EMPUESTO, MA. CAMILLE P.
ABLS201
DPPN01F
[GR NO. L-49112, February 02, 1979]
LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. ROMEO F. EDU, in his capacity as Land Transportation
Commissioner; HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, in his capacity as Minister of National Defense; HON.
ALFREDO L. JUINIO, as Minister of Public Works, Transportation, and Communications; and HON:
BALTAZAR AQUINO, as Minister of Public Highways, respondents.
FACTS:
Letter of Instruction No. 229 of President Marcos, issued on December 2, 1974, statistics
show that one of the major causes of fatal or serious accidents in land transportation is
the presence of disabled, stalled, or parked motor vehicles along streets or highways
without any appropriate early warning device... hazards posed by such obstructions to
traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with... traffic safety.
1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations
Organization... said Vienna Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine Government
under P.D. No. 207, recommended the enactment of the local legislation for the...
installation of road safety signs and devices... direct: 1. That all owners, users or drivers
of... motor vehicles shall have at all times in their motor vehicles at least one (1) pair of
early warning device consisting of triangular, collapsible reflectorized plates in red and
yellow
Agustin owns a Volkswagen Beetle Car. He questions the validity of Letter of Instruction
No. 229, which requires all motor vehicles to be fitted with early warning devices,
particularly a pair of "reflectorized triangular early warning devices". Agustin argues the
order is unconstitutional, harsh, cruel, and immoral for people who drive cars. enough for
and requiring motorists to purchase kits of reflective early warning devices is redundant
and will only make manufacturers and retailers instant millionaires.
"one-sided, onerous and patently illegal and immoral because [they] will make
manufacturers and dealers instant millionaires at the expense of car owners who are
compelled to buy a set of the so-called early warning device... unlawful and
unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of a compassionate New Society [as being]
compulsory and confiscatory on the part of the motorists who could very well provide a
practical alternative road... safety device, or a better substitute to the specified set of
EWDs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not they said EO is valid.
EMPUESTO, MA. CAMILLE P.
ABLS201
DPPN01F
RULING:
Letter of Instruction No. 229 is intended to promote public safety. While the petitioner’s
statistics are not backed up by demonstrable date on record, the President had in his
possession the necessary statistical information and data at the time he issued the letter
of instruction No. 229, as such cannot be defeated by the mere naked assertion that early
EWD are not too vital to the prevention of nigh time vehicular accidents. The alleged
infringement of the fundamental principle of non-delegation of legislative power is equally
without any support from well-settled legal doctrines. Furthermore, Vienna Convention
recognized the hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic. Since the Philippines adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, it
cannot reject its commitment to be concerned with traffic safety. The petition is dismissed,
and the restraining order is lifted.
EMPUESTO, MA. CAMILLE P.
ABLS201
DPPN01F
[G.R. NO. L-7995, May 31, 1957]
LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents, corporations, and partnerships
adversely affected. by Republic Act No. 1180, petitioner vs. JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and
MARCELINO SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Lao H. Ichong brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that Republic
Act 1180 is unconstitutional, and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all other persons
acting under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions.
Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that: (1) it denies aliening
residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and property without
due process of law; (2) the subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the
title thereof; (3) the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the
Philippines. In answer, the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila contend
that the Act was passed in the valid exercise of the police power of the State, which
exercise is authorized in the Constitution in the interest of national economic survival.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Republic Act 1180 violates the equal protection of laws.
RULING:
No. In the Supreme Court's view, RA 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. It also
stipulated that police powers could not be negotiated through treaties or contracts. This
enactment clearly falls within the powers of state police. The law has good reason to
distinguish between aliens and citizens in the practice of regulated professions, so even
the due process of law has a future effect and recognizes the privileges of aliens.
Therefore, a person who is already involved in a relevant profession that does not violate
any provision of the Regulations, and whose privileges are adequately protected. This will
cause the application to be rejected along with the petitioner.
EMPUESTO, MA. CAMILLE P.
ABLS201
DPPN01F
[G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949]
SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner, vs. Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO
DUQUE, Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA,
Major FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, the Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces
in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation, was charged before the Philippine
Military Commission with war crimes. He questioned the constitutionality of E.O. No. 68
which created the National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules on the trial of accused
war criminals. He contended the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention
on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore he is charged with
crimes not based on law, national and international. Kuroda challenged the validity of
Executive Order 68. His arguments, were as follows:
(1) Executive Order 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provisions of
our constitutional law but also, our local laws.
(2) Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try him for acts committed in violation of
the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines is not a
signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947 and, therefore, he is charged
with “crime” not based on law, national or international.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is valid. As the Philippines is neither a signatory
to nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on the Rules and Regulations of Land
Warfare – Yes.
RULING:
The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law, with jurisdiction
over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No.68, and
having jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by having said petitioner in its custody,
this.
The court will not interfere with the due processes of such a Military Commission. For all
the foregoing, the petition is denied with costs de oficio.