Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    Agustin V Edu

    Uploaded by

    Mijo Solis
    This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended, which mandated that all motor vehicles must have one pair of early warning devices to be used when the vehicle is disabled. The petitioner argued that the requirement was oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the requirement was a valid exercise of police power as it promoted public safety. The Court found that the petitioner did not provide evidence to rebut the presumption of validity and that the executive department conducted careful study before issuing the requirement. Therefore, the Letter of Instruction was not found to be unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

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

    Agustin V Edu

    Uploaded by

    Mijo Solis
    141 views2 pages
    This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended, which mandated that all motor vehicles must have one pair of early warning devices to be used when the vehicle is disabled. The petitioner argued that the requirement was oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the requirement was a valid exercise of police power as it promoted public safety. The Court found that the petitioner did not provide evidence to rebut the presumption of validity and that the executive department conducted careful study before issuing the requirement. Therefore, the Letter of Instruction was not found to be unconstitutional.

    Original Description:

    Agustin v Edu digest

    Original Title

    Agustin v Edu

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended, which mandated that all motor vehicles must have one pair of early warning devices to be used when the vehicle is disabled. The petitioner argued that the requirement was oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the requirement was a valid exercise of police power as it promoted public safety. The Court found that the petitioner did not provide evidence to rebut the presumption of validity and that the executive department conducted careful study before issuing the requirement. Therefore, the Letter of Instruction was not found to be unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    141 views2 pages

    Agustin V Edu

    Uploaded by

    Mijo Solis
    This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended, which mandated that all motor vehicles must have one pair of early warning devices to be used when the vehicle is disabled. The petitioner argued that the requirement was oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the requirement was a valid exercise of police power as it promoted public safety. The Court found that the petitioner did not provide evidence to rebut the presumption of validity and that the executive department conducted careful study before issuing the requirement. Therefore, the Letter of Instruction was not found to be unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Agustin v. Edu (G.R. No. L-49112; Feb.

    2, 1979)
    Petitioner: Leovillo C. Agustin
    Respondents:
    Hon. Romeo F. Edu, Land Transportation Commissioner
    Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Defense Minister
    Hon. Alfredo L. Juinio, Minister of Public Works
    Hon. Baltazar Aquino, Minister of Public Highways
    Facts:
    Pres. Marcos issued Letter of Instruction No. 229 on Dec. 3, 1974
    o Followed the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals
    o Mandated that all motor vehicles must have 1 pair of early
    warning devices (to be used whenever the vehicle is disabled)
    Amended by LI No. 479 on Nov. 15, 1976 which mandated the Land
    Transportation Commissioner to promulgate implementing rules
    Implementing Rules issued by Edu on June 30, 1978
    o Device may come from any source as long as they comply with
    specifications
    o Stickers with serial numbers will be attached to the EWDs free of
    charge. Serial number to be presented with registration
    certificate.
    Petitioner is an owner of a Volkswagen Beetle, Model 13035. Contends
    that his car is already equipped with blinking lights fore and aft which
    can serve as and EWD
    Petitioner alleged that the LI No. 229, as amended, and the
    implementing rules are oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary,
    confiscatory and unconstitutional
    Issue: WON the Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended, is oppressive,
    unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory and hence, unconstitutional.
    Held: NO
    1. The LI was issued in the exercise of police power. It was not a violation
    of due process or equal protection because it promotes general
    welfare. Police power is, according to Justice Malcolm, the power to
    prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education,
    good order or safety, and general welfare of the people.
    2. The Court is reluctant to declare unconstitutional such a legislative or
    executive act which promotes public safety. This was similar to the
    decision in Edu v. Ericta which upheld the validity of the Reflector Law.
    3. Petitioner did not present any factual foundation which can rebut the
    presumption of validity of the said Letter of Instruction.

    4. The Solicitor General, representing respondents, showed that the


    President was equipped with the necessary data to support the need
    for the issuance of such a measure. The issuance of the Letter of
    Instruction is thus encased in the armor of prior, careful study by the
    Executive Department.
    5. The EWDs are not an expensive redundancy because, being universal,
    it negates the confusion which other kinds of warning devices might
    give.
    6. There is nothing in the LI which prescribed the vehicle owners to
    purchase an EWD. He can obtain it from any source, even making it
    himself. Thus, the LI is not oppressive, onerous, immoral, nor
    confiscatory
    7. The petitioner is asking the Court to rule on the wisdom of the law. The
    Court does not rule on the wisdom of the law because that is for the
    Legislature to decide.
    8. There is no basis for the petitioners contention of undue delegation of
    legislative power to the Land Transportation Commissioner. The LI has
    sufficient standards to guide the actions of the LTC.
    9. The doctrine of pacta sunt servanda mandates that we should follow
    the stipulations in the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals.
    Furthermore, the Constitution adopts the generally accepted
    principles of international law as part of the law of the land.
    10.
    The contention about the equal protection clause was not
    substantiated by the petitioner. Hence, the Court did not rule on it.

    You might also like