CALALANG VS. WILLIAMS ET AL., 70 PHIL., 726, NO. 47800 DECEMBER 2, 1940.

Maximo Calalang, petitioner, vs. A. D. Williams | Chairman of the NTC; Vicente Fragante | Director of
Public Works; Sergio Bayan | Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications;
Doctrine: Social Justice
 “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,” but the humanization of
laws and the equalization of social and economic forces
 Promoting welfare of all people, maintenance of proper economic and social equilibrium,
through legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally (salus populi est suprema lex)
 Based on necessity of interdependence. Protection equally extended to all groups.
Consistent with objective of the state to promote health, comfort, and quiet of all persons,
and to bring “the greatest good to the greatest number”.

Facts
1. NTC recommended to Fragante (D:PW) to prohibit the passing of animal-drawn vehicles to
prevent traffic (on the opening of Colgante Bridge) [Rosario Street, along Rizal Avenue from
railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street, 7 am to 11pm]
2. Approved by S:PW under Commonwealth Act No. 548
Commonwealth Act No. 548—AN ACT TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE USE OF AND
TRAFFIC ON NATIONAL ROADS AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTIONS ALONG THE SAME,
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF. *
*Gives D:PW authority to effect traffic rules\regulations on national roads.

3. Petitioner, Calalang filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against the respondents, A. D.
Williams, et al.,
Requisites to be entitled to a WRIT OF PROHIBITION: (a) must be directed against a
tribunal/corporation/board/person exercising judicial/ministerial functions (b) the entity acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion (c) there is no appeal or
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Petitioner’s Argument:
 CA is unconstitutional. It constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power.
 Provisions of CA constitutes
o Unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade
o Deprives [abridges] the right to personal liberty & freedom of locomotion
Issue
1. WON CA Act No. 548 is unconstitutional: Constitutes undue delegation of legislative power NO
2. WON provisions of CA Act No. 548 constitute
a. Unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade
b. Abridges the right to personal liberty & freedom of locomotion.
3. WON CA Act No. 548 infringes upon the constitutional precept of promotion of social justice
Ruling
1. CA NO. 548 is constitutional. Court ruled: Administrative and executive officials, have discretion
in execution of laws and promulgating rules/regulations to promote public interest.
a. CA No 548 does not give legislative power to D:PW and S:PW
b. The authority given to them is to carry out legislative policy from the Nat’l Assembly, not
determine public policy.
i. Not determining the law, but the circumstances that are required to apply it.
c. Making traffic rules is an administrative function. With the discretion of another gov’t
official, they can determine if the circumstances are right to enact a law. It does not mean
they are making the law.
2. CA No. 548 supports business and trade. It also does not violate the right to personal liberty and
freedom of locomotion.
a. CA was passed by the Nat’l Assembly in exercise of police power of the state.
Police power — absolute power of legislature to make, ordain, and establish wholesome and
reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, not conflicting with the Constitution, for the good and
welfare of the people.
b. NA considered public convenience and welfare.
i. Goal: to relieve traffic congestion, menace to public safety. Public welfare is the
core of the enactment.
 c. To promote the general welfare: State may interfere with personal liberty, with property,
and with business and occupations.
i. Persons and property may be subject to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in
order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity.
3. Social justice does not seek to favor any specific group (not through mistaken sympathy).
a. Promoting welfare of all people to maintain economic and social equilibrium
i. through legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally,
ii. through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on
the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
Salus populi est suprema lex —"the welfare of the people is the supreme law”. Every law must
be for the promotion of the welfare of the people.
b. Social justice must be founded on recognizing the necessity of:
i. interdependence among society
ii. protection that should be equally extended to all groups consistent with the
paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all
persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number."

Rationale | Rules and regulation promulgated aimed to promote safe transit upon and avoid
obstruction on national roads, for convenience of the public. Traffic congestion will be lessened
and economic stability will be promoted.

Dispositive: Writ of prohibition denied, costs against the petitioner.

NOTES: