Calalang vs Williams Petitioner in this case is a taxpayer who had been adversely affected by the new traffic regulation

limiting animal-drawn vehicle in certain portions of Manila. Petitioner raises three main issues: He questions the constitutionality of the traffic regulation saying that it is an undue delegation of Legislative power That such regulation abridges his right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion. That it infringes upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well being and economic security for all people.

The Supreme Court through Justice Laurel explained that the regulation being questioned is based on a law that does not confer legislative power to the National Traffic Commission. The authority therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and regulations is not to determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy which is to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on roads and streets designated as national roads. The regulation was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic. This is clearly a valid exercise of power for the purpose of public welfare, comfort and convenience. Persons and property may be subjected to such kind of restraint to promote general health, comfort, and prosperity of the state. Lastly, this does not infringe the ideals of social justice. The promotion of social justice is not achieved through mistaken sympathy towards given group. It is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extraconstitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice in labor laws Social justice is a juridical principle and a societal goal at the same time. which prescribes equality of the people, rich or poor, before the law and the attainment of

decent quality of life of the masses through humane productive efforts. Justice Laurel defines social justice by describing what it was not rather than what it i as He explained how it could be achieved through the interplay of social and economic forces that will promote the greatest good for the greater number. Labor laws provide legal equality which opens opportunities that strengthen equality which could create more opportunities to achieve a better life for everyone as much as possible. Labor law in social justice context provides a tool to approximate justice for all since labor is the primary factor of economic stability which needs to be guarded by the state. Hence, our Constitution guarantees that highest priority should be given to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce social, economy and political inequalities and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. 5. Normal work hours; purpose