G.R. No. L-50908 January 31, 1984 MARY CONCEPCION BA !I"!A an# ENRI$ E %. BA !I"!A, Petitioners, vs.

AL&RE%O L. J INIO, ROMEO &. E% an# &I%EL '. RAMO", Respondents.

&ERNAN%O, C.J.: The validity of an energy conservation measure, Letter of Instruction No. 869, issued on May 31, 19 9 ! the res"onse to the "rotracted oil crisis that dates #ac$ to 19 % ! is "ut in issue in this "rohi#ition "roceeding filed #y "etitioners, s"ouses Mary &once"cion 'autista and (nri)ue *. 'autista, for #eing allegedly violative of the due "rocess and e)ual "rotection guarantees 1 of the &onstitution. The use of "rivate motor vehicles +ith , and (, "lates on +ee$!ends and holidays +as #anned from -.1/0112 a.m. 3aturday morning to 4011 a.m. Monday morning, or 1011 a.m. of the holiday to 4011 a.m. of the day after the holiday.- (Motor vehicles of the follo+ing classifications are e5em"ted0 6a7 3 63ervice78 6#7 T 6Truc$78 6e7 *9L 6*i"lomatic78 6d7 && 6&onsular &or"s78 6e7 T& 6Tourist &ars7. 3 9ursuant thereto, res"ondent :lfredo L. ;uinio, then Minister of 9u#lic <or$s, Trans"ortation and &ommunications and res"ondent =omeo 9. (du, then &ommissioner of Land Trans"ortation &ommission issued on ;une 11, 19 9, Memorandum &ircular No. 39, +hich im"osed -the "enalties of fine, confiscation of vehicle and cancellation of registration on o+ners of the a#ove!s"ecified vehicles- found violating such Letter of Instruction. 4 It +as then alleged #y "etitioners that -+hile the "ur"ose for the issuance of the L>I 869 is lauda#le, to +it, energy conservation, the "rovision #anning the use of , and (, .vehicles2 is unfair, discriminatory, .amounting to an2 ar#itrary classification- and thus in contravention of the e)ual "rotection clause. 5 Moreover, for them, such Letter of Instruction is a denial of due "rocess, more s"ecifically, -of their right to use and en?oy their "rivate "ro"erty and of their freedom to travel and hold family gatherings, reunions and outings on +ee$!ends and holidays,- inviting attention to the fact that others not included in the #an en?oying -unrestricted freedom.- ) It +ould follo+, so they contend that Memorandum &ircular No. 39 im"osing "enalties of fine, confiscation of the vehicle and cancellation of license is li$e+ise unconstitutional, for #eing violative of the doctrine of -undue delegation of legislative "o+er.- * It is to #e noted that such Memorandum &ircular does not im"ose the "enalty of confiscation #ut merely that of im"ounding, fine, and for the third offense that of cancellation of certificate of registration and for the rest of the year or for ninety days +hichever is longer.
chanro#lesvirtuala+li#rary chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

This &ourt gave due course to the "etition re)uiring res"ondent to ans+er. There +as admission of the facts as su#stantially alleged e5ce"t, as "reviously noted, that the #an starts at 1/011 a.m. rather than 1011 a.m. of a 3aturday or of a holiday and as to the mention of a <illy@s Aaiser ?ee" #eing registered in the name of a certain Teresita Br#ina, a#out +hich res"ondents had no $no+ledge. There +as a denial of the allegations that the classification of vehicles into heavy , and e5tra heavy 6(,7 on the other hand and light and #antam on the other hand +as violative of e)ual "rotection and the regulation as to the use of the former cars on the dates s"ecified a transgression of due "rocess. The ans+er li$e+ise denied that there +as an undue

delegation of legislative "o+er, reference #eing made to the Land Trans"ortation and Traffic &ode. 8 There +as also a "rocedural o#?ection raised, namely, that +hat is sought amounts at most to an advisory o"inion rather than an a?udication of a case or controversy.
chanro#lesvirtuala+li#rary chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

9etitioners filed a motion to #e allo+ed to re"ly to the ans+er. It +as granted. The re"ly, considering its e5haustive character serving as its memorandum, stressed ane+ +hat it em"hasiCed as the ar#itrary, unreasona#le, and o""ressive as"ects of the challenged Letter of Instruction and Memorandum &ircular No. 39. It dis"uted +hat it characteriCed as an -erroneous and ar#itrary "resum"tion that heavy car o+ners unnecessarily use and therefore +aste gasoline +henever they drive their cars on +ee$!ends and holidays8- 9 it stigmatiCed the #an as defeating its -avo+ed "ur"ose in the case of the affluent +ho o+n not only heavy limousines #ut also many small cars .as2 they may #e com"elled to use at least t+o small cars8- 10 referred to the high cost of ta5is or other "u#lic trans"orts for those -not a#le to afford e5"ensive small cars ."ossi#ly2 only one heavy and "ossi#le old model8- 11 cited the case of -many eight cylinder vehicles +hich #ecause of their +eight have #een registered as light #ut in fact consume more or as much gasoline as the #anned vehicles.- 1( Their conclusion is that -the #an im"osed, in result and effect is class legislation.- 13 The "arties +ere re)uired to su#mit memoranda. =es"ondents did so #ut not "etitioners. They relied on their re"ly to the ans+er ! as noted, a rather com"rehensive "leading. Dor reasons to #e set forth, this &ourt holds that the "etition cannot "ros"er.
chanro#lesvirtuala+li#rary chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

1. Dirst as to the "rocedural o#?ection. In the memorandum for res"ondents, one of the issues raised +as +hether -the "o+er of ?udicial revie+ may #e invo$ed considering the inade)uacy of the record and the highly a#stract and academic )uestions raised #y the "etitioners.- 14 It is inaccurate to say that the record is inade)uate. It does not admit of dou#t that the #an a""lies to "etitioners +ho are -the registered o+ners of an eight cylinder 1969 'uic$, and the vendees of a si5 cylinder <illy@s $aiser ?ee", +hich are #oth classified as heavy or ,.- 15 To that e5tent, therefore, the enforcement of the assailed Letter of Instruction +ill amount to a de"rivation of +hat other+ise +ould #e a valid e5ercise of a "ro"erty right. Thus they fall s)uarely +ithin -the unchallenged rule- as to +ho may raise a constitutional )uestion, namely, to )uote the language of ;ustice Laurel in the leading case of People v. Vera, 1) -that the "erson +ho im"ugns the validity of a statute must have a "ersonal and su#stantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or +ill sustain direct in?ury as a result of its enforcement. 1* Moreover, that rule has #een considera#ly rela5ed. 18 The )uestion then is neither a#stract nor academic as contended #y res"ondents.
chanro#lesvirtuala+li#rary chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

/. There is, ho+ever, this formida#le o#stacle that confronts "etitioners. <hat they see$ is for this &ourt to hold that a Letter of Instruction, a regulatory measure "recisely enacted to co"e +ith the serious and grave "ro#lem of energy conservation, is void on its face. 3uch a tas$ is rendered unusually difficult #y +hat has #een referred to #y ;ustice Laurel in the leading case of Angara v. Electoral Commission 19 as the -"resum"tion of constitutionality- and #y the same ?urist in the case of People v. Vera (0 in slightly different +ords -a "resum"tion that such an act falls +ithin constitutional limitations.- There is need then for a factual foundation of invalidity. In the language of Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operations Association,

Inc. v. City Mayor or Manila0 -It admits of no dou#t therefore that there #eing a "resum"tion of validity, the necessity for evidence to re#ut it is unavoida#le, unless the statute or ordinance is void on its face, +hich is not the case here. The "rinci"le has #een no+here #etter e5"ressed than in the leading case of O !orman & "o#ng v. Hart$ord %ire Ins#rance Co., +here the :merican 3u"reme &ourt through ;ustice 'randeis tersely and succinctly summed u" the matter thus0 @The statute here )uestioned deals +ith a su#?ect clearly +ithin the sco"e of the "olice "o+er. <e are as$ed to declare it void on the ground that the s"ecific method of regulation "rescri#ed is unreasona#le and hence de"rives the "laintiff of due "rocess of la+. :s underlying )uestions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the "resum"tion of constitutionality must "revail in the a#sence of some factual foundation of record for overthro+ing the statute.@ - (1
chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

3. It is true, of course, that there may #e instances +here a "olice "o+er measure may, #ecause of its ar#itrary, o""ressive or un?ust character, #e held offensive to the due "rocess clause and, therefore, may, +hen challenged in an a""ro"riate legal "roceeding, #e declared void on its face. This is not one of them. : recital of the +hereas clauses of the Letter of Instruction ma$es it clear. Thus0 -.<hereas2, develo"ments in the international "etroleum su""ly situation continue to follo+ a trend of limited "roduction and s"iralling "rices there#y "recluding the "ossi#ility of immediate relief in su""lies +ithin the foreseea#le future8 .<hereas2, the uncertainty of fuel su""ly availa#ility underscores a com"elling need for the ado"tion of "ositive measures designed to insure the via#ility of the country@s economy and sustain its develo"mental gro+th8 .<hereas2, to cushion the effect of increasing oil "rices and avoid fuel su""ly disru"tions, it is im"erative to ado"t a "rogram directed to+ards the ?udicious use of our energy resources com"lemented +ith intensified conservation efforts and efficient utiliCation thereof8 E E E.- (( That is undenia#le is that the action ta$en is an a""ro"riate res"onse to a "ro#lem that "resses urgently for solution. It may not #e the only alternative, #ut its reasona#leness is immediately a""arent. Thus, to re"eat, su#stantive due "rocess, +hich is the e"itome of reasona#leness and fair "lay, is not ignored, much less infringed.
chanro#lesvirtuala+li#rary chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

%. In the inter"lay #et+een such a fundamental right and "olice "o+er, es"ecially so +here the assailed governmental action deals +ith the use of one@s "ro"erty, the latter is accorded much lee+ay. That is settled la+. <hat is more, it is good la+. *ue "rocess, therefore, cannot #e validly invo$ed. :s stressed in the cited (rmita!Malate ,otel decision0 -To hold other+ise +ould #e to unduly restrict and narro+ the sco"e of "olice "o+er +hich has #een "ro"erly characteriCed as the most essential, insistent and the least limita#le of "o+ers, e5tending as it does @to all the great "u#lic needs.@ It +ould #e, to "ara"hrase another leading decision, to destroy the very "ur"ose of the state if it could #e de"rived or allo+ed itself to #e de"rived of its com"etence to "romote "u#lic health, "u#lic morals, "u#lic safety and the general +elfare. Negatively "ut, "olice "o+er is @that inherent and "lenary "o+er in the 3tate +hich ena#les it to "rohi#it all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and +elfare of society.@ (3
chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

4. The due "rocess )uestion having #een dis"osed of, there is still the o#?ection #ased on the e)ual "rotection clause to #e considered. : governmental act may not #e offensive to the due "rocess clause, #ut may run counter to such a guarantee. 3uch is the case +hen there is no rational #asis for the classification follo+ed. That is the

"oint raised #y "etitioners. Dor them, there is no rational ?ustification for the #an #eing im"osed on vehicles classified as heavy 6,7 and e5tra!heavy 6(,7, for "recisely those o+ned #y them fall +ithin such category. Tested #y the a""lica#le standard that must #e satisfied to avoid the charge of a denial of e)ual "rotection, the o#?ection of "etitioners is sho+n to #e lac$ing in merit. 3uch a classification on its face cannot #e characteriCed as an affront to reason. : legal norm according to &.M. '#ason & Co., Inc. vs. (and 'en#re Administration, (4 -+hether em#odied in a rule, "rinci"le, or standard, constitutes a defense against anarchy at one e5treme and tyranny at the other. There#y, "eo"le living together in a community +ith its myriad and com"le5 "ro#lems can minimiCe the friction and reduce the conflicts, to assure, at the very least, a "eaceful ordering of e5istence. The Ideal situation is for the la+@s #enefits to #e availa#le to all, that none #e "laced outside the s"here of its coverage. >nly thus could chance and favor #e e5cluded and the affairs of men governed #y that serene and im"artial uniformity, +hich is of the very essence of the Idea of la+. The actual, given things as they are and li$ely to continue to #e, cannot a""ro5imate the Ideal. Nor is the la+ susce"ti#le to the re"roach that it does not ta$e into account the realties of the situation. E E E To assure that the general +elfare #e "romoted, +hich is the end of la+, a regulatory measure may cut into the rights to li#erty and "ro"erty. Those adversely affected may under such circumstances invo$e the e)ual "rotection clause only if they can sho+ that the governmental act assailed, far from #eing ins"ired #y the attainment of the common +eal +as "rom"ted #y the s"irit of hostility, or at the very least, discrimination that finds no su""ort in reason. It suffices then that the la+s o"erate e)ually and uniformly on all "ersons under similar circumstances or that all "ersons must #e treated in the same manner, the conditions not #eing different, #oth in the "rivileges conferred and the lia#ilities im"osed. Davoritism and undue "reference cannot #e allo+ed. Dor the "rinci"le is that e)ual "rotection and security shall #e given to every "erson under circumstances, +hich if not Identical are analogous. If la+ #e loo$ed u"on in terms of #urden or charges, those that fall +ithin a class should #e treated in the same fashion, +hatever restrictions cast on some in the grou" e)ually #inding on the rest.- (5
chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

6. Nor does it militate against the validity of the Letter of Instruction ?ust #ecause the #an im"osed does not go as far as it could have and therefore could #e less efficacious in character. That +as the solution +hich for the 9resident e5"ressing a "o+er validly lodged in him, recommended itself. There +as a situation that called for a corrective measure. ,e decided that +hat +as issued #y him +ould do ?ust that or, at the very least, hel" in easing the situation. That it did not cover other matters +hich could very +ell have #een regulated does not call for a declaration of nullity. The 9resident, to "ara"hrase (#t) v. Araneta, () -is not re)uired #y the &onstitution to adhere to the "olicy of all or none.- (* It is )uite o#vious then that no e)ual "rotection )uestion arises.
chanro#lesvirtuala+li#rary chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

. It may not #e amiss to refer to a 1981 :merican 3u"reme &ourt decision, Minnesota v. Clover (ea$ Creamery Company. (8 =es"ondent along +ith several other #usiness cor"orations adversely affected involved in the manufacture and utiliCation of "lastic mil$ containers filed suit in a Minnesota district court see$ing to en?oin enforcement of a Minnesota statute #anning the retail sale of mil$ in "lastic nonreturna#le, nonrefilla#le containers, #ut "ermitting such sale in other nonreturna#le, nonrefilla#le containers, such as "a"er#oard, mil$ cartons. :fter conducting e5tensive evidentiary hearings, the Minnesota court en?oined enforcement

of the statute, finding that it violated among others the e)ual "rotection clause of the Dourteenth :mendment to the Dederal &onstitution. The Minnesota 3u"reme &ourt affirmed. >n certiorari, the Bnited 3tates 3u"reme &ourt reversed, +ith only ;ustice 3tevens dissenting. The o"inion #y ;ustice 'rennan noted that -"ro"onents of the legislation argued that it +ould "romote resource conservation, ease solid +aste dis"osal "ro#lems, and conserve energy.- (9 That sufficed for the &ourt to conclude -that the #an on "lastic nonreturna#le mil$ containers #ears a rational relation to the 3tate@s o#?ectives, and must #e sustained under the ()ual 9rotection &lause.- 30 It does sho+ that not+ithstanding the -ne+ e)ual "rotection a""roach- +ith its em"hasis on -sus"ect classification- and -fundamental rights and interests standard,- a conce"t so a#ly e5"ounded #y "rofessor Funther, the -rational relation test- 31 still retains its validity. Not that there could #e any o#?ection to the classification here follo+ed as #eing in any +ay susce"ti#le to such a "e?orative e5"ression as -sus"ect- or that the assailed Letter of Instruction does not )ualify under -the fundamental rights and interests- standard
chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

8. There +as set forth in the "etition +hat +ere referred to as -other reasona#le measures +hich the authorities concerned +ith energy conservation can ta$e immediately, +hich are in fact acce"ta#le and o#viously called for and should have #een done long ago, to +it0 1. re)uire and esta#lish ta5i stands e)ui""ed +ith efficient tele"hone and communication systems8 /. strict im"lementation and o#servance of cargo truc$ hours on main arteries8 3. strict o#servance of traffic rules8 %. effective solution of traffic "ro#lems and decongestion of traffic through rerouting and )uic$ re"air of roads and efficient o"eration of dou#le dec$er #uses8 4. rationing of gasoline to avoid "anic #uying and give the "rivate car o+ner the o"tion and res"onsi#ility of deciding on the use of his allocation8 6. allo+ neon and electrically devised advertising signs only from five o@cloc$ ".m. to nine o@cloc$ ".m. . "rohi#it immediately the im"ortation of heavy and lu5ury cars and seriously re!e5amine the car manufacturing "rogram.- 3( :dmittedly, such measures are conducive to energy conservation. The )uestion #efore us ho+ever is limited to +hether or not Letter of Instruction 869 as im"lemented #y Memorandum &ircular No. 39 is violative of certain constitutional rights. It goes no further than that. The determination of the mode and manner through +hich the o#?ective of minimiCing the consum"tion of oil "roducts may #e attained is left to the discretion of the "olitical #ranches. 33 :#sent therefore the alleged infringement of constitutional rights, more "recisely the due "rocess and e)ual "rotection guarantees, this &ourt cannot ad?udge Letter of Instruction No. 869 as tainted #y unconstitutionality.
chanro#lesvirtuala+li#rary chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

9. It +as li$e+ise contended that Memorandum &ircular No. 39, issued #y the then res"ondent Minister of 9u#lic <or$s, Trans"ortation and &ommunications, and then res"ondent Land Trans"ortation &ommissioner, im"osing the "enalties -of fine, confiscation of vehicle and cancellation of license is li$e+ise unconstitutional,"etitioners invo$ing the "rinci"le of non!delegation of legislative "o+er. 34 To that e5tent that a Letter of Instruction may #e vie+ed as an e5ercise of the decree!ma$ing "o+er of the 9resident, then such an argument is futile. If, ho+ever, vie+ed as a com"liance +ith the duty to ta$e care that the la+s #e faithfully e5ecuted, as a conse)uence of +hich su#ordinate e5ecutive officials may in turn issue im"lementing rules and regulations, then the o#?ection +ould "ro"erly #e considered as an #ltra vires allegation. There is this relevant e5cer"t from 'eo*on v. Mem+er o$ t,e -oard o$ Administrators. 35 -1. The recognition of the "o+er of administrative officials to

"romulgate rules in the im"lementation of the statute, necessarily limited to +hat is "rovided for in the legislative enactment, may #e found in the early case of /nited 0tates v. -arrias decided in 1918. Then came, in a 191% decision, /nited 0tates v. '#pasi Molina, a delineation of the sco"e of such com"etence. Thus0 @>f course the regulations ado"ted under legislative authority #y a "articular de"artment must #e in harmony +ith the "rovisions of the la+, and for the sole "ur"ose of carrying into effect its general "rovisions. 'y such regulations, of course, the la+ itself can not #e e5tended. 3o long, ho+ever, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the "rovisions of the la+, they are valid.@ In 1936, in People v. 0antos, this &ourt e5"ressed its disa""roval of an administrative order that +ould amount to an e5cess of the regulatory "o+er vested in an administrative official. <e reaffirmed such a doctrine in a 1941 decision, +here +e again made clear that +here an administrative order #etrays inconsistency or re"ugnancy to the "rovisions of the :ct, @the mandate of the :ct must "revail and must #e follo+ed.@ ;ustice 'arrera, s"ea$ing for the &ourt in Victorias Milling Company, Inc. v. 0ocial 0ec#rity Commission, citing 9ar$er as +ell as *avis did tersely sum u" the matter thus0 @: rule is #inding on tile courts so long as the "rocedure fi5ed for its "romulgation is follo+ed and its sco"e is +ithin the statutory granted #y the legislature, even if the courts are not in agreement +ith the "olicy stated therein or its innate +isdom E E E. >n the other hand, administrative inter"retation of the la+ is at #est merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine +hat the la+ means.@ It cannot #e other+ise as the &onstitution limits the authority of the 9resident, in +hom all e5ecutive "o+er resides, to ta$e care that the la+s #e faithfully e5ecuted. No lesser administrative e5ecutive office or agency then can, contrary to the e5"ress language of the &onstitution, assert for itself a more e5tensive "rerogative.- 3) It +as alleged in the :ns+er of 3olicitor Feneral (stelito 9. MendoCa that Letter of Instruction 869 and Memorandum &ircular No. 39 +ere ado"ted "ursuant to the Land Trans"ortation and Traffic &ode. 3* It contains a s"ecific "rovision as to "enalties. 38 Thus0 -Dor violation of any "rovisions of this :ct or regulations "romulgated "ursuant hereto, not herein#efore s"ecifically "unished, a fine of not less than ten nor more than fifty "esos shall #e im"osed.- 39 Memorandum &ircular No. 39 cannot #e held to #e #ltra vires as long as the fine im"osed is not less than ten nor more than fifty "esos. :s to sus"ension of registration, 40 the &ode, insofar as a""lica#le, "rovides0 -<henever it shall a""ear from the records of the &ommission that during any t+elve!month "eriod more than three +arnings for violations of this :ct have #een given to the o+ner of a motor vehicle, or that the said o+ner has #een convicted #y a com"etent court more than once for violation of such la+s, the &ommissioner may, in his discretion, sus"end the certificate of registration for a "eriod not e5ceeding ninety days and, thereu"on, shall re)uire the immediate surrender of the num#er "lates E E E.- 41 It follo+s that +hile the im"osition of a fine or the sus"ension of registration under the conditions therein set forth is valid under the Land Trans"ortation and Traffic &ode, the im"ounding of a vehicle finds no statutory ?ustification. To a""ly that "ortion of Memorandum &ircular No. 39 +ould #e #ltra vires. It must li$e+ise #e made clear that a "enalty even if +arranted can only #e im"osed in accordance +ith the "rocedure re)uired #y la+. 4(
chanro#les virtual la+ li#rary

<,(=(D>=(, the "etition is dismissed.