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.