Case Digest: Agustin v Edu, GR No. L-49112, Feb. 2, 1979

Agustin v Edu, GR No. L-49112, Feb. 2, 1979

Fernando, J.:

Petitioner: Leovillo C. Agustin  

Respondents: 

1. Hon. Romeo F. Edu, Land Transportation Commissioner; 

2. Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Minister of National Defense; 

3. Hon. Alfredo L. Juinio, Minister of Public Works, Transportation, and Communications;

4. Hon. Baltazar Aquino, Minister of Public Highways.

Facts:

• On December 2, 1974, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 229, requiring all motor vehicles to have early warning devices (EWDs) to reduce accidents caused by stalled or parked vehicles on roads.

• The LOI mandates that all vehicles, except motorcycles and trailers, have at least one pair of triangular, collapsible reflectorized plates in red and yellow colors.

• Motorists must place these devices at least four meters away from a stalled or parked vehicle if it is stopped for 30 minutes or more.

• The Land Transportation Commissioner was instructed to issue these devices at a cost not exceeding 15% of their acquisition cost and to implement rules and regulations.

• In 1976, the LOI was amended by LOI No. 479, changing the requirements to allow motor vehicle owners to purchase EWDs from any source for registration purposes.

• Respondent Hon. Romeo F. Edu, sued implementing rules on December 10, 1976, which were later suspended for six months by President Marcos in January 1977. The suspension was lifted on June 30, 1978, and implementation resumed with Memorandum Circular No. 32 issued on August 29, 1978.

• Petitioner, an owner of a Volkswagen Beetle, argued that the car’s existing blinking lights could serve as an EWD and that the LOI was oppressive, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

• Petitioner Leovillo C. Agustin claimed the LOI was harsh, favored manufacturers and dealers unfairly, and imposed an unnecessary financial burden on motorists.

• Petitioner sought a court judgment to declare the LOI and its implementing rules void and unconstitutional and requested a restraining order.

• On October 19, 1978, the Supreme Court issued a resolution in the case "Leovillo C. Agustin v. Hon. Romeo F. Edu, et al.," directing the respondents to file an answer within ten days and not to move to dismiss the petition.

• The Court also issued a temporary restraining order effective immediately and continuing until further notice.

• On November 15, 1978, the respondents argued that the Letters of Instruction No. 229, as amended by Nos. 479 and 716, and the related regulations, did not violate constitutional provisions on due process, equal protection, or the non-delegation of police power.

• The answer included references to authoritative decisions from previous cases (Calalang v. Williams, Morfe v. Mutuc, and Edu v. Ericta) to support the legality of the measures.

• The Solicitor General cited the 1968 Vienna Conventions on road traffic and road signs, ratified by the Philippines, to bolster the argument for the legality of the early warning device requirements.

• 
  

Issue:

• Whether the LOI is unconstitutional. NO

Held:

This Court thus considered the petition submitted for decision, the issues being clearly joined. As noted at the outset, it is far from meritorious and must be dismissed.

1. The Letter of Instruction in question was issued in the exercise of the police power. That is conceded by petitioner and is the main reliance of respondents. It is the submission of the former, however, that while embraced in such a category, it has offended against the due process and equal protection safeguards of the Constitution, although the latter point was mentioned only in passing. The broad and expansive scope of the police power which was originally Identified by Chief Justice Taney of the American Supreme Court in an 1847 decision as "nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty" was stressed in the aforementioned case of Edu v. Ericta thus:

"Justice Laurel, in the first leading decision after the Constitution came into force, Calalang v. Williams, Identified police power with state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. Persons and property could thus 'be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to we the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state.' Shortly after independence in 1948, Primicias v. Fugoso reiterated the doctrine, such a competence being referred to as 'the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general welfare of the people. The concept was set forth in negative terms by Justice Malcolm in a pre-Commonwealth decision as 'that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. In that sense it could be hardly distinguishable as noted by this Court in Morfe v. Mutuc with the totality of legislative power. It is in the above sense the greatest and most powerful attribute of government. It is, to quote Justice Malcolm anew, 'the most essential, insistent, and at least table powers, extending as Justice Holmes aptly pointed out to all the great public needs.' Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits. In the language of Justice Cardozo: 'Needs that were narrow or parochial in the past may be interwoven in the present with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the time.' The police power is thus a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare." 

2. It was thus a heavy burden to be shouldered by petitioner, compounded by the fact that the particular police power measure challenged was clearly intended to promote public safety. It would be a rare occurrence indeed for this Court to invalidate a legislative or executive act of that character. None has been called to our attention, an indication of its being non-existent. The latest decision in point, Edu v. Ericta, sustained the validity of the Reflector Law, an enactment conceived with the same end in view. Calalang v. Williams found nothing objectionable in a statute, the purpose of which was: "To promote safe transit upon, and. avoid obstruction on roads and streets designated as national roads * * *. As a matter of fact, the first law sought to be nullified after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, the National Defense Act,with petitioner failing in his quest, was likewise prompted by the imperative demands of public safety.

3. The futility of petitioner's effort to nullify both the Letter of Instruction and the implementing rules and regulations becomes even more apparent considering his failure to lay the necessary factual foundation to rebut the presumption of validity. So it was held in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila. The rationale was clearly set forth in an excerpt from a decision of Justice Branders of the American Supreme Court, quoted in the opinion: "The statute here questioned deals with a subject clearly within the scope of the police power. We are asked to declare it void on the ground that the specific method of regulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due process of law. As underlying questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record in overthrowing the statute. 

4. Nor did the Solicitor General as he very well could, rely solely on such rebutted presumption of validity. As was pointed out in his Answer "The President certainly had in his possession the necessary statistical information and data at the time he issued said letter of instructions, and such factual foundation cannot be defeated by petitioner's naked assertion that early warning devices 'are not too vital to the prevention of nighttime vehicular accidents' because allegedly only 390 or 1.5 percent of the supposed 26,000 motor vehicle accidents that in 1976 involved rear-end collisions (p. 12 of petition). Petitioner's statistics is not backed up by demonstrable data on record. As aptly stated by this Honorable Court: Further: "It admits of no doubt therefore that there being a presumption of validity, the necessity for evidence to rebut it is unavoidable, unless the statute or ordinance is void on its face, which is not the case here"' * * *. But even as g the verity of petitioner's statistics, is that not reason 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 deaths that could likewise result from head-on or frontal collisions with stalled vehicles?" It is quite manifest then that the issuance of such Letter of Instruction is encased in the armor of prior, careful study by the Executive Department. To set it aside for alleged repugnancy to the due process clause is to give sanction to conjectural claims that exceeded even the broadest permissible limits of a pleader's well known penchant for exaggeration.

5. The rather wild and fantastic nature of the charge of oppressiveness of this Letter of Instruction was exposed in the Answer of the Solicitor General thus: "Such early warning device requirement is not an expensive redundancy, nor oppressive, for car owners whose cars are already equipped with 1) blinking lights in the fore and aft of said motor vehicles,' 2) "battery-powered blinking lights inside motor vehicles," 3) "built-in reflectorized tapes on front and rear bumpers of motor vehicles," or 4) "well-lighted two (2) petroleum lamps (the Kinke) * * * because: Being universal among the signatory countries to the said 1968 Vienna Conventions, and visible even under adverse conditions at a distance of at least 400 meters, any motorist from this country or from any part of the world, who sees a reflectorized rectangular early seaming device installed on the roads, highways or expressways, will conclude, without thinking, that somewhere along the travelled portion of that road, highway, or expressway, there is a motor vehicle which is stationary, stalled or disabled which obstructs or endangers passing traffic. On the other hand, a motorist who sees any of the aforementioned other built in warning devices or the petroleum lamps will not immediately get adequate advance warning because he will still think what that blinking light is all about. Is it an emergency vehicle? Is it a law enforcement car? Is it an ambulance? Such confusion or uncertainty in the mind of the motorist will thus increase, rather than decrease, the danger of collision.  

6. Nor did the other extravagant assertions of constitutional deficiency go unrefuted in the Answer of the Solicitor General "There is nothing in the questioned Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended, or in Administrative Order No. 1, which requires or compels motor vehicle owners to purchase the early warning device prescribed thereby. All that is required is for motor vehicle owners concerned like petitioner, to equip their motor vehicles with a pair of this early warning device in question, procuring or obtaining the same from whatever source. In fact, with a little of industry and practical ingenuity, motor vehicle owners can even personally make or produce this early warning device so long as the same substantially conforms with the specifications laid down in said letter of instruction and administrative order. Accordingly the early warning device requirement can neither be oppressive, onerous, immoral, nor confiscatory, much less does it make manufacturers and dealers of said devices 'instant millionaires at the expense of car owners' as petitioner so sweepingly concludes * * *. Petitioner's fear that with the early warning device requirement 'a more subtle racket may be committed by those called upon to enforce it * * * is an unfounded speculation. Besides, that unscrupulous officials may try to enforce said requirement in an unreasonable manner or to an unreasonable degree, does not render the same illegal or immoral where, as in the instant case, the challenged Letter of Instruction No. 229 and implementing order disclose none of the constitutional defects alleged against it. 

7 It does appear clearly that petitioner's objection to this Letter of Instruction is not premised on lack of power, the justification for a finding of unconstitutionality, but on the pessimistic, not to say negative, view he entertains as to its wisdom. That approach, it put it at its mildest, is distinguished, if that is the appropriate word, by its unorthodoxy. It bears repeating "that this Court, in the language of Justice Laurel, 'does not pass upon questions of wisdom justice or expediency of legislation.' As expressed by Justice Tuason: 'It is not the province of the courts to supervise legislation and keep it within the bounds of propriety and common sense. That is primarily and exclusively a legislative concern.' There can be no possible objection then to the observation of Justice Montemayor. 'As long as laws do not violate any Constitutional provision, the Courts merely interpret and apply them regardless of whether or not they are wise or salutary. For they, according to Justice Labrador, 'are not supposed to override legitimate policy and * * * never inquire into the wisdom of the law.' It is thus settled, to paraphrase Chief Justice Concepcion in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, that only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the action taken, may be the basis for declaring a statute invalid. This is as it ought to be. The principle of separation of powers has in the main wisely allocated the respective authority of each department and confined its jurisdiction to such a sphere. There would then be intrusion not allowable under the Constitution if on a matter left to the discretion of a coordinate branch, the judiciary would substitute its own. If there be adherence to the rule of law, as there ought to be, the last offender should be courts of justice, to which rightly litigants submit their controversy precisely to maintain unimpaired the supremacy of legal norms and prescriptions. The attack on the validity of the challenged provision likewise insofar as there may be objections, even if valid and cogent on is wisdom cannot be sustained.  

8. The alleged infringement of the fundamental principle of non-delegation of legislative power is equally without any support well-settled legal doctrines. Had petitioner taken the trouble to acquaint himself with authoritative pronouncements from this Tribunal, he would not have the temerity to make such an assertion. An exempt from the aforecited decision of Edu v. Ericta sheds light on the matter: "To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative office designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations. The standard may be either express or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In the Reflector Law clearly, the legislative objective is public safety. 

What is sought to be attained as in Calalang v. Williams is "safe transit upon the roads.' This is to adhere to the recognition given expression by Justice Laurel in a decision announced not too long after 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 rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of "subordinate legislation" not only in the United States and England but in practically all modern governments.' He continued: 'Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the legislature and toward the approval of the practice by the courts.' Consistency with the conceptual approach requires the reminder that what is delegated is authority non-legislative in character, the completeness of the statute when it leaves the hands of Congress being assumed."

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: "[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 Nations Organization (U.N.); [Whereas], the said Vionna Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207, recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices; * * * "   It cannot be disputed then that this 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 land * * *." 3  The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such a character. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude, which is, moreover, at war with the principle of international morality.

10. That is about all that needs be said. The rather court reference to equal protection did not even elicit any attempt on the Part of Petitioner to substantiate in a manner clear, positive, and categorical why such a casual observation should be taken seriously. In no case is there a more appropriate occasion for insistence on what was referred to as "the general rule" in Santiago v. Far Eastern Broadcasting Co., 37 namely, "that the constitutionality of a 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 that success will crown his efforts. The law is anything but that.

WHEREFORE, this petition is dismissed. The restraining order is lifted. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.