CHANROBLES ~ or — VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY Navigation Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila raRst DIVISION [G.R, No, 47800. December 2, 1940. ] MAXIMO CALALANG, Petitioner, v. A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL., Respondents. Maximo Cal lang in his own behalf. Solicitor General Ozacta and Assistant Solicitor General Amparo for respondents Williams, Fragante and Bayan City Fiscal Mabanag for the other respondents. SYLLABUS 1, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 646; DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER; AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS. — ‘The provisions of section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 648 do not confer legislative power upon the Director of Public Werks and the Secrotary of Public Works and Communications, The authority thersin conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now ompsined of snot to determine what public policy demonds uma in cath ot he sists plc a dawn by the National Assembly in sal Act, to wit, "Yo promote sete transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, rads ane streets designated as natiool roads by acts of the eleaaie ae, if otal, therefore, is_not the determination of what the lw shall be, Sut merely the ascertainment of the (ects one circumstances upon which the appieatin of sid aw i toe pretebed, To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of atonal reads ond {© determine when and how long national rood should be closed to tra, in View of the canton of the road or the traf thereen end the requirements of pubic convenience and interest, son administrate uncion which cannot be drecy dschorged bythe National Assembly. It ‘Dust depend on the discretion of some other government ofa to whom is confided the daty of cetermining whether the proper excason texts for exeoatng the fam, Butt eannot be sid that the exercise of uch dertion isthe making ofthe law 2, 1D, 1D,; POLICE POWER; PERSONAL LIBERTY; GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, — Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the paramount wr ofthe sate, Said et, by vitUe of which the rules and regulations complained of were promulgated, aims to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads, n the interest and convenience of the public, In enacting seid law, therefore, the National Assembly wos prompted by considerations of pubic convenience and welfare. It was inspired by 2 desire to relieve congestion of trafic, whichis, to say the least, a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with personal Nberty, with property, ané with business ane occupations, Persons and property may be subjected to al kinds af restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comiort, heats, and prospenty of the state (U.S, v, Gomer Jesus, 31 Phil, 218), To this fundamental aim of our Government the thts ofthe individualare subordinated, Liberty is 9 blessing without which Ife is 8 misery, but Mberty should not be made to preval over authority because then society wil falinto anarchy. Neither should authority be made to preva! over fb should achieve the reguiree balance of Hherty ang authorty in his ming thraugh education and, personal tscptine, so that there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and happiness for al. The moment greater authority Is confrted upon the government, lagically so much is withdrawn from the residuum of iberty whieh resides in the people, The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of tiberty Is precisely the very means of insuring fs preservation. because then the ingividval wil fll into slavery. The citizen 3. 10, 104; SOCIAL JUSTICE. — Social justice Is “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anareny," but the humanization of laws {ane the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may atleast be ‘Spproximated. Socal justice means the pramaton of the welfare ofall the people, the adoption by the Government of measures caleulated to Insure economic stability ofall the competent elements of society, through the malntenance af @ proper economic ané socal equilibrium inthe interrelations of the members ofthe community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justiable, or extra-constitutionaly, through the exerelse of powers underting the exstence of all governments on the time-honored princple af salus popull est supreme lex Socal justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among alvers and diverse units ofa society {ane of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as @ combined force in ur socal and economic Ife, consistent vith the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and qulet of al persons, and of bringing about he greatest good to the greatest number." LauRet, 2. Maximo Calalang, in his capacity 25a private ctzen anc as a taxpayer of Manila, brought before this court agains the respondents, A. 0. Willams, as Chairman of the National Trafic Commission; Vicente Fragante, as Director of Pubic Works; Sergio Bayan, as Acting Secretary of Public Works ane Communications; Eulogio Rodriguez, as Mayor ef the City af Manila; and Juan Dominguez, as Acting Chief of Police of Mania is petition for @ wit of promotion eis allaged in the petition that the National Trafic Commission, in its resolution of July 17, 1940, resolved to recommend to the Director of Pubic Works and to ry of Public Works and Communications that animal-érawn vehicles be prohibited fram passing along Rosario ‘Street extending from Plaza Calceron de la Barca to Dasmarifias Street, from 7:30 am, to 12:30 pam, 2nd from 1:20 p.m, to 5:30 p.m.; ang along Rizal Averue extending fom the rallroad crossing at Antipolo Strect to Echague Stet iam Zac to Ji p.m, ‘rom a pero of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to trafic; that the Chairman of the National Trafic Commission, on July 18, 1940 recommended to the Director of Public Works the adoption of the measure proposed In the resolution aforementioned, In pursuance of the provisions of Commenitealth Act No, S48 which authorizes seid Director of Publec Works, withthe approval ofthe Secretary of Pubic Warks anc Communications, to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and trafic on national roads; that on August 2, 1940, the Director of Pubic Works, In his frst indorsement to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, recommended to the latter the approval of the recommendation made by the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission as aforesaid, with the modification thatthe closing of Rizal Avenue to trafic to animal-crawn vehicles be limited tothe partion thereof extending from ‘Azcarraga Street; that on August 10, 1940, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, in his second indorsement addressed to the Director of Public Works, approved the recommendation of the latter that Rosario Street and Rizal Avenue be closed to traffic of animal-drawn vehicles, between the points and during the hours as above indicated, fora period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic; that the Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have enforced and caused to be enforced the rules anc regulations thus adopted; that as a consequence of such enforcement, all animal-cravn vehicles are not allowed to pass anc pick up passengers in the places above-mentioned to the detriment nat orly oftheir owners but of the riding public as well 12 Sec railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to It is contended by the petitoner that Commonwealth Act No, S48 by which the Director of Public Works, wl Public Works and Communications, is authenzed to promulgate rules and regulations for the regulation and control of the use of and traffic on rational ads and streets Is unconstitutional because it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. This contention Is untenable. As ‘was observed by this court in Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phi, 660, 700), "The rule has nowhere Decn better stated than in the early Ohio case decided by Judge Ranney, and since followed in a mulktuce of cases, namely: ‘The true distinction therefore is between the Aelogation of power to make the law, which necessarily Involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authorty or eseretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannat be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. (Cincinnati, W. &Z R. Co. v. Comms. Clinton County, 1 Ohio St, 88.) Discretion, as helé by Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman v. Southard (10 Wheat,, 1) may be committee by the Legislature to an executive éepartment or offical. The Legislature may make decisions of executive epartments or subordinate officials thereof, to whom It has committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact (U.S. v kKinkead, 248 Fed, 161,) The growing tendency in the decisions is to give prominence tothe ‘necessity’ ofthe case ‘approval of the Secretary of Section 2 of Commonweelth Act No, $88 reads a8 follows‘SECTION 1. To promote safe transit upon, end evoid obstructions an, roads ang streets designated as national roads by acts of the National Assembly oF by executive orders of the President of the Pilippines, the Dizector of Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Pubic Wiorks end Communications, shal promulgate the necessary rues and regulations to regulate and control the use of and trafic on such roads ‘ane streets, Such rules and regulations, with the approval ofthe Presiéent, may contain provisions controling or regulating the construction of bullings or other structures within a reasonable distance from along the natlonal reads. Such roads may be temperaiy closed to any oF al classes of traffic by the Director of Public Works and his duly authorized representatives whenever the condition of the road or the trafic thereon makes such action necessary oF advisable in the public convenience and interest, oF for a specified period, with the approval of the The above provisions of law do not confer legislative power upon the Director of Publ Works and the Secretary of Public Works and (Communications. The authonty thereln conferred upon them and under whien they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy lid down by the National Assembly in said Act, to i, "Yo promote safe transit upon and avold obstructions on, roads and streets designated as natlonal roags by acts of the National Assembly of by executive orders ofthe President ofthe Pilpines" and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic “whenever the condlion of the road of the traffic makes such action necessary or advisable In the public convenience and interest." The delegated power, If at all therefore, Is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merely the ascertainment of the facts ane circumstances upon which the application of said law isto be predicated. To promulgate rules anc regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long @ national oad should be closed to traffic, n view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon ang the requirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative function which cannot be directly dlscharged by the National Assembly. It must depend on the discretion of some ather government offical to whom is conte the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot be sald that the exercise of such clscretion Is the making of the law. AS was said In Locke's Appeal (72 Pa. 481): "To assert that a law i less than a law, because it s made to depend on a future event oF act, Isto rob the Legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state of affairs nat yet developed, orto things future and impossisle to fully know." The Proper clstnction the court sald was this: “The Legislature cannot celegate its power to make the law; but it can make a law to delegate Power to determine some factor state of things upon which the law makes, or intends te make, sown action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannet be known to the law: ‘making power, and, must, therefore, De a subject of nqulry and determination outide ofthe halls of legislation." (Fale v, Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 694; 36 L.Ed, 294.) In the case of People v. Rosenthal and Osmeha, G.R. Nos. 46076 and 46077, promulgated June 12, 1939, and in Pangasinan Transportation v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No, 47065, promulgated June 26, 1940, this Court had accaslon to observe thatthe principle of separation cf powers has been made to adapt Iself to the complexities of modern governments, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of "subordinate legislation,” nat only in the United States and England but in practically all modern governments. Accordingly withthe growing complexity of moder Ife, the mulkipication ofthe subjects of governmental regulations, and the Increased dificuty of administering the laws, the rgiity of the theory of separation of governmental powers has, toa large extent, been ralaxed by permitting the delegation of Greater powers by the legislative and vesting a larger amount of discretion in administrative an executive officials, not only inthe execution of the laws, but alsa in the promulgation of certain rules and regulations calculated ta promote public intrest. ‘Te petitioner further contends thatthe rules and regulations promulgated by the respondents pursuant te the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548 constitute an unlawful interference with legitmate business or trade and abridge the right to personal liberty and freedom of locometion. Commanwealth Act No, S48 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the paramaunt police power of the state. Salé Act, by virtue of which the rules and ragulations complained of were promulgated, aims to promote safe tran pstructions on national roads, in the interest and convenience of the public. In enacting said law, prompted by considerations of publ convenience and welfare, Ir was inired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic, which i to say the least, 9 MSRBES fe pUBIE Safely Puble welfare, then, Tes atthe bottom of the enactment of said law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property may be subjected ta all kinds of restraints and burdens, inorder to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperty ofthe state (U.S, v, Gomez Jesus, 2: Phi 228), To this fundamental aim of our Government the rights of the individual are subordinated, Liberty isa blessing without which Ife is 2 because then society wil fall into afarehyy Near SHOU SRST EE PETE prevall over Iberty Because then the individual wil fall nto slavery. The etzen should achieve the required balance of Ibety and authority In Fis mind through education and personal cscpline, so that there may be established the resultant equlibrium, which means peace and order an happiness for al. The moment gre |s conferred upon the government, logically so much is withdrawn from the residuurn of liberty which resides in the people, The paradox lies inthe fact that the apparent curtallment of liberty is precisely the very means ef insuring its preservation, upon ané avoid herefore, ‘lsery, but liberty should not be made to prevail over author ‘The scope of police power keeps expanding as cvilization advances, As was sald inthe case of Dobbins v Los Angeles (195 U.S, 223, 238; 49 Led, 168), "the right to exercise the police power Isa continuing one, and a business lawful today may inthe future, because ofthe changed situation, the growth of population or other causes, become a menace to the public health and welfare, and be required to yield to the pubic {00d,” And in People v, Pomar (46 Phil, #40), it was observed that "advancing civilization is bringing within the police power of the state today 12 National Assembly wasthings which were not thought of as being within such power yesterday, The development of cvtization, the rapidly inereasing population, the Srowth of public opinion, with an increasing desire on the part of the masses and of the government to tok after and care for the interests of the individuas of the state, nave brought within the police power many questions for regulation which formerly were not so considered,” ‘The petitioner Finally avers that the rules and regulations complained of infringe upon the constutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people. The promation of social justice, however, is to be achieved nat through a mistaken sympathy towarcs any given group, Social justice tg “nether communism, nor despotism, nor stomism, nor anarchy," but he humanizaion of laws and the equalization of socal and econonie forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objecivaly secular conception may at east be approximated, Socal justice means the promotion of the welfare ofall te people, the adoption by the Government of measures ealeulated to Insure economic stably of al the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equifbrium in the interrelations ofthe members ofthe community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or exra-consttuionaly, trough the exercse of powgrs underivina the exsence ofall dovernments on the tine-nonored cole of salus poputiest supreme lex Social stic, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence emong divers and diverse units of a society ‘ane of the protection thst should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as @ combined force in our social and economic ite, consistent vith the fundamental and paramount objective of the slate of promoting the health, comfors, and quiet of al persons, and of bringing about "whe greatest good to the greatest number” In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed for Is hereby denied, with costs against the petioner, So ordered ‘Avance, C.., Imperial, Diaz, ané Horrilleno, 33, concur