Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 117 views

    40 Agustin Vs Edu Digest

    Uploaded by

    Rex
    1) Petitioner Agustin challenged the validity of Letter of Instruction No. 229 which required all motor vehicles to carry an early warning device, arguing it violated due process and delegated legislative powers. 2) The instruction aimed to prevent accidents caused by disabled vehicles without warning signals, consistent with international conventions on traffic safety the Philippines had ratified. 3) The Court held that the instruction was a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and did not unlawfully delegate legislative powers, and that as a signatory the Philippines was obligated to uphold the commitments in the international conventions. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    40 Agustin Vs Edu Digest

    Uploaded by

    Rex
    117 views1 page
    1) Petitioner Agustin challenged the validity of Letter of Instruction No. 229 which required all motor vehicles to carry an early warning device, arguing it violated due process and delegated legislative powers. 2) The instruction aimed to prevent accidents caused by disabled vehicles without warning signals, consistent with international conventions on traffic safety the Philippines had ratified. 3) The Court held that the instruction was a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and did not unlawfully delegate legislative powers, and that as a signatory the Philippines was obligated to uphold the commitments in the international conventions. The petition was dismissed.

    Original Title

    40 Agustin vs Edu digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Agustin challenged the validity of Letter of Instruction No. 229 which required all motor vehicles to carry an early warning device, arguing it violated due process and delegated legislative powers. 2) The instruction aimed to prevent accidents caused by disabled vehicles without warning signals, consistent with international conventions on traffic safety the Philippines had ratified. 3) The Court held that the instruction was a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and did not unlawfully delegate legislative powers, and that as a signatory the Philippines was obligated to uphold the commitments in the international conventions. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    117 views1 page

    40 Agustin Vs Edu Digest

    Uploaded by

    Rex
    1) Petitioner Agustin challenged the validity of Letter of Instruction No. 229 which required all motor vehicles to carry an early warning device, arguing it violated due process and delegated legislative powers. 2) The instruction aimed to prevent accidents caused by disabled vehicles without warning signals, consistent with international conventions on traffic safety the Philippines had ratified. 3) The Court held that the instruction was a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and did not unlawfully delegate legislative powers, and that as a signatory the Philippines was obligated to uphold the commitments in the international conventions. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    AGUSTIN V.

    EDU - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW


    AGUSTIN V. EDU                     G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979

    FACTS:

    Petitioner, 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 non-delegation of legislative power.

    Herein respondent Romeo Edu in his capacity as Land Transportation Commisioner set forth the implementing
    rules and regulations of the said instruction.

    Petitioner make known that he "is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car, Model 13035, already properly equipped
    when it came out from the assembly lines with blinking lights fore and aft, which could very well serve as an early
    warning device in case of the emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No. 229, as amended, as well as the
    implementing rules and regulations in Administrative Order No. 1 issued by the land transportation Commission,"

    Furthermore, he contends that the law is "one-sided, onerous and patently illegal and immoral because [they] will
    make manufacturers and dealers instant millionaires at the expense of car owners who are compelled to buy a set
    of the so-called early warning device at the rate of P 56.00 to P72.00 per set." are unlawful and unconstitutional
    and contrary to the precepts of a compassionate New Society [as being] compulsory and confiscatory on the part
    of the motorists who could very well provide a practical alternative road safety device, or a better substitute to the
    specified set of Early Warning Device (EWD)."

    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
    Government under PD 207.

    ISSUE:

    WON the LOI 229 is invalid and violated constitutional guarantees of due process.

    HELD:

    NO. 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 country’s 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.

    Petition dismissed.

    You might also like