Edu v.

Eritca obstruct unreasonable the enactment of such salutary measures calculated

G.R. No. L-32096/ Oct. 23, 1970/ Fernando, J./Admin-Non-delegation of
Powers/Custodio
NATURE Petition for Certiorari and prohibition against Hon.
Vicente Ericta of the CFI of Rizal
PETITIONERS Romeo Edu, Land Transportation Commissioner
RESPONDENTS Hon. Vicente Ericta, CFI Judge, Teddy Galo
SUMMARY. Galo and Ericta are assailing the validity of the Reflector Law
and the subsequent enactment of AO No 2 by Edu in implementing such
Law.
DOCTRINE. What could not be delegated is the legislative authority to
make, alter, and repeal laws. The legislature does not abdicate its
functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and
what is the scope of his authority.
FACTS.
 Ericta and Galo and other motorists filed a suit for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction assailing the validity of Admin
Order No. 2 of Edu as the Land Transportation Commissioner in
response to the passage of the Reflector Law.
 Ericta and Galo were challenging the Act as an invalid exercise of
Police Power for being violative of the Due Process clause. They were
alleging that the AO No. 2 went beyond the authority granted by the
Reflector Law, even assuming that such law was constitutional.
 The reflector law basically requires lights and reflectors for cars when
they are parked or disabled.
Lights or flares visible 100m away shall be displayed at the corner of
the vehicle whenever such vehicle is parked in highways or in places
that are not well-lighted or is placed in such a manner as to endanger
passing traffic.
 AO No. 2 then implemented that no vehicle will not be registered
without the aforementioned reflector requirement and provided
penalties for violations of the same.
to insure communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare.
It would be to close one’s eyes to the hazards of traffic in the evening to
condemn a statute of this character. The law is a legitimate response to a
felt public need.
2. WoN AO No. 2 is a valid delegation of power. – YES.
It is a fundamental principle of the doctrine of separation of powers that
Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two other branches
of government, subject to the exception of the local governments.
What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make,
alter, and repeal laws.
The test is the completeness of the statute in all its terms and provisions
when it leaves the legislature. There must be a standard that should be
identified by the legislature to determine the matters of principle and lays
down the fundamental policy.
Such standard defines its policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries
and specifies the public agency to apply it. Such standard may be either
express or implied.
In the reflector law, the legislative objective is public safety. Congress may
constitutionally delegate authority to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies.
DECISION.
Petition denied.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WoN the Reflector Law is constitutional. – YES.
It is a valid exercise of police power. Justice Laurel in Calalang v
Williams identified that police power is within the State authority to enact
legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property on order
to promote the general welfare.

In Primicias v Fugoso, it was reiterated that police power is the power to

prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education,
good order or safety, and general welfare of the people.
The police power is 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 to enable an individual or a group of citizens to