Title
Agustin vs. Edu
Case
G.R. No. L-49112
Decision Date
Feb 2, 1979
Petitioner challenged LOI No. 229 requiring EWDs for vehicles, claiming it violated due process, equal protection, and non-delegation of legislative power. SC upheld the LOI as a valid exercise of police power for public safety.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 218241)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Procedural Background
    • Petitioner Leovillo C. Agustin, owner of a Volkswagen Beetle equipped with built-in blinking lights, invoked this Court’s original jurisdiction in a petition for prohibition and preliminary injunction to challenge:
      • Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 229 (Dec. 2, 1974), as amended by LOI No. 479 (Nov. 15, 1976) and LOI No. 716 (June 30, 1978); and
      • Implementing rules of the Land Transportation Commission (LTC) issued by Commissioner Edu (Admin Order No. 1, Dec. 10, 1976; Memo Circular No. 32, Aug. 29, 1978).
    • Petitioner alleged the LOIs and regulations:
      • Violated due process and equal protection;
      • Transgressed non-delegation of legislative power;
      • Were arbitrary, oppressive, confiscatory and confiscatory; and
      • Compelled car owners to buy costly devices despite viable alternatives.
  • Regulatory Measures at Issue
    • LOI No. 229 required all motor vehicles (except motorcycles and trailers) to carry one pair of triangular, collapsible reflectorized plates (15 cm base, 40 cm sides) and to place them 4 m front and rear of a stalled/disabled vehicle; directed the LTC to prepare and issue devices at cost plus 15% and promulgate rules.
    • LOI No. 479 amended the procurement provision to let owners procure devices “from any source” and present them at registration; LTC to promulgate implementing rules.
    • Administrative Order No. 1 (Dec. 10, 1976) detailed device specifications and serial-numbered stickers; enforcement deferred by six-month suspension (Jan. 25, 1977).
    • LOI No. 716 (June 30, 1978) lifted the suspension, ordered immediate implementation; LTC Memo Circular No. 32 (Aug. 29, 1978) activated Admin Order No. 1, required free serial stickers affixed to devices, and made orders effective immediately.
    • The Solicitor General, in his Answer, admitted facts, denied constitutional infirmities, cited prior jurisprudence (Calalang v. Williams; Morfe v. Mutuc; Edu v. Ericta) and the 1968 Vienna Convention ratified by P.D. 207.

Issues:

  • Whether the challenged LOIs and implementing rules violate the constitutional guarantee of due process and equal protection.
  • Whether the implementing rules and regulations transgress the fundamental principle of non-delegation of legislative power.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.