Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979 LEOVILLO C.

GUSTIN, petitioner, vs. !ON. ROMEO F. E"U, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& La$* Tra$&(or)a)#o$ Co++#&&#o$er, !ON. -U N PONCE ENRILE, #$ %#& '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 3 LT 4 R 5UINO, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& M#$#&)er o. Pub/#' !#6%7ay&, respondents. Leovillo C. Agustin Law Office for petitioner. Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Ru en E. Agpalo and Solicitor A!ado ". A#uino for respondents.

FERN N"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 re ulations for its i!ple!entation are concerned, for trans ressin the funda!ental principle of non" dele ation of le islative po#er. The $etter of 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 -i h#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 hi hly persuasive &uality, it !a,es devoid clear that the i!putation of a constitutional infir!ity is devoid of 0ustification The $etter of Instruction on is a valid police po#er !easure. Nor could the i!ple!entin rules and re ulations issued by respondent Edu be considered as a!ountin to an e1ercise of le islative po#er. Accordin ly, the petition !ust be dis!issed. The facts are undisputed. T%e a&&a#/e* Le))er o. I$&)ru')#o$ No. 229 of President Marcos, issued on )ece!ber 2, 3456, reads in full7 89+hereas:, statistics sho# that one of the !a0or causes of fatal or serious accidents in land transportation is the presence of disabled, stalled or par,ed !otor vehicles alon streets or hi h#ays #ithout any appropriate early #arnin device to si nal approachin !otorists of their presence* 9+hereas:, the ha%ards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been reco ni%ed by international bodies concerned #ith traffic safety, the 34;< =ienna Convention on Road .i ns and .i nals and the >nited Nations ?r ani%ation @>.N.A* 9+hereas:, the said =ienna Convention #hich #as ratified by the Philippine /overn!ent under P.). No. 2B5, reco!!ended the enact!ent of local le islation for the installation of road safety si ns and devices* 9No#, therefore, I, 'erdinand E. Marcos:, President of the Philippines, in the interest of safety on all streets and hi h#ays, includin e1press#ays or li!ited access roads, do hereby direct7 3. That all o#ners, users or

drivers of !otor vehicles shall have at all ti!es in their !otor vehicles at least one @3A pair of early #arnin device consistin of trian ular, collapsible reflectori%ed plates in red and yello# colors at least 3C c!s. at the base and 6B c!s. at the sides. 2. +henever any !otor vehicle is stalled or disabled or is par,ed for thirty @DBA !inutes or !ore on any street or hi h#ay, includin e1press#ays or li!ited access roads, the o#ner, user or driver thereof shall cause the #arnin device !entioned herein to be installed at least four !eters a#ay to the front and rear of the !otor vehicle sta ed, disabled or par,ed. D. The $and Transportation Co!!issioner shall cause Reflectori%ed Trian ular Early +arnin )evices, as herein described, to be prepared and issued to re istered o#ners of !otor vehicles, e1cept !otorcycles and trailers, char in for each piece not !ore than 3C E of the ac&uisition cost. -e shall also pro!ul ate such rules and re ulations as are appropriate to effectively i!ple!ent this order. 6. All hereby concerned shall closely coordinate and ta,e such !easures as are necessary or appropriate to carry into effect then instruction. 8 Thereafter, on Nove!ber 3C, 345;, it #as a!ended by $etter of Instruction No. 654 in this #ise. 8Para raph D of $etter of Instruction No. 224 is hereby a!ended to read as follo#s7 D. The $and transportation Co!!issioner shall re&uire every !otor vehicle o#ner to procure fro! any and present at the re istration of his vehicle, one pair of a reflectori%ed early #arnin device, as d bed of any brand or !a,e chosen by !id !otor vehicle . The $and Transportation Co!!issioner shall also pro!ul ate such rule and re ulations as are appropriate to effectively i!ple!ent this order.F8 4 There #as issued accordin ly, by respondent Edu, the i!ple!entin rules and re ulations on )ece!ber 3B, 345;. 9 They #ere not enforced as President Marcos on (anuary 2C, 3455, ordered a si1"!onth period of suspension insofar as the installation of early #arnin device as a pre"re istration re&uire!ent for !otor vehicle #as concerned. : Then on (une DB, 345<, another $etter of Instruction 7 the liftin of such suspension and directed the i!!ediate i!ple!entation of $etter of Instruction No. 224 as a!ended. ; It #as not until Au ust 24, 345< that respondent Edu issued Me!orandu! Circular No. D2, #orded thus7 8In pursuance of $etter of Instruction No. 53;, dated (une DB, 345<, the i!ple!entation of $etter of Instruction No. 224, as a!ended by $etter of Instructions No. 654, re&uirin the use of Early +arnin )evices @E+)A on !otor vehicle, the follo#in rules and re ulations are hereby issued7 3. $TC Ad!inistrative ?rder No. 3, dated )ece!ber 3B, 345;* shall no# be i!ple!ented provided that the device !ay co!e fro! #hatever source and that it shall have substantially co!plied #ith the E+) specifications contained in .ection 2 of said ad!inistrative order* 2. In order to insure that every !otor vehicle , e1cept !otorcycles, is e&uipped #ith the device, a pair of serially nu!bered stic,ers, to be issued free of char e by this Co!!ission, shall be attached to each E+). The E+). serial nu!ber shall be indicated on the re istration certificate and official receipt of pay!ent of current re istration fees of the !otor vehicle concerned. All ?rders, Circulars, and Me!oranda in conflict here#ith are hereby superseded, This ?rder shall ta,e effect i!!ediately. 9 It #as for i!!ediate i!ple!entation by respondent Alfredo $. (uinio, as Minister of Public +or,s, transportation, and Co!!unications. 1< Petitioner, after settin forth that he 8is the o#ner of a =ol,s#a en Beetle Car, Model 3DBDC, already properly e&uipped #hen it ca!e out fro! the asse!bly lines #ith blin,in li hts fore and aft, #hich could very #ell serve as an early #arnin device in case of the e!er encies !entioned in $etter of Instructions No. 224, as a!ended, as #ell as the i!ple!entin rules and re ulations in Ad!inistrative ?rder No. 3 issued by the land transportation Co!!ission,8 11 alle ed that said $etter of Instruction No. 224, as a!ended, 8clearly violates the provisions and dele ation of police po#er, 9sic: G G G7 8 'or hi! they are 8oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of our co!passionate Ne# .ociety.8 12 -e contended that they are 8infected #ith arbitrariness because it is harsh, cruel and unconscionable to the !otorin public*8 18 are 8one"sided, onerous and patently ille al and i!!oral because 9they: #ill !a,e !anufacturers and dealers instant !illionaires at the e1pense of car o#ners #ho are co!pelled to buy a set of

the so"called early #arnin device at the rate of P C;.BB to P52.BB per set.8 14 are unla#ful and unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of a co!passionate Ne# .ociety 9as bein : co!pulsory and confiscatory on the part of the !otorists #ho could very #ell provide a practical alternative road safety device, or a better substitute to the specified set of E+)Fs.8 19 -e therefore prayed for a 0ud !ent both the assailed $etters of Instructions and Me!orandu! Circular void and unconstitutional and for a restrainin order in the !ean#hile. A resolution to this effect #as handed do#n by this Court on ?ctober 34, 345<7 8$"64332 @$eovillo C. A ustin v. -on. Ro!eo '. Edu, etc., et al.A H Considerin the alle ations contained, the issues raised and the ar u!ents adduced in the petition for prohibition #ith #rit of p prohibitory andIor !andatory in0unction, the Court Resolved to @re&uireA the respondents to file an ans#er thereto #ithin ton @3BA days fro! notice and not to !ove to dis!iss the petition. The Court further Resolved to 9issue: a 9te!porary restrainin order: effective as of this date and continuin until other#ise ordered by this Court. 1: T#o !otions for e1tension #ere filed by the ?ffice of the .olicitor /eneral and ranted. Then on Nove!ber 3C, 345<, he Ans#er for respondents #as sub!itted. After ad!ittin the factual alle ations and statin that they lac,ed ,no#led e or infor!ation sufficient to for! a belief as to petitioner o#nin a =ol,s#a en Beetle car,8 they 8specifically deny the alle ations and statin they lac,ed ,no#led e or infor!ation sufficient to for! a belief as to petitioner o#nin a =ol,s#a en Beetle Car, 17 they specifically deny the alle ations in para raphs J and JI @includin its subpara raphs 3, 2, D, 6A of Petition to the effect that $etter of Instruction No. 224 as a!ended by $etters of Instructions Nos. 654 and 53; as #ell as $and transportation Co!!ission Ad!inistrative ?rder No. 3 and its Me!orandu! Circular No. D2 violates the constitutional provisions on due process of la#, e&ual protection of la# and undue dele ation of police po#er, and that the sa!e are li,e#ise oppressive, arbitrary, confiscatory, one"sided, onerous, i!!oral unreasonable and ille al the truth bein that said alle ations are #ithout le al and factual basis and for the reasons alle ed in the .pecial and Affir!ative )efenses of this Ans#er.8 1; >nli,e petitioner #ho contented hi!self #ith a rhetorical recital of his litany of rievances and !erely invo,ed the sacra!ental phrases of constitutional liti ation, the Ans#er, in de!onstratin that the assailed $etter of Instruction #as a valid e1ercise of the police po#er and i!ple!entin rules and re ulations of respondent Edu not susceptible to the char e that there #as unla#ful dele ation of le islative po#er, there #as in the portion captioned .pecial and Affir!ative )efenses, a citation of #hat respondents believed to be the authoritative decisions of this Tribunal callin for application. They are Calalang v. $illia!s, 19 Morfe v. Mutuc, 2< and Edu v. Ericta. 21 Reference #as li,e#ise !ade to the 34;< =ienna Conventions of the >nited Nations on road traffic, road si ns, and si nals, of #hich the Philippines #as a si natory and #hich #as duly ratified. 22 .olicitor /eneral Mendo%a too, pains to refute in detail, in lan ua e cal! and dispassionate, the vi orous, at ti!es inte!perate, accusation of petitioner that the assailed $etter of Instruction and the i!ple!entin rules and re ulations cannot survive the test of ri orous scrutiny. To repeat, its hi hly"persuasive &uality cannot be denied. This Court thus considered the petition sub!itted for decision, the issues bein clearly 0oined. As noted at the outset, it is far fro! !eritorious and !ust be dis!issed. 3. The $etter of Instruction in &uestion #as issued in the e1ercise of the police po#er. That is conceded by petitioner and is the !ain reliance of respondents. It is the sub!ission of the for!er, ho#ever, that #hile e!braced in such a cate ory, it has offended a ainst the due process and e&ual protection safe uards of the Constitution, althou h the latter point #as !entioned only in passin . The broad and e1pansive scope of the police po#er #hich #as ori inally Identified by Chief (ustice Taney of the A!erican .upre!e Court in an 3<65

decision as 8nothin !ore or less than the po#ers of overn!ent inherent in every soverei nty8 28 #as stressed in the afore!entioned case of Edu v. Ericta thus7 8(ustice $aurel, in the first leadin decision after the Constitution ca!e into force, Calalang v. $illia!s, Identified police po#er #ith state authority to enact le islation that !ay interfere #ith personal liberty or property in order to pro!ote the eneral #elfare. Persons and property could thus Fbe sub0ected to all ,inds of restraints and burdens in order to #e the eneral co!fort, health and prosperity of the state.F .hortly after independence in 346<, Pri!icias v. %ugoso reiterated the doctrine, such a co!petence bein referred to as Fthe po#er to prescribe re ulations to pro!ote the health, !orals, peace, education, ood order or safety, and eneral #elfare of the people. The concept #as set forth in ne ative ter!s by (ustice Malcol! in a pre"Co!!on#ealth decision as Fthat inherent and plenary po#er in the .tate #hich enables it to prohibit all thin s hurtful to the co!fort, safety and #elfare of society. In that sense it could be hardly distin uishable as noted by this Court in Morfe v. Mutuc #ith the totality of le islative 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#, Fthe !ost essential, insistent, and at least table po#ers, I e1tendin as (ustice -ol!es aptly pointed out Fto all the reat public needs.F Its scope, ever"e1pandin to !eet the e1i encies of the ti!es, even to anticipate the future #here it could be done, provides enou h roo! for an efficient and fle1ible response to conditions and circu!stances thus assurin the reatest benefits. In the lan ua e of (ustice Cardo%o7 FNeeds that #ere narro# or parochial in the past !ay be inter#oven in the present #ith the #ell"bein of the nation. +hat is critical or ur ent chan es #ith the ti!e.F The police po#er is thus a dyna!ic a ency, suitably va ue and far fro! precisely defined, rooted in the conception that !en in or ani%in the state and i!posin upon its overn!ent li!itations to safe uard constitutional ri hts did not intend thereby to enable an individual citi%en or a roup of citi%ens to obstruct unreasonably the enact!ent of such salutary !easures calculated to co!!unal peace, safety, ood order, and #elfare.8 24 2. It #as thus a heavy burden to be shouldered by petitioner, co!pounded by the fact that the particular police po#er !easure challen ed #as clearly intended to pro!ote public safety. It #ould be a rare occurrence indeed for this Court to invalidate a le islative or e1ecutive act of that character. None has been called to our attention, an indication of its bein non"e1istent. The latest decision in point, Edu v. Ericta, sustained the validity of the Reflector $a#, 29 an enact!ent conceived #ith the sa!e end in vie#. Calalang v. $illia!s found nothin ob0ectionable in a statute, the purpose of #hich #as7 8To pro!ote safe transit upon, and. avoid obstruction on roads and streets desi nated as national roads G G G. 2: As a !atter of fact, the first la# sou ht to be nullified after the effectivity of the 34DC Constitution, the National )efense Act, 27 #ith petitioner failin in his &uest, #as li,e#ise pro!pted by the i!perative de!ands of public safety. D. The futility of petitionerFs effort to nullify both the $etter of Instruction and the i!ple!entin rules and re ulations beco!es even !ore apparent considerin his failure to lay the necessary factual foundation to rebut the presu!ption of validity. .o it #as held in Er!ita& Malate 'otel and Motel Operators Association, (nc. v. Cit) Ma)or of Manila . 2; The rationale #as clearly set forth in an e1cerpt fro! a decision of (ustice Branders of the A!erican .upre!e Court, &uoted in the opinion7 8The statute here &uestioned deals #ith a sub0ect clearly #ithin the scope of the police po#er. +e are as,ed to declare it void on the round that the specific !ethod of re ulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due process of la#. As underlyin &uestions of fact !ay condition the constitutionality of le islation of this character, the presu!ption of constitutionality !ust prevail in the absence of so!e factual foundation of record in overthro#in the statute. 29 6. Nor did the .olicitor /eneral as he very #ell could, rely solely on such rebutted presu!ption of validity. As #as pointed out in his Ans#er 8The President certainly had in his

possession the necessary statistical infor!ation and data at the ti!e he issued said letter of instructions, and such factual foundation cannot be defeated by petitionerFs na,ed assertion that early #arnin devices Fare not too vital to the prevention of ni htti!e vehicular accidentsF because alle edly only D4B or 3.C per cent of the supposed 2;,BBB !otor vehicle accidents that in 345; involved rear"end collisions @p. 32 of petitionA. PetitionerFs statistics is not bac,ed up by de!onstrable data on record. As aptly stated by this -onorable Court7 'urther7 8It ad!its of no doubt therefore that there bein a presu!ption of validity, the necessity for evidence to rebut it is unavoidable, unless the statute or ordinance is void on its face, #hich is not the case here8F G G G. But even as the verity of petitionerFs statistics, is that not reason enou h to re&uire the installation of early #arnin devices to prevent another D4B rear"end collisions that could !ean the death of D4B or !ore 'ilipinos and the deaths that could li,e#ise result fro! head"on or frontal collisions #ith stalled vehiclesK8 8< It is &uite !anifest then that the issuance of such $etter of Instruction is encased in the ar!or of prior, careful study by the E1ecutive )epart!ent. To set it aside for alle ed repu nancy to the due process clause is to ive sanction to con0ectural clai!s that e1ceeded even the broadest per!issible li!its of a pleaderFs #ell ,no#n penchant for e1a eration. C. The rather #ild and fantastic nature of the char e of oppressiveness of this $etter of Instruction #as e1posed in the Ans#er of the .olicitor /eneral thus7 8.uch early #arnin device re&uire!ent is not an e*pensive redundanc), nor oppressive, for car o#ners #hose cars are already e&uipped #ith 3A blin,in li hts in the fore and aft of said !otor vehicles,F 2A 8battery"po#ered blin,in li hts inside !otor vehicles,8 DA 8built"in reflectori%ed tapes on front and rear bu!pers of !otor vehicles,8 or 6A 8#ell"li hted t#o @2A petroleu! la!ps @the +in,eA G G G because7 Bein universal a!on the si natory countries to the said 34;< =ienna Conventions, and visible even under adverse conditions at a distance of at least 6BB !eters, any !otorist fro! this country or fro! any part of the #orld, #ho sees a reflectori%ed rectan ular early sea!in device installed on the roads, hi h#ays or e1press#ays, #ill conclude, #ithout thin,in , that so!e#here alon the travelled portion of that road, hi h#ay, or e1press#ay, there is a !otor vehicle #hich is stationary, stalled or disabled #hich obstructs or endan ers passin traffic. ?n the other hand, a !otorist #ho sees any of the afore!entioned other built in #arnin devices or the petroleu! la!ps #ill not i!!ediately et ade&uate advance #arnin because he #ill still thin, #hat that blin,in li ht is all about. Is it an e!er ency vehicleK Is it a la# enforce!ent carK Is it an a!bulanceK .uch confusion or uncertainty in the !ind of the !otorist #ill thus increase, rather than decrease, the dan er of collision. 81 ;. Nor did the other e1trava ant assertions of constitutional deficiency o unrefuted in the Ans#er of the .olicitor /eneral 8There is nothin in the &uestioned $etter of Instruction No. 224, as a!ended, or in Ad!inistrative ?rder No. 3, #hich re&uires or co!pels !otor vehicle o#ners to purchase the early #arnin device prescribed thereby. All that is re&uired is for !otor vehicle o#ners concerned li,e petitioner, to e&uip their !otor vehicles #ith a pair of this early #arnin device in &uestion, procurin or obtainin the sa!e fro! #hatever source. In fact, #ith a little of industry and practical in enuity, !otor vehicle o#ners can even personally !a,e or produce this early #arnin device so lon as the sa!e substantially confor!s #ith the specifications laid do#n in said letter of instruction and ad!inistrative order. Accordin ly the early #arnin device re&uire!ent can neither be oppressive, onerous, i!!oral, nor confiscatory, !uch less does it !a,e !anufacturers and dealers of said devices Finstant !illionaires at the e1pense of car o#nersF as petitioner so s#eepin ly concludes G G G. PetitionerFs fear that #ith the early #arnin device re&uire!ent Fa !ore subtle rac,et !ay be co!!itted by those called upon to enforce it G G G is an unfounded speculation. Besides, that unscrupulous officials !ay try to enforce said re&uire!ent in an unreasonable !anner or to an unreasonable de ree, does not render the sa!e ille al or

i!!oral #here, as in the instant case, the challen ed $etter of Instruction No. 224 and i!ple!entin order disclose none of the constitutional defects alle ed a ainst it. 82 5 It does appear clearly that petitionerFs ob0ection to this $etter of Instruction is not pre!ised on lac, of po#er, the 0ustification for a findin of unconstitutionality, but on the pessi!istic, not to say ne ative, vie# he entertains as to its #isdo!. That approach, it put it at its !ildest, is distin uished, if that is the appropriate #ord, by its unorthodo1y. It bears repeatin 8that this Court, in the lan ua e of (ustice $aurel, Fdoes not pass upon &uestions of #isdo! 0ustice or e1pediency of le islation.F As e1pressed by (ustice Tuason7 FIt is not the province of the courts to supervise le islation and ,eep it #ithin the bounds of propriety and co!!on sense. That is pri!arily and e1clusively a le islative concern.F There can be no possible ob0ection then to the observation of (ustice Monte!ayor. FAs lon as la#s do not violate any Constitutional provision, the Courts !erely interpret and apply the! re ardless of #hether or not they are #ise or salutary. 'or they, accordin to (ustice $abrador, Fare not supposed to override le iti!ate policy and G G G never in&uire into the #isdo! of the la#.F It is thus settled, to paraphrase Chief (ustice Concepcion in /on%ales v. Co!!ission on Elections, that only con ressional po#er or co!petence, not the #isdo! of the action ta,en, !ay be the basis for declarin a statute invalid. This is as it ou ht to be. The principle of separation of po#ers has in the !ain #isely allocated the respective authority of each depart!ent and confined its 0urisdiction to such a sphere. There #ould then be intrusion not allo#able under the Constitution if on a !atter left to the discretion of a coordinate branch, the 0udiciary #ould substitute its o#n. If there be adherence to the rule of la#, as there ou ht to be, the last offender should be courts of 0ustice, to #hich ri htly liti ants sub!it their controversy precisely to !aintain uni!paired the supre!acy of le al nor!s and prescriptions. The attac, on the validity of the challen ed provision li,e#ise insofar as there !ay be ob0ections, even if valid and co ent on is #isdo! cannot be sustained. 88 <. The alle ed infrin e!ent of the funda!ental principle of non"dele ation of le islative po#er is e&ually #ithout any support #ell"settled le al doctrines. -ad petitioner ta,en the trouble to ac&uaint hi!self #ith authoritative pronounce!ents fro! this Tribunal, he #ould not have the te!erity to !a,e such an assertion. An e1e!pt fro! the aforecited decision of Edu v. Ericta sheds li ht on the !atter7 8To avoid the taint of unla#ful dele ation, there !ust be a standard, #hich i!plies at the very least that the le islature itself deter!ines !atters of principle and lays do#n funda!ental policy. ?ther#ise, the char e of co!plete abdication !ay be hard to repel A standard thus defines le islative policy, !ar,s its !aps out its boundaries and specifies the public a ency to apply it. It indicates the circu!stances under #hich the le islative co!!and is to be effected. It is the criterion by #hich le islative purpose !ay be carried out. Thereafter, the e1ecutive or ad!inistrative office desi nated !ay in pursuance of the above uidelines pro!ul ate supple!ental rules and re ulations. The standard !ay be either e1press or i!plied. If the for!er, the non"dele ation ob0ection is easily !et. The standard thou h does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be i!plied fro! the policy and purpose of the act considered as a #hole. In the Reflector $a# clearly, the le islative ob0ective is public safety. +hat is sou ht to be attained as in Calalang v. $illia!s is 8safe transit upon the roads.F This is to adhere to the reco nition iven e1pression by (ustice $aurel in a decision announced not too lon after the Constitution ca!e into force and effect that the principle of non"dele ation 8has been !ade to adapt itself to the co!ple1ities of !odern overn!ents, ivin rise to the adoption, #ithin certain li!its, of the principle of 8subordinate le islation8 not only in the >nited .tates and En land but in practically all !odern overn!ents.F -e continued7 FAccordin ly, #ith the ro#in co!ple1ity of !odern life, the !ultiplication of the sub0ects of overn!ental re ulation, and the increased difficulty of ad!inisterin the la#s, there is a constantly ro#in tendency to#ard the dele ation of reater po#ers by the le islature and to#ard the approval of the practice by the courts.F Consistency #ith the conceptual approach re&uires the re!inder that #hat is

dele ated is authority non"le islative in character, the co!pleteness of the statute #hen it leaves the hands of Con ress bein assu!ed.8 84 4. The conclusion reached by this Court that this petition !ust be dis!issed is reinforced by this consideration. The petition itself &uoted these t#o #hereas clauses of the assailed $etter of Instruction7 89+hereas:, the ha%ards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been reco ni%ed by international bodies concerned #ith traffic safety, the 34;< =ienna Convention on Road .i ns and .i nals and the >nited Nations ?r ani%ation @>.N.A* 9+hereas:, the said =ionna Convention, #hich #as ratified by the Philippine /overn!ent under P.). No. 2B5, reco!!ended the enact!ent of local le islation for the installation of road safety si ns and devices* G G G 8 89 It cannot be disputed then that this )eclaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance7 8The Philippines G G G adopts the enerally accepted principles of international la# as part of the la# of the land G G G.8 8: The 34;< =ienna Convention on Road .i ns and .i nals is i!pressed #ith such a character. It is not for this country to repudiate a co!!it!ent to #hich it had pled ed its #ord. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the #ay of such an attitude, #hich is, !oreover, at #ar #ith the principle of international !orality. 3B. That is about all that needs be said. The rather court reference to e&ual protection did not even elicit any atte!pt on the Part of Petitioner to substantiate in a !anner clear, positive, and cate orical #hy such a casual observation should be ta,en seriously. In no case is there a !ore appropriate occasion for insistence on #hat #as referred to as 8the eneral rule8 in Santiago v. %ar Eastern -roadcasting Co., 87 na!ely, 8that the constitutionality of a la# #i not be considered unless the point is specially pleaded, insisted upon, and ade&uately ar ued.8 8; 8E&ual protection8 is not a talis!anic for!ula at the !ere invocation of #hich a party to a la#suit can ri htfully e1pect that success #ill cro#n his efforts. The la# is anythin but that. +-ERE'?RE, this petition is dis!issed. The restrainin order is lifted. This decision is i!!ediately e1ecutory. No costs. Castro, C..., -arredo, Antonio, Santos, %ernandez, Guerrero, A ad Santos, "e Castro and Melencio&'errera, concur. Ma,asiar, ., reserves t/e rig/t to file a separate opinion. A#uino .., too, no part. Concepcion .., is on leave. Castro, C..., certifies t/at .ustice Concepcion concurs in t/eir decision.

Se(ara)e O(#$#o$&

TEE! N=EE, J., dissentin 7

I dissent fro! the !a0orityFs pere!ptory dis!issal of the petition and liftin of the restrainin order issued on ?ctober 34, 345< a ainst 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 ar u!ent as enerally re&uired by the Court in ori inal cases of far"reachin conse&uence such as the case at bar. $ac, of ti!e presents !y filin an e1tended dissent. I only #ish to state that the petition advances rave and serious rounds of assailin 8the rules and re ulations issued by the $and Transportation Co!!ission under Ad!inistrative ?rder No. 3 and Me!orandu! Circular No. D2 9#hich: do not reflect the real intent, noble ob0ectives and spirit of $etter of Instructions No. 224, as a!ended by $etter of Instructions Nos. 654 and 53;, because it is oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of our co!passionate Ne# .ociety,8 because of the follo#in considerations, inter alia0 3. It is oppressive, arbitrary and discri!inatory to re&uire o#ners of !otor vehicles #ith built" in and !ore effective and efficient E.+.).F. such as 8aA blin,in li hts in the fore and aft of said !otor vehicles, 3AA battery"po#ered blin,in li hts inside !otor vehicles, cA built"in reflectori%ed tapes on front and rear bu!pers of !otor vehicles....... to purchase the E.+.). specified in the challen ed ad!inistrative order, #hose effectivity and utility have yet to be de!onstrated. 2. The public necessity for the challen ed order has yet to be sho#n. No valid refutation has been !ade of petitionerFs assertion that the 8E.+.).Fs are not too vital to the prevention of ni htti!e vehicular accidents. .tatistics sho#s that of the 2;,BBB !otor vehicle accidents that occurred in 345;, only D4B or 3.C per cent involved rear"end collisions,8 as to re&uire the purchase and installation of the &uestioned E.+.). for al!ost 4BB,BBB vehicles throu hout the country* D. The bi financial burden to be i!posed on all !otorists is sta erin , and petitionerFs assertion that 8as of 345C, there #ere at least <;C,BD5 !otor vehicles all over the country re&uirin E.+.).F. and at the !ini!u! price of 33C;.BB per set, this #ould !ean a consu!er outlay of P 6<,6C3,<52.BB, or close to P CB !illion for the &uestioned E.+.).F. 8stands unchallen ed* 6. No real effort has been !ade to sho# that there can be practical and less burdenso!e alternative road safety devices for stalled vehicles than the prescribed E.+.)., such as the co!!on petroleu! la!ps 8,in,e8 #hich can be placed 0ust as effectively in front of stalled vehicles on the hi h#ays* and C. There is no i!perative need for i!posin such a bet re&uire!ent on all vehicles. The respondents have not sho#n that they have availed of the po#ers and prero atives vested in their offices such as riddin the country of dilapidated truc,s and vehicles #hich are the !ain cause of the deplorable "hi h#ay accidents due to stoned vehicles, establishin an honest and foolproof syste! of e1a!ination and licensin of !otor vehicle drivers so as to ban the rec,less and irresponsible and a sustained education ca!pai n to instill safe drivin habits and attitudes that can be carried out for !uch less than the P CB !illion burden that #ould be i!posed by the challen ed order. I do feel that a reater 8de ree of receptivity and sy!pathy8 could be e1tended to the petitioner for his civic !indedness in havin filed the present petition as capricious and unreasonable the 8all pervadin police po#er8 of the .tate instead of thro#in the case out

of court and leavin the #ron i!pression that the e1ercise of police po#er insofar as it !ay affect the life, liberty and property of any person is no lon er sub0ect to 0udicial in&uiry.

> Se(ara)e O(#$#o$& TEE! N=EE, J., dissentin 7 I dissent fro! the !a0orityFs pere!ptory dis!issal of the petition and liftin of the restrainin order issued on ?ctober 34, 345< a ainst 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 ar u!ent as enerally re&uired by the Court in ori inal cases of far"reachin conse&uence such as the case at bar. $ac, of ti!e presents !y filin an e1tended dissent. I only #ish to state that the petition advances rave and serious rounds of assailin 8the rules and re ulations issued by the $and Transportation Co!!ission under Ad!inistrative ?rder No. 3 and Me!orandu! Circular No. D2 9#hich: do not reflect the real intent, noble ob0ectives and spirit of $etter of Instructions No. 224, as a!ended by $etter of Instructions Nos. 654 and 53;, because it is oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of our co!passionate Ne# .ociety,8 because of the follo#in considerations, inter alia0 3. It is oppressive, arbitrary and discri!inatory to re&uire o#ners of !otor vehicles #ith built" in and !ore effective and efficient E.+.).F. such as 8aA blin,in li hts in the fore and aft of said !otor vehicles, 3AA battery"po#ered blin,in li hts inside !otor vehicles, cA built"in reflectori%ed tapes on front and rear bu!pers of !otor vehicles....... to purchase the E.+.). specified in the challen ed ad!inistrative order, #hose effectivity and utility have yet to be de!onstrated. 2. The public necessity for the challen ed order has yet to be sho#n. No valid refutation has been !ade of petitionerFs assertion that the 8E.+.).Fs are not too vital to the prevention of ni htti!e vehicular accidents. .tatistics sho#s that of the 2;,BBB !otor vehicle accidents that occurred in 345;, only D4B or 3.C per cent involved rear"end collisions,8 as to re&uire the purchase and installation of the &uestioned E.+.). for al!ost 4BB,BBB vehicles throu hout the country* D. The bi financial burden to be i!posed on all !otorists is sta erin , and petitionerFs assertion that 8as of 345C, there #ere at least <;C,BD5 !otor vehicles all over the country re&uirin E.+.).F. and at the !ini!u! price of 33C;.BB per set, this #ould !ean a consu!er outlay of P 6<,6C3,<52.BB, or close to P CB !illion for the &uestioned E.+.).F. 8stands unchallen ed* 6. No real effort has been !ade to sho# that there can be practical and less burdenso!e alternative road safety devices for stalled vehicles than the prescribed E.+.)., such as the co!!on petroleu! la!ps 8,in,e8 #hich can be placed 0ust as effectively in front of stalled vehicles on the hi h#ays* and

C. There is no i!perative need for i!posin such a bet re&uire!ent on all vehicles. The respondents have not sho#n that they have availed of the po#ers and prero atives vested in their offices such as riddin the country of dilapidated truc,s and vehicles #hich are the !ain cause of the deplorable "hi h#ay accidents due to stoned vehicles, establishin an honest and foolproof syste! of e1a!ination and licensin of !otor vehicle drivers so as to ban the rec,less and irresponsible and a sustained education ca!pai n to instill safe drivin habits and attitudes that can be carried out for !uch less than the P CB !illion burden that #ould be i!posed by the challen ed order. I do feel that a reater 8de ree of receptivity and sy!pathy8 could be e1tended to the petitioner for his civic !indedness in havin filed the present petition as capricious and unreasonable the 8all pervadin police po#er8 of the .tate instead of thro#in the case out of court and leavin the #ron i!pression that the e1ercise of police po#er insofar as it !ay affect the life, liberty and property of any person is no lon er sub0ect to 0udicial in&uiry. >Foo)$o)e& 3 $etter of Instruction No. 224 @3456A as a!ended by $etter of Instruction No. 654 @345;A. 2 -e #as assisted by Assistant .olicitor Ruben E. A palo and .olicitor A!ado ). A&uino. D Petition, par. III. 6 ( id, par. I=. C ( id, par. =. ; ( id, par. =III. 5 No. 53;. < Petition, par. =II. 4 ( id, par. =III. 3B ( id. 33 ( id, par. IJ. 32 ( id, par. J. 3D ( id, par. JI. 36 ( id, par. J. 3C ( id, par. JI. 3; Resolution of the Court dated ?ctober 34, 345<.

35 Ans#er, pars. 3";. 3< ( id, par. <. 34 5B Phil. 52; @346BA. The opinion #as penned by (ustice $aurel. 2B $"2BD<5, (anuary D3, 34;<* 22 .CRA 626. The #riter of this opinion is the ponente. 23 $"D2B4;, ?ctober 26, 345B, DC .CRA 6<3. The #riter of this opinion #as li,e#ise the ponente. 22 Ans#er, par. 3< @aA and @bA. 2D $icense Cases, C -o#. CB6, C<D. 26 DC .CRA 6<3, 6<5"6<<. There is no need to repeat #here Calalan and Morfe are reported. Pri!icias v. 'u oso is reported in <B Phil. 53* Rubi v. Provincial Board, #here the first &uotation fro! (ustice Malcol! ca!e, in D4 Phil. ;;B, 5B< @3434A* and .!ith Bell and Co. v. Natividad, his other decision cited, in 6B Phil. 3D; @3434A* -elverin v. )avis, #ith (ustice Cardo%o #ritin the opinion, in DB3 >. ;34 @34D5A. 2C Republic Act No. C53C @34;4A. 2; Co!!on#ealth Act No. C6< @346BA. 25 Cf. People v. $a !an ;; Phil. 3D @34D<A. Even earlier in >nited .tates v. Po!peya, D3 Phil. 26C @343CA, this Court, by virtue of the police po#er, held valid a provision of the then Municipal Code re&uirin 8 able"bodied8 !ales in the vicinity bet#een a es to perfor! patrol duty not e1 one day each #ee,. 2< $"26;4D, (uly D3, 34;5, 2B .CRA <64. 24 ( id. <;5. The e1cerpt ca!e fro! ?F/or!an and Loun v. -artford 'ire Insurance Co., 2<2 >. 2C3, D2< @34D3A. DB Ans#er, par. 3< @aA. The e1cerpt ca!e fro! .a!son v. Mayor of Bacolod City, $"2<56C* ?ctober 2D, 3456* ;B .CRA 2;5* 25B. D3 ( id, par. 3< @cA. D2 ( id, par. 3< @dA and @eA, DD Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 .CRA 626, 6CB"6C3. The citation fro! (ustice $aurel !ay be traced to An ara v. Electoral Co!!ission, ;D Phil. 3D4, 3;B @34D;A* fro! (ustice $aurel to People v. Carlos, 5< Phil. CDC, C6< @3465A* fro! (ustice Monte!ayor to Muintos v. $acson, 45 Phil. 24B, 24D @34CCA* and fro! (ustice $abrador to Ichon v. -ernande%, 3B3 Phil. 33CC, 33;; @34C5A. Chief (ustice ConcepcionFs reiteration of the doctrine, paraphrased in the &uoted opinion, #as !ade by hi! in /on%ales v. Co!!ission on Elections, $"2<34;,

Nove!ber 4, 34;5, 23 .CRA 556. Cf. Province of Pan asinan v. .ecretary of Public +or,s, 25<;3, ?ctober Dl,34;4, DB .CRA 3D6. D6 .CRA 6<3, 645"64<. The follo#in cases #ere also cited. People v. E1conde, 3B3 Phil. 332C @34C5A, and People v. (olliffe, 3BC Phil. ;55 @34C4A. DC Petition, par. III. D; Article 33, .ection D of the Constitution reads in full 8The 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, 0ustice, freedo!, cooperation, and a!ity #ith all nations. D5 5D Phil. 6B< @3463A. D< ( id, 632.