Agustin vs. Edu [88 SCRA 195, 1979]
Facts:
Respondent, Land Transportation Commissioner Edu, in pursuant to the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization, issued a letter of instruction requiring every motor vehicle, with the exception of motorcycles, to be equipped with a pair of specified Early Warning Device [EWD] consisting of triangular, collapsible reflectorized plates in red and yellow colors before they can have their vehicles registered.
Petitioner, Agustin, is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car that is already properly equipped with functional hazard lights blinking in front and rear of the vehicle which could very well serve as an early warning device in case of emergencies to help prevent road accidents. Petitioner then questions the said letter of instruction and contends that it is unconstitutional since such is harsh, cruel and unconscionable to the motoring public and would unjustly enrich EWD manufacturers to the expense of the motorists which could have better and inexpensive substitutes.
A temporary restraining order was then issued by the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Is petitioner correct in questioning the constitutionality of the letter of instruction issued in pursuant of an international law?
Held:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Since such hazards and road accidents caused by the lacked of early warning devices have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization, and since the Philippines has ratified to such treaty and adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, the principle of pacta sunt servanda now sets in. the principle requires States who are signatories to such treaty to have a compliance to it in good faith.
Petition dismissed.
Facts:
Respondent, Land Transportation Commissioner Edu, in pursuant to the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization, issued a letter of instruction requiring every motor vehicle, with the exception of motorcycles, to be equipped with a pair of specified Early Warning Device [EWD] consisting of triangular, collapsible reflectorized plates in red and yellow colors before they can have their vehicles registered.
Petitioner, Agustin, is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car that is already properly equipped with functional hazard lights blinking in front and rear of the vehicle which could very well serve as an early warning device in case of emergencies to help prevent road accidents. Petitioner then questions the said letter of instruction and contends that it is unconstitutional since such is harsh, cruel and unconscionable to the motoring public and would unjustly enrich EWD manufacturers to the expense of the motorists which could have better and inexpensive substitutes.
A temporary restraining order was then issued by the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Is petitioner correct in questioning the constitutionality of the letter of instruction issued in pursuant of an international law?
Held:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Since such hazards and road accidents caused by the lacked of early warning devices have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United Nations Organization, and since the Philippines has ratified to such treaty and adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, the principle of pacta sunt servanda now sets in. the principle requires States who are signatories to such treaty to have a compliance to it in good faith.
Petition dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment