Calalang V People

Calalang v. Williams 70 Phil.
726 (1940)
POLICE POWER
The Court applied its ruling Field vs. Clark which provides that: "The Legislature cannot delegate its power to make
the law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law
makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There
are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law-making
power, and, must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation." Calalang
v. Williams 70 Phil. 726
FACTS:
On July 18, 1940, the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission, recommended to the Director of
Public Works & Secretary of Public Works and Communications the resolution of scheduled prohibition of
animal-drawn vehicles from passing along some national roads and streets in Metro Manila. Said
prohibition will be applicable one-year (1) from the opening of Colgate Bridge.
The aforesaid recommendation was pursuance to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548 which
gives the Director of Public Works an authority, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on
national roads. With this, Maximo Calalang, the petitioner, a private citizen, filed a petition for a writ of
prohibition against the respondents, A. D. Williams, et al., He argues that the said commonwealth act is
unconstitutional because it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. He also argues that the
provisions of this act constitute unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade and abridge the
right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion which is also unconstitutional.
Issue
(1) Whether or not the Commonwealth Act No. 548 is unconstitutional since it constitutes an undue
delegation of legislative power
(2) Whether or not the provisions of the Commonwealth Act No. 548 constitute unlawful interference
with legitimate business or trade and abridge the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion.
Ruling
(1) No. Commonwealth Act NO. 548 is constitutional. The authority therein conferred upon the
respondents were merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in said Act
which aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in the interest and
convenience of the public. In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was prompted by
considerations of public convenience and welfare. The Court applied its ruling Field vs. Clark which
provides that: "The Legislature cannot delegate its power to make the law; but it can make a law to
delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to
make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many
things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law-making
power, and, must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation."
(2) No. The provisions under the Commonwealth Act No. 548 supports business and trade. It also does not
violate the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion. The primary principle in this case is the
Salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) which means that every law
must be for the promotion of the welfare of the people. Hence on this case, the rules and regulation that
was promulgated aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstruction on national roads, in the
interest and convenience of the public. With these in enacting the law, the traffic congestion will be
lessened and economic stability will be promoted. The court ruled that: The scope of police power keeps
expanding as civilization advances. As was said in the case of Dobbins v. Los Angeles (195 U.S. 223, 238; 49
L.ed. 169), "the right to exercise the police power is a continuing one, and a business lawful today may in
the future, because of the changed situation, the growth of population or other causes, become a menace
to the public health and welfare, and be required to yield to the public good." And in People v. Pomar (46
Phil., 440), it was observed that "advancing civilization is bringing within the police power of the state
today things which were not thought of as being within such power yesterday. The development of
civilization, the rapidly increasing population, the growth of public opinion, with an increasing desire on
the part of the masses and of the government to look after and care for the interests of the individuals of
the state, have brought within the police power many questions for regulation which formerly were not
so considered”
POLICE POWER; PERSONAL LIBERTY; GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. —
Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the paramount police power
of the state. Said Act, by virtue of which the rules and regulations complained of were promulgated, aims to
promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, in the interest and convenience of the public.
In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public convenience and
welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, to say the least, a menace to public
safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law, and the state in order to promote the
general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons
and property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort,
health, and prosperity of the state (U.S. v. Gomer Jesus, 31 Phil., 218). To this fundamental aim of our Government
the rights of the individual are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should
not be made to prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made
to prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should achieve the required
balance of liberty and authority in his mind through education and, personal discipline, so that there may be
established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and happiness for all. The moment greater
authority is conferred upon the government, logically so much is withdrawn from the residuum of liberty which
resides in the people. The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty is precisely the very
means of insuring its preservation.
Doctrine Social Justice.

Social justice is “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,” but the humanization of laws and
the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular
conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the
adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of
society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members
of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally,
through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus
populi est supremo, lex. Social justice, therefore, must be founded on

Calalang V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calalang V People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calalang V People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calalang v. Williams 70 Phil.

POLICE POWER; PERSONAL LIBERTY; GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. —

Doctrine Social Justice.

You might also like