Scribd
Upload
14 views

Digest

Uploaded by

Mark David Dacula
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14 views

Digest

Uploaded by

Mark David Dacula
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

RESTITUTO YNOT V.

IAC
G.R. No. 74457
March 20, 1987

PONENTE: CRUZ, J.
FACTS: The case challenges the constitutionality of Executive Order
626-A which amends EO 626 and states that:
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 626 is hereby amended such
that henceforth, no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical
condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported
from one province to another. The carabao or carabeef
transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended
shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the
government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and
other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National
Meat Inspection Commission may ay see fit, in the case of
carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the
Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of
carabaos.

On January 13, 1984, petitioner Restituto Ynot had


transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to
Iloilo when they were confiscated by the police station
commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of the
above measure. The petitioner sued for recovery, and the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin
upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. After
considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the
confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer
be produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court
also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the executive
order, as raised by the petitioner, for lack of authority and
also for its presumed validity.

C.A. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate


Decision Appellate Court, which upheld the trial court, and now Ynot
comes before the SC through a petition for review on
certiorari.

Ynot’s petition assails that the questioned EO is


unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation
of the carabao or carabeef being transported across
provincial boundaries. Petitioner claims that the penalty is
invalid because it is imposed without according the owner a
right to be heard before a competent and impartial court as
guaranteed by due process. He complains that the measure
should not have been presumed, and so sustained, as
constitutional.

ISSUES: Whether EO 626-A is constitutional

S.C. NO, EOE 626-A is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it is an


DECISION invalid exercise of police power. There is also an
invalid delegation of legislative power.

In the instant case, the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated


by the police station commander, and were returned to the
petitioner only after he had filed a complaint for recovery
and given a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00, which was
ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce the carabaos
when ordered by the trial court. The executive order defined
the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately
imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. The
measure struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner
without giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him
the centuries-old guaranty of elementary fair play.

It has already been remarked that there are occasions when


notice and hearing may be validly dispensed with
notwithstanding the usual requirement for these minimum
guarantees of due process. It is also conceded that summary
action may be validly taken in administrative proceedings as
procedural due process is not necessarily judicial only. In the
exceptional cases accepted, however there is a justification
for the omission of the right to a previous hearing, to wit, the
immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and the
urgency of the need to correct it.

In the case at bar, there was no such pressure of time or


action calling for the petitioner's peremptory treatment. The
properties involved were not even inimical per se as to
require their instant destruction. There certainly was no
reason why the offense prohibited by the executive order
should not have been proved first in a court of justice, with
the accused being accorded all the rights safeguarded to him
under the Constitution. Considering that, as the Court held in
Pesigan v. Angeles, Executive Order No. 626-A is penal in
nature, the violation thereof should have been pronounced
not by the police only but by a court of justice, which alone
would have had the authority to impose the prescribed
penalty, and only after trial and conviction of the accused.
To sum up, then, the SC finds that the challenged measure is
an invalid exercise of the police power because the method
employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably
necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly
oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the
property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his
defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The
conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to
adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear
encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the
doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also an
invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers
mentioned therein who are granted unlimited
discretion in the distribution of the properties
arbitrarily taken. For these reasons, we hereby
declare Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional.

You might also like