Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    LEOVILLO AGUSTIN VS HON. ROMEO EDU - Inherent

    Uploaded by

    Agatha Granado
    President Marcos issued LOI No. 229 requiring all motor vehicles to have early warning devices (EWD) consisting of triangular reflectorized plates. This was later amended by LOI No. 479 allowing owners to purchase EWD from any source meeting Land Transportation standards. Leovilo Agustin challenged the constitutionality of LOI No. 229 and LTC Administrative Order No. 1 implementing it. The Supreme Court ruled the LOI was a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and adhere to international conventions, and did not constitute an undue delegation of authority.

    Copyright:

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

    LEOVILLO AGUSTIN VS HON. ROMEO EDU - Inherent

    Uploaded by

    Agatha Granado
    41 views2 pages
    President Marcos issued LOI No. 229 requiring all motor vehicles to have early warning devices (EWD) consisting of triangular reflectorized plates. This was later amended by LOI No. 479 allowing owners to purchase EWD from any source meeting Land Transportation standards. Leovilo Agustin challenged the constitutionality of LOI No. 229 and LTC Administrative Order No. 1 implementing it. The Supreme Court ruled the LOI was a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and adhere to international conventions, and did not constitute an undue delegation of authority.

    Original Title

    LEOVILLO AGUSTIN VS HON. ROMEO EDU_Inherent

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    President Marcos issued LOI No. 229 requiring all motor vehicles to have early warning devices (EWD) consisting of triangular reflectorized plates. This was later amended by LOI No. 479 allowing owners to purchase EWD from any source meeting Land Transportation standards. Leovilo Agustin challenged the constitutionality of LOI No. 229 and LTC Administrative Order No. 1 implementing it. The Supreme Court ruled the LOI was a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and adhere to international conventions, and did not constitute an undue delegation of authority.

    Copyright:

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

    LEOVILLO AGUSTIN VS HON. ROMEO EDU - Inherent

    Uploaded by

    Agatha Granado
    President Marcos issued LOI No. 229 requiring all motor vehicles to have early warning devices (EWD) consisting of triangular reflectorized plates. This was later amended by LOI No. 479 allowing owners to purchase EWD from any source meeting Land Transportation standards. Leovilo Agustin challenged the constitutionality of LOI No. 229 and LTC Administrative Order No. 1 implementing it. The Supreme Court ruled the LOI was a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and adhere to international conventions, and did not constitute an undue delegation of authority.

    Copyright:

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

    LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN VS. HON.

    ROMEO EDU

    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.

    HELD:

    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 WHEREASes 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." (Chief Justice Taney, US Supreme Court Chief Justice, 1847)
     "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." (Calalang v. Williams)
     "The power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education,
    good order or safety, and general welfare of the people." (Primicias v. Fugoso)
     "Inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to all things hurtful to
    the comfort, safety, and welfare of society." (Justice Malcolm)
     "The totality of legislative power." (Morfe v. Mutuc)
     "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