8/2/2019 Calalang v. Williams (Aly)
1/1
CALALANG V. WILLIAMS (1940)FACTSPetitioner:Maximo Calalang
private citizen and taxpayer of ManilaRespondents: (1) Chairman of
the National Traffic Commission; (2) Director of Public Works; (3)
ActingSecretary of Public Works and Communications; (4) Mayor of
Manila; and (5) Acting Chief of Police of Manila
In this case, Calalang prays for a writ of prohibition against
for the respondents for imposing a ban on animal-drawn vehicles
along Rosario St. and Rizal Avenue in Manila during certain hours,
for one year from the
opening of the Colgante Bridge. He claims that the ban is
detrimental to the owners of animal-drawn vehicles,as well as of
the riding public.
The ban was recommended by the National Traffic Commission to
the Director of Public Works, in pursuanceof Commonwealth Act No.
548, which authorizes said Director to promulgate rules and
regulations to regulateand control the use of and traffic on
national roads. The Director indorsed, with modification,
suchrecommendation to the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, who in turn, approved therecommendation. The
recommendation was enforced by the Mayor and Acting Police of
Manila.
ISSUES + RATIOWON Commonwealth Act No. 548 constitutes an undue
delegation of legislative power NOThere is a difference between
delegating power to make the law, and conferring an authority or
discretion as toexecuting the law. The former cannot be done, while
the latter can be done. (Rubi v. Provincial Board ofMindoro)
Commonwealth Act No. 548 does not confer legislative power. The
authority therein conferred is notto determine what public policy
demands, but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down.
Specifically,the authority conferred is the ascertainment of facts
and circumstances upon which the application of said lawis to be
predicated. To promulgate rules and regulations is an
administrative function which cannot be directlydischarged by the
National Assembly. It must depend on the discretion of some other
government official todetermine whether the proper occasion exists
for the executing the law. But this is not the making of the
law.
Lockes Appeal To assert that a law is less than a law, because
it is made to depend on a futureevent or act, is to rob the
Legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare.
People v. Rosenthal & Osmena The principle of separation of
powers has been made to adapt itselfto the complexities of modern
governments giving rise to the adoption of the principle of
subordinatelegislation. The rigidity of the theory of separation of
powers has been relaxed by permitting thedelegation of greater
powers by the legislative and vesting a larger amount of discretion
inadministrative and executive officials.
WON the ban constitutes an unlawful interference with legitimate
business or trade, and abridge the right topersonal liberty and
freedom of locomotion NOCommonwealth Act No. 548 was passed in
police power, and aims to promote safe transit and
avoidobstructions on national roads. The National Assembly, in
enacting the law, was inspired by a desire to relievecongestion of
traffic, which is a menace to public safety. Public welfare, then,
was at the bottom of theenactment of the law, and the State may
interfere with personal liberty, property, business, and
occupations, topromote this general welfare. To this fundamental
aim, the rights of the individual may be subordinated. Thecitizen
should achieve the required balance of liberty and authority, so
that there may be established theresultant equilibrium which means
peace, order, and happiness for all. The paradox is that the
curtailment ofliberty is precisely the very means of insuring its
preservation.
The scope of police power keeps expanding as civilization
advances.
Dobbins v. Los Angeles The right to exercise police power is a
continuing one. A business lawfultoday may in the future, become a
menace to public health and welfare, and be required to yield to
thepublic good.
People v. Pomar Advancing civilization is bringing within the
police power of the state today thingswhich were not thought of as
being within such power yesterday.
WON the ban infringes upon the promotion of social justice NOThe
promotion of social justice is not to be achieved through a
mistaken sympathy towards any given group.
HELDPetition dismissed.
