with a little of cogent on is wisdom cannot be sustained. 33
industry and practical ingenuity, motor vehicle owners
can even personally make or produce this early warning 8. The alleged infringement of the fundamental
device so long as the same substantially conforms with principle of non-delegation of legislative power is
the specifications laid down in said letter of instruction equally without any support well-settled legal
and administrative order. Accordingly the early doctrines. Had petitioner taken the trouble to acquaint
warning device requirement can neither be oppressive, himself with authoritative pronouncements from this
onerous, immoral, nor confiscatory, much less does it Tribunal, he would not have the temerity to make such
make manufacturers and dealers of said devices 'instant an assertion. An exempt from the aforecited decision
millionaires at the expense of car owners' as petitioner of Edu v. Ericta sheds light on the matter: "To avoid the
so sweepingly concludes * * *. Petitioner's fear that with taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard,
the early warning device requirement 'a more subtle which implies at the very least that the legislature itself
racket may be committed by those called upon to determines matters of principle and lays down
enforce it * * * is an unfounded speculation. Besides, fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete
abdication may be hard to repel A standard thus defines 10. That is about all that needs be said. The rather court
legislative policy, marks its maps out its boundaries and reference to equal protection did not even elicit any
specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the attempt on the Part of Petitioner to substantiate in a
circumstances under which the legislative command is manner clear, positive, and categorical why such a
to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative casual observation should be taken seriously. In no case
purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive is there a more appropriate occasion for insistence on
or administrative office designated may in pursuance of what was referred to as "the general rule" in Santiago v.
the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules Far Eastern Broadcasting Co., 37 namely, "that the
and regulations. The standard may be either express or constitutionality of a law wig not be considered unless
implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is the point is specially pleaded, insisted upon, and
easily met. The standard though does not have to be adequately argued." 38 "Equal protection" is not a
spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the talismanic formula at the mere invocation of which a
policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In party to a lawsuit can rightfully expect that success will
the Reflector Law clearly, the legislative objective is crown his efforts. The law is anything but that.
public safety. What is sought to be attained as
in Calalang v. Williams is "safe transit upon the roads.' WHEREFORE, this petition is dismissed. The restraining
This is to adhere to the recognition given expression by order is lifted. This decision is immediately executory.
Justice Laurel in a decision announced not too long after No costs.
the Constitution came into force and effect that the
principle of non-delegation "has been made to adapt
itself to the complexities of modern governments, giving Castro, C.J., Barredo, Antonio, Santos, Fernandez,
rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera,
principle of "subordinate legislation" not only in the concur.
United States and England but in practically all modern
governments.' He continued: 'Accordingly, with the Makasiar, J, reserves the right to file a separate opinion.
growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of
the subjects of governmental regulation, and the Aquino J., took no part.
increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a
constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of
greater powers by the legislature and toward the Concepcion J., is on leave.
approval of the practice by the courts.' Consistency with
the conceptual approach requires the reminder that Castro, C.J., certifies that Justice Concepcion concurs in
what is delegated is authority non-legislative in their decision.
character, the completeness of the statute when it
leaves the hands of Congress being assumed." 34

9. The conclusion reached by this Court that this

petition must be dismissed is reinforced by this
consideration. The petition itself quoted these two
whereas clauses of the assailed Letter of Instruction: Separate Opinions
"[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 TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:
Nations Organization (U.N.); [Whereas], the said Vionna
Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine
Government under P.D. No. 207, recommended the I dissent from the majority's peremptory dismissal of
enactment of local legislation for the installation of road the petition and lifting of the restraining order issued
safety signs and devices; * * * " 35 It cannot be disputed on October 19, 1978 against the blanket enforcement of
then that this Declaration of Principle found in the the requirement that all motor vehicles be equipped
Constitution possesses relevance: "The Philippines * * * with the so-called early warning device, without even
adopts the generally accepted principles of hearing the parties in oral argument as generally
international law as part of the law of the land * * required by the Court in original cases of far-reaching
*." 36 The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and consequence such as the case at bar.
Signals is impressed with such a character. It is not for
this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had Lack of time presents my filing an extended dissent. I
pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt only wish to state that the petition advances grave and
servanda stands in the way of such an attitude, which is, serious grounds of assailing "the rules and regulations
moreover, at war with the principle of international issued by the Land Transportation Commission under
morality. Administrative Order No. 1 and Memorandum Circular
No. 32 [which] do not reflect the real intent, noble
objectives and spirit of Letter of Instructions No. 229, as civic mindedness in having filed the present petition g
amended by Letter of Instructions Nos. 479 and 716, as capricious and unreasonable the "all pervading police
because it is oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, power" of the State instead of throwing the case out of
confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to the court and leaving the wrong impression that the
precepts of our compassionate New Society," because of exercise of police power insofar as it may affect the life,
the following considerations, inter alia: liberty and property of any person is no longer subject
to judicial inquiry.
1. It is oppressive, arbitrary and discriminatory to
require owners of motor vehicles with built-in and
more effective and efficient E.W.D.'S such as "a) blinking
lights in the fore and aft of said motor vehicles, 1))
battery-powered blinking lights inside motor vehicles,
c) built-in reflectorized tapes on front and rear bumpers
of motor vehicles....... to purchase the E.W.D. specified in # Separate Opinions
the challenged administrative order, whose effectivity
and utility have yet to be demonstrated. TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:

2. The public necessity for the challenged order has yet I dissent from the majority's peremptory dismissal of
to be shown. No valid refutation has been made of the petition and lifting of the restraining order issued
petitioner's assertion that the "E.W.D.'s are not too vital on October 19, 1978 against the blanket enforcement of
to the prevention of nighttime vehicular accidents. the requirement that all motor vehicles be equipped
Statistics shows that of the 26,000 motor vehicle with the so-called early warning device, without even
accidents that occurred in 1976, only 390 or 1.5 per hearing the parties in oral argument as generally
cent involved rear-end collisions," as to require the required by the Court in original cases of far-reaching
purchase and installation of the questioned E.W.D. for consequence such as the case at bar.
almost 900,000 vehicles throughout the country;
Lack of time presents my filing an extended dissent. I
3. The big financial burden to be imposed on all only wish to state that the petition advances grave and
motorists is staggering, and petitioner's assertion that serious grounds of assailing "the rules and regulations
"as of 1975, there were at least 865,037 motor vehicles issued by the Land Transportation Commission under
all over the country requiring E.W.D.'S and at the Administrative Order No. 1 and Memorandum Circular
minimum price of 1156.00 per set, this would mean a No. 32 [which] do not reflect the real intent, noble
consumer outlay of P 48,451,872.00, or close to P 50 objectives and spirit of Letter of Instructions No. 229, as
million for the questioned E.W.D.'S "stands amended by Letter of Instructions Nos. 479 and 716,
unchallenged; because it is oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary,
confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to the
4. No real effort has been made to show that there can precepts of our compassionate New Society," because of
be practical and less burdensome alternative road the following considerations, inter alia:
safety devices for stalled vehicles than the prescribed
E.W.D., such as the common petroleum lamps "kinke" 1. It is oppressive, arbitrary and discriminatory to
which can be placed just as effectively in front of stalled require owners of motor vehicles with built-in and
vehicles on the highways; and more effective and efficient E.W.D.'S such as "a) blinking
lights in the fore and aft of said motor vehicles, 1))
5. There is no imperative need for imposing such a bet battery-powered blinking lights inside motor vehicles,
requirement on all vehicles. The respondents have not c) built-in reflectorized tapes on front and rear bumpers
shown that they have availed of the powers and of motor vehicles....... to purchase the E.W.D. specified in
prerogatives vested in their offices such as ridding the the challenged administrative order, whose effectivity
country of dilapidated trucks and vehicles which are the and utility have yet to be demonstrated.
main cause of the deplorable -highway accidents due to
stoned vehicles, establishing an honest and foolproof 2. The public necessity for the challenged order has yet
system of examination and licensing of motor vehicle to be shown. No valid refutation has been made of
drivers so as to ban the reckless and irresponsible and a petitioner's assertion that the "E.W.D.'s are not too vital
sustained education campaign to instill safe driving to the prevention of nighttime vehicular accidents.
habits and attitudes that can be carried out for much Statistics shows that of the 26,000 motor vehicle
less than the P 50 million burden that would be accidents that occurred in 1976, only 390 or 1.5 per
imposed by the challenged order. cent involved rear-end collisions," as to require the
purchase and installation of the questioned E.W.D. for
I do feel that a greater "degree of receptivity and almost 900,000 vehicles throughout the country;
sympathy" could be extended to the petitioner for his
3. The big financial burden to be imposed on all 7 No. 716.
motorists is staggering, and petitioner's assertion that
"as of 1975, there were at least 865,037 motor vehicles 8 Petition, par. VII.
all over the country requiring E.W.D.'S and at the
minimum price of 1156.00 per set, this would mean a
consumer outlay of P 48,451,872.00, or close to P 50 9 Ibid, par. VIII.
million for the questioned E.W.D.'S "stands
unchallenged; 10 Ibid.

4. No real effort has been made to show that there can 11 Ibid, par. IX.
be practical and less burdensome alternative road
safety devices for stalled vehicles than the prescribed 12 Ibid, par. X.
E.W.D., such as the common petroleum lamps "kinke"
which can be placed just as effectively in front of stalled
vehicles on the highways; and 13 Ibid, par. XI.

5. There is no imperative need for imposing such a bet 14 Ibid, par. X.

requirement on all vehicles. The respondents have not
shown that they have availed of the powers and 15 Ibid, par. XI.
prerogatives vested in their offices such as ridding the
country of dilapidated trucks and vehicles which are the 16 Resolution of the Court dated
main cause of the deplorable -highway accidents due to October 19, 1978.
stoned vehicles, establishing an honest and foolproof
system of examination and licensing of motor vehicle
drivers so as to ban the reckless and irresponsible and a 17 Answer, pars. 1-6.
sustained education campaign to instill safe driving
habits and attitudes that can be carried out for much 18 Ibid, par. 8.
less than the P 50 million burden that would be
imposed by the challenged order. 19 70 Phil. 726 (1940). The opinion
was penned by Justice Laurel.
I do feel that a greater "degree of receptivity and
sympathy" could be extended to the petitioner for his 20 L-20387, January 31, 1968; 22
civic mindedness in having filed the present petition g SCRA 424. The writer of this opinion
as capricious and unreasonable the "all pervading police is the ponente.
power" of the State instead of throwing the case out of
court and leaving the wrong impression that the
exercise of police power insofar as it may affect the life, 21 L-32096, October 24, 1970, 35
liberty and property of any person is no longer subject SCRA 481. The writer of this opinion
to judicial inquiry. was likewise the ponente.

#Footnotes 22 Answer, par. 18 (a) and (b).

1 Letter of Instruction No. 229 23 License Cases, 5 How. 504, 583.

(1974) as amended by Letter of
Instruction No. 479 (1976). 24 35 SCRA 481, 487-488. There is
no need to repeat where Calalang
2 He was assisted by Assistant and Morfe are reported. Primicias v.
Solicitor Ruben E. Agpalo and Fugoso is reported in 80 Phil. 71;
Solicitor Amado D. Aquino. Rubi v. Provincial Board, where the
first quotation from Justice Malcolm
came, in 39 Phil. 660, 708 (1919);
3 Petition, par. III. and Smith Bell and Co. v. Natividad,
his other decision cited, in 40 Phil.
4 Ibid, par. IV. 136 (1919); Helvering v. Davis, with
Justice Cardozo writing the opinion,
5 Ibid, par. V. in 301 US 619 (1937).

6 Ibid, par. VIII. 25 Republic Act No. 5715 (1969).

26 Commonwealth Act No. 548 36 Article 11, Section 3 of the
(1940). Constitution reads in full "The
Philippines renounces war as an
27 Cf. People v. Lagman 66 Phil. 13 instrument of national policy, adopts
(1938). Even earlier in United States the generally accepted principles of
v. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245 (1915), this international law as part of the law of
Court, by virtue of the police power, the land, and adheres to the Policy of
held valid a provision of the then peace, equality, justice, freedom,
Municipal Code requiring " able- cooperation, and amity with all
bodied" males in the vicinity nations.
between ages to perform patrol duty
not ex one day each week. 37 73 Phil. 408 (1941).

28 L-24693, July 31, 1967, 20 SCRA 38 Ibid, 412.

849.

29 Ibid. 867. The excerpt came from

O'Gorman and Young v. Hartford Fire
Insurance Co., 282 US 251, 328
(1931).

30 Answer, par. 18 (a). The excerpt

came from Samson v. Mayor of
Bacolod City, L-28745; October 23,
1974; 60 SCRA 267; 270.

31 Ibid, par. 18 (c).

32 Ibid, par. 18 (d) and (e),

33 Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424,

450-451. The citation from Justice
Laurel may be traced to Angara v.
Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139,
160 (1936); from Justice Laurel to
People v. Carlos, 78 Phil. 535, 548
(1947); from Justice Montemayor to
Quintos v. Lacson, 97 Phil. 290, 293
(1955); and from Justice Labrador to
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155,
1166 (1957). Chief Justice
Concepcion's reiteration of the
doctrine, paraphrased in the quoted
opinion, was made by him in
Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,
L-28196, November 9, 1967, 21
SCRA 774. Cf. Province of Pangasinan
v. Secretary of Public Works, 27861,
October 3l,1969, 30 SCRA 134.

34 SCRA 481, 497-498. The following

cases were also cited. People v.
Exconde, 101 Phil. 1125 (1957), and
People v. Jolliffe, 105 Phil. 677
(1959).

35 Petition, par. III.