Scribd
Upload
54 views

Agustin Vs Edu GR. L-49112 FEBRUARY 2, 1979: Facts

1) President Marcos issued LOI No. 229 requiring all motor vehicles to have early warning devices (EWD) consisting of triangular reflectorized plates. 2) LOI No. 229 was later amended by LOI No. 479 allowing owners to purchase EWD from any source that meets Land Transportation Commissioner standards. 3) A citizen challenged the constitutionality of LOI No. 229 as amended and LTC Administrative Order No. 1 implementing the LOI. The Supreme Court ruled that LOI No. 229 as amended was a valid exercise of the state's police power to promote public safety.

Uploaded by

JOYCE CAMILLE RODRIGUEZ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
54 views

Agustin Vs Edu GR. L-49112 FEBRUARY 2, 1979: Facts

1) President Marcos issued LOI No. 229 requiring all motor vehicles to have early warning devices (EWD) consisting of triangular reflectorized plates. 2) LOI No. 229 was later amended by LOI No. 479 allowing owners to purchase EWD from any source that meets Land Transportation Commissioner standards. 3) A citizen challenged the constitutionality of LOI No. 229 as amended and LTC Administrative Order No. 1 implementing the LOI. The Supreme Court ruled that LOI No. 229 as amended was a valid exercise of the state's police power to promote public safety.

Uploaded by

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

AGUSTIN vs EDU

GR. L-49112; FEBRUARY 2, 1979


FACTS:

On December 2, 1974, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Letter of Instruction (LOI)


No. 229, which required all motor vehicles to secure early warning devices (EWD) consisting
of a pair of triangular, collapsible, reflectorized plates in red and yellow to be purchased from
the Land Transportation Commission. The purposes of this LOI were to prevent accidents
caused by vehicular obstructions and to adhere to the road safety standards outlined in the
1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, which the Philippines had ratified as per
PD No. 207.

LOI No. 229 was later amended by LOI No. 479 issued on November 15, 1976. Unlike
before where owners of motor vehicles were required to purchase the reflectorized plates
from the Land Transportation Commission, LOI No. 479 now made it possible for said owners
to buy early warning devices anywhere so long as they adhere to the standards prescribed by
the Land Transportation Commissioner.

President Marcos issued a six-month suspension of said LOI, after which he issued
another LOI lifting its suspension. On August 29, 1978, Land Transportation Commissioner
Romeo Edu issued Memorandum Circular No. 32, which contained LTC Administrative Order
No. 1 or the rules and regulations in the implementation of LOI No. 229 as amended.

Leovilo Agustin, a private citizen and owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car, filed a petition
before the SC, assailing the constitutionality of both LOI No. 229 as amended and LTC
Administrative Order No. 1. Among others, Agustin claimed that LOI No. 229 was violative of
the provisions and delegation of police power, an oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary,
confiscatory, and unconstitutional order that was contrary to the precepts of the New Society.
Pending its final resolution, the Court issued a temporary restraining order preventing
agencies concerned from implementing both LOI No. 229 as amended and LTC
Administrative Order No. 1.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not LOI No. 229 as amended violated the constitutional provision on undue
delegation of power?

RULING:
• No, the Court ruled that LOI No. 229 as amended falls within the State's police power,
and President Marcos' issuance of the same was clearly an exercise of such power.
The intent of the law can be clearly seen in the whereas of the assailed LOI (to prevent
accidents, safeguard the safety of the public, and adhere to the State's commitment to
public international law). The Court later went on a lengthy discourse in defining what
police power is:
• "Nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty."
• "The 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 achieve the general comfort,
health, and prosperity of the State."
• "The power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education, good
order or safety, and general welfare of the people."
• "Inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to all things hurtful to the
comfort, safety, and welfare of society."
• "The totality of legislative power."
• "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."

You might also like