Agustin vs. EDU, 88 SCRA 195 Facts: Letter of Instruction No. 229 (1974) as amended by Letter of Instruction No.

479 (1976) required every motor vehic e o!ner to "rocure and use one "air of a ref ectori#ed trian$u ar ear y !arnin$ device !henever any vehic e is sta ed or disab ed or is "ar%ed for thirty (&') minutes or more on any street( or hi$h!ay( inc udin$ e)"ress!ays or imited access roads. *he im" ementin$ ru es and re$u ations "re"ared by the res"ondent Land *rans"ortation +ommissioner on ,ecember 1'( 1976 !ere not enforced as -resident .arcos( on /anuary 20( 1977( ordered a si)1month "eriod of sus"ension insofar as the insta ation of ear y !arnin$ device (23,) as a "re1re$istration requirement for motor vehic es !as concerned. Letter of Instruction No. 716( issued on /une &'( 1974 ifted such sus"ension and in "ursuance thereof( the ru es and re$u ations "re"ared by res"ondent +ommission !ere a""roved for immediate im" ementation by res"ondent .inister of -ub ic 3or%s and +ommunication. -etitioner came to court a e$in$ that Letter of Instruction 229( as amended( c ear y vio ates the "rovisions of the Ne! +onstitution on due "rocess( equa "rotection and de e$ation of "o ice "o!er. *hat it is o""ressive( unreasonab e( arbitrary( confiscatory and contrary to the "rece"ts of our com"assionate Ne! 5ociety. Issue : 3hether or not the assai ed Letter of Instruction is inva id and vio ated constitutiona $uarantees of due "rocess.6nd 3hether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the subsequent 6dministrative 7rder issued is unconstitutiona Held: *he +ourt he d that the broad and e)"ansive sco"e of the "o ice "o!er !hich !as ori$ina y identified by +hief /ustice *aney of the 6merican 5u"reme +ourt in an 1447 decision( as 8nothin$ more or ess than the "o!ers of $overnment inherent in every soverei$nty.8 -ersons and "ro"erty cou d 9be sub:ected to a %inds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the $enera comfort( hea th and "ros"erity of the state. It is in this sense the $reatest and most "o!erfu attribute of $overnment. It is( to quote /ustice .a co m ane!( 9the most essentia ( insistent( and at east i imitab e "o!ers(9 e)tendin$ as /ustice ;o mes a"t y "ointed out 9to a the $reat "ub ic needs.9 Its sco"e( ever e)"andin$ to meet the e)i$encies of the times( even to antici"ate the future !here it cou d be done( "rovides enou$h room for an efficient and f e)ib e res"onse to conditions and circumstances thus assurin$ the $reatest benefits. *he L7I in question is deemed not unconstitutiona as it !as in the e)ercise of "o ice "o!er as such !as estab ished to "romote "ub ic !e fare and "ub ic safety. *he "etition itse f quoted these t!o !hereas c auses of the assai ed Letter of Instruction< 8=3hereas>( the ha#ards "osed by such obstructions to traffic have been reco$ni#ed

by internationa bodies concerned !ith traffic safety( the 1964 ?ienna +onvention on @oad 5i$ns and 5i$na s and the Anited Nations 7r$ani#ation (A.N.)B =3hereas>( the said ?ienna +onvention( !hich !as ratified by the -hi i""ine Covernment under -.,. No. 2'7( recommended the enactment of oca e$is ation for the insta ation of road safety si$ns and devicesB . . .8 It cannot be dis"uted then that this ,ec aration of -rinci" e found in the +onstitution "ossesses re evance< 8*he -hi i""ines . . . ado"ts the $enera y acce"ted "rinci" es of internationa a! as "art of the a! of the and( . . .8 *he 1964 ?ienna +onvention on @oad 5i$ns and 5i$na s is im"ressed !ith such a character. It is not for this country to re"udiate a commitment to !hich it had " ed$ed its !ord. *he conce"t of -acta sunt servanda stands in the !ay of such an attitude( !hich is( moreover( at !ar !ith the "rinci" e of internationa mora ity.