Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32096)
Facts:
Romeo F. Edu v. Hon. Vicente G. Ericta and Teddy C. Galo, G.R. No. L-32096, October 24, 1970, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Romeo F. Edu, in his capacity as Land Transportation Commissioner, sought review of respondent Judge Vicente G. Ericta's order issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which restrained enforcement of Administrative Order No. 2 implementing the so‑called Reflector Law (Republic Act No. 5715, amending RA No. 4136). The injunction had been issued in a suit filed by respondent motorist Teddy C. Galo challenging both the constitutionality of RA 5715 and the validity of Administrative Order No. 2.
On May 20, 1970 respondent Galo filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch XVIII), alleging that the statute and the administrative order violated due process and improperly delegated legislative power. A hearing was held May 27, 1970 (no evidence taken), and on May 28 the judge ordered preliminary injunctive relief; the clerk issued the writ June 1 upon bond. Petitioner filed his answer in the lower court on June 4, and the judge denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on June 9.
Petitioner brought the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed June 18, 1970. The Court required answers (June 22); the judge filed an answer June 30 joining the Solicitor General in urging that the constitutional questions be finally decided; Galo filed his answer July 6. The petition was called for oral argument July 2, 1970. Because the litigants framed the dispute as a facial challenge and no factual issues were before the trial court, the Court found the constitutional questions ripe and proceeded to decide them. The Supreme Court an...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court decide the constitutionality of a statute and its implementing administrative order in a petition attacking the issuance of a preliminary injunction?
- Is Republic Act No. 5715 (the Reflector Law) constitutional as a valid exercise of the police power and not violative of due process?
- Is Administrative Order No. 2, promulgated by the Land Transportation Commissioner to implement the Reflector Law, valid and not an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)