AGUSTIN VS. EDU
88 SCRA 195
88 SCRA 195
Facts:
Petitioner Agustin in this prohibition proceeding assailed the validity and constitutionality of the Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended by Letter of Instruction No. 479, providing for an early warning device for motor vehicles. He contended that the said Letter of Instructions and its implementing rules and regulations are "oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of our compassionate New Society."
Issue: Whether or not assailed Letters of Instructions and Memorandum Circular void and unconstitutional.
Held:
The Court decided the petition against the petitioner.
The assailed Letter of Instruction quoted important clauses that the hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization (U.N.); and, that the said Vienna Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207, recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices.
It is undisputable therefore that the Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance: “the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land”. The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such a character. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude, which is, moreover, at war with the principle of international morality.
Petitioner Agustin in this prohibition proceeding assailed the validity and constitutionality of the Letter of Instruction No. 229, as amended by Letter of Instruction No. 479, providing for an early warning device for motor vehicles. He contended that the said Letter of Instructions and its implementing rules and regulations are "oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, nay unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of our compassionate New Society."
Issue: Whether or not assailed Letters of Instructions and Memorandum Circular void and unconstitutional.
Held:
The Court decided the petition against the petitioner.
The assailed Letter of Instruction quoted important clauses that the hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization (U.N.); and, that the said Vienna Convention, which was ratified by the Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207, recommended the enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices.
It is undisputable therefore that the Declaration of Principle found in the Constitution possesses relevance: “the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land”. The 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such a character. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to which it had pledged its word. The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an attitude, which is, moreover, at war with the principle of international morality.
No comments:
Post a Comment