Title
Agustin vs. Edu
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. L-49112 Feb 2, 1979
A challenge to the constitutionality of a requirement for motor vehicle owners to
use a reflectorized triangular early warning device is dismissed by the Court,
which upholds the requirement as a valid exercise of police power to promote
public safety.
Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49112)
Case Background and Parties Involved
The case of Agustin v. Edu involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a
requirement for motor vehicle owners to use a reflectorized triangular early
warning device.
The petitioner in this case is Agustin, who argued that the requirement violated the
provisions of the Constitution, specifically the guarantee of due process and equal
protection.
The respondent in this case is Edu, representing the government or the state.
Constitutional Violations Alleged by the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the requirement violated the guarantee of due process
and equal protection as stated in the Constitution.
Court's Dismissal of the Petition
The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the requirement was a valid exercise of
police power intended to promote public safety.
The Court found that there was no undue delegation of legislative power, as a
standard had been set for the requirement.
The Court emphasized that it does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice, or
expediency of legislation, and that as long as laws do not violate any constitutional
provision, the courts merely interpret and apply them.
Rejection of Oppressive and Confiscatory Argument
The Court rejected the argument that the requirement was oppressive and
confiscatory.
The Court stated that there was nothing in the requirement that was unreasonable
or arbitrary.
Recognition of State's International Commitments
The Court recognized the state's adherence to international commitments on traffic
safety as a justification for the requirement.
This suggests that the requirement aligns with international agreements on traffic
safety.
Dissenting Opinion
One justice dissented from the majority opinion.
The dissenting justice argued that the public necessity for the requirement had not
been shown.
The dissenting justice also criticized the financial burden imposed on motorists and
argued that there were alternative road safety devices that could be used instead of
the specified early warning device.
The dissenting justice questioned the imperative need for the blanket requirement
on all vehicles.
Conclusion
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the requirement for motor vehicle owners
to use a reflectorized triangular early warning device.
The Court found that the requirement was a valid exercise of police power and
promoted public safety.
The Court rejected arguments of constitutional violations, oppression, and
confiscation.
The Court recognized the state's adherence to international agreements on traffic
safety as a justification for the requirement.
One justice dissented, questioning the necessity and financial burden of the
requirement.
