Agustin v Edu; 88 SCRA 195; Validity of Early warning device

FACTS:
Agustin assails the validity of the Letter of Instruction No. 229
which requires an early warning device to be carried by users of
motor vehicles as being violative of the constitutional guarantee of
due process and transgresses the fundamental principle of nondelegation of legislative power. This instruction, signed by President
Marcos, aims to prevent accidents on streets and highways,
including expressways or limited access roads caused by the
presence of disabled, stalled or parked motor vehicles without
appropriate early warning devices. The hazards posed by these
disabled vehicles are recognized by international bodies concerned
with traffic safety. The Philippines is a signatory of the 1968 Vienna
Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations
Organizations and the said Vienna Convention was ratified by the
Philippine
ISSUE:

Government
Is

the

letter

under
of

PD
instruction

207.
valid?

RULINGS:
Yes. The assailed Letter of Instruction was a valid exercise of police
power and there was no unlawful delegation of legislative power on
the part of the respondent. As identified, police power is a state
authority to enact legislation that may interfere personal liberty or
property in order to promote the general welfare. In this case, the
particular exercise of police power was clearly intended to promote
public

safety.

It cannot be disputed that the 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 nation. Thus, as impressed in the 1968 Vienna Convention it
is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had
pledged its word. Our countrys word was resembled in our own act
of legislative ratification of the said Hague and Vienna Conventions
thru P.D. No. 207 . The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in
the way of such an attitude which is, moreoever, at war with the
principle

of

international

morality.

In Santiago vs Far Eatern Broadcasting Company , it was held that

the constitutionality of the law will not be considered unless the
point is specially pleaded, insisted upon and adequately argued.
Equal protection is not a talismanic formula at the mere invocation
of which a party to a lawsuit can rightfully expect success will
crown his efforts.