Ateneo de Zamboanga University | College of Law | CASE DIGEST

Title of the Case: LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN, petitioner,

vs.

HON. ROMEO F. EDU, respondent,

G.R. No. and Date: G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979

Ponente: Fernando, J.
Legal Doctrine:

FACTS:
 The petitioner was questioning the validity or the constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction No. 229,
issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all vehicle owners, users or drivers to provide early
warning devices to be installed a distance away from such vehicle when it stalls or is disabled. Because
of this contention the Implementing Rules and Regulation was ordered to be suspended for a period of
6 months. Petitioner alleges that EWD are not necessary because vehicles already have hazard lights
(blinking lights) that can be used as a warning device. 

 This petition contest that such letter of instruction and subsequent administrative order are unlawful
and unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due process, equal protection of the law and
undue delegation of police power.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the subsequent Administrative Order issued is
unconstitutional

HELD:
 The Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the petition. The statutes in question are deemed not
unconstitutional. These were definitely in the exercise of police power as such was established to
promote public welfare and public safety. In fact, the letter of instruction is based on the constitutional
provision of adopting to the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
land. The letter of instruction mentions, as its premise and basis, the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna
Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations - that
such letter was issued in consideration of a growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parked
vehicles on the streets and highways.

IAN VILLARES