0% found this document useful (0 votes)
252 views2 pages

8 Calang Vs Williams

This case involved a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Maximo Calalang against officials enforcing a law prohibiting animal-drawn vehicles on certain roads during certain times. The Court ruled that Commonwealth Act No. 548, which granted authorities the power to issue these traffic regulations, was constitutional. It did not infringe on social justice principles or constitute an undue delegation of legislative power. The officials issuing the traffic rules were properly carrying out the policy set by the legislature in administering road usage and safety.

Uploaded by

Rex
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
252 views2 pages

8 Calang Vs Williams

This case involved a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Maximo Calalang against officials enforcing a law prohibiting animal-drawn vehicles on certain roads during certain times. The Court ruled that Commonwealth Act No. 548, which granted authorities the power to issue these traffic regulations, was constitutional. It did not infringe on social justice principles or constitute an undue delegation of legislative power. The officials issuing the traffic rules were properly carrying out the policy set by the legislature in administering road usage and safety.

Uploaded by

Rex
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Calang vs Williams

Summary:

Calalang filed a petition for writ of prohibition against certain officials in enforcing the prohibition of
animal-drawn vehicles in certain areas and during certain periods of the day. The Court ruled that
Commonwealth Act No 548, the law in question, is constitutional. 

Facts:

 Maximo Calalang brought a petition for a writ of prohibition against the following respondents:
Chairman of the National Traffic Commission (A.D. Williams), Director of Public Works
(Vicente Fragante), Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications (Sergio Bayan),
Mayor of the City of Manila (Eulogio Rodriguez), and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila
(Juan Dominguez).
 It is alleged in the petition that the respondents have caused and enforced the prohibition of
animal-drawn vehicles from passing along Rosario St. extending from Plaza Calderon de la
Barca to Dasmarinas Street (from 7:30am-12:30pm and from 1:30-5:30p.m.); and Rizal Avenue
extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street (from 7-11a.m.) for a
period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge, to the detriment not
only of their owners but of the riding public as well.
 The petitioner avers that the rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on
national roads, pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 548, infringe upon the constitutional
precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic
security of all the people

Issues Ratio:

 WON CA No 548 infringes upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of
social justice – NO
o The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken sympathy
towards any given group. 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.
o 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 suprema lex. 
o Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of
interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection
that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our
social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the
state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about
"the greatest good to the greatest number."
 WON CA No 548 is unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative power – NO

o The provisions of CA No 548 do not confer legislative power upon the Director of
Public Works and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
o The authority therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules
and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands
but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly.
o The delegated power is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merely the
ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law
is to be predicated.
o To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine
when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of
the road or the traffic thereon and the requirements of public convenience and interest, is
an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the National
Assembly. It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom
is confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing
the law. But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the
law.  

Dispositive:

In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed for is hereby denied, with costs against the
petitioner. So ordered. 

You might also like