Case Digest (A.C. No. 9176)
Facts:
Maximo Calalang v. A. D. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 02, 1940, the Supreme Court, Laurel, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Maximo Calalang, a private citizen and taxpayer of Manila, sought a writ of prohibition against respondents A. D. Williams (Chairman, National Traffic Commission), Vicente Fragante (Director of Public Works), Sergio Bayan (Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications), Eulogio Rodriguez (Mayor of the City of Manila), and Juan Dominguez (Acting Chief of Police of Manila).The petition alleged that the National Traffic Commission, by resolution dated July 17, 1940, recommended prohibiting animal-drawn vehicles from specified segments of Rosario Street and Rizal Avenue during stated hours for one year from the opening of the Colgante Bridge. On July 18, 1940, the Chairman transmitted the recommendation to the Director of Public Works. The Director, in an August 2, 1940 indorsement, recommended approval with a modification narrowing the Rizal Avenue closure to Azcarraga Street. The Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications approved the recommendation in a second indorsement dated August 10, 1940. Thereafter, the Mayor and the Acting Chief of Police enforced the rules and regulations, effectively barring animal-drawn vehicles from the named streets during the prescribed hours.
Calalang challenged the constitutional validity of Commonwealth Act No. 548 (under which the Director, with the Secretary’s approval, may promulgate rules controlling national roads) as an undue delegation of legislative power. He also asserted that the traffic rules unlawfully interfered with legitimate business, abridged personal liberty and freedom of locomotion, and contravened the constitutional precept promoting so...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Commonwealth Act No. 548 constitute an undue delegation of legislative power in authorizing the Director of Public Works, with the Secretary’s approval, to promulgate rules and temporarily close national roads?
- Do the rules and regulations promulgated under Commonwealth Act No. 548 unlawfully interfere with legitimate business or abridge personal liberty and freedom of locomotion?
- Do the traffic rules violate the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social just...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)