AGUSTIN vs EDU [88 SCRA 195] February 2, 1979

FACTS:
This was an original action in the Supreme Court for prohibition. Petitioner was an
owner of Volkswagen beetle car, model 13035 already properly equipped when it
came out from the assembly lines with blinking lights which could serve as an early
warning device in case of the emergencies mentioned in Letter of Instructions No
229, as amended, as well as the Implementing rules and regulations in
Administrative Order No 1 issued by Land transportation Commission. Respondent
Land Transportation commissioner Romeo Edu issued memorandum circular no 32
pursuant to Letter of Instructions No.229, as amended. It required the use of early
Warning Devices (EWD) on motor vehicles. Petitioner alleged that the letter of
instructions, as well as the implementing rules and regulations were unlawful and
unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether the Letter of Instruction were considered valid and constitutional?

HELD:
YES, the court held that the letter of Instruction No.229, as amended as well as the
implementing rules and regulations were valid and constitutional as a valid measure
of police power. The Vienna Convention on Road signs and signals and the United
Nations Organization was ratified by the Philippine local legislation for the
installation of road safety signs and devices. It cannot be disputed then that this
Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance, between the
International law and municipal law in applying the rule municipal law prevails.
Petition is DISMISSED.