Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et. al.

G.R. No. 74457 20 March 1987


Ponente: Cruz, J.

FACTS:

The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo in January
1984, when they were confiscated by the police station commander for violation of E.O. No.
626-A which prohibits the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of
carabaos not complying with the requirements of E.O. No. 626 (except when the carabao is
seven years old already, if male, and eleven years old if female). The penalty is confiscation
of the carabaos and/or the carabeef.

Take note that EO 626 is not the unconstitutional one.


The assailed law is EO 626-A, which was the later amendment where they included the restriction of
the”transfer or movement of carabaos” on the broad basis that the carabaos might be transferred to areas
where they might be more easily killed.

EO 626 was created by Marcos (an EO which takes a similar form of a Pres. Decree, actually daw), and it
was created: kasi ang kalabaw ay “matter of public interest” because of their connection with “agricultural
output”, citing (US v Toribio) where a similar law was sustained a A VALID POLICE MEASURE to prevent
the indiscriminate killing of carabaos.

ISSUE:

Whether E.O. No. 626-A is unconstitutional (not the EO 626 na nauna ha) insofar as it
authorizes the outright confiscation of carabao and carabeef being transported across
provincial boundaries, thus denying due process. Outright, meaning walang prior notice or

hearing, basta confiscate lang.

RULING:

The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain so conveniently
resilient for due process is not an “iron rule.” Flexibility must be the best virtue of
guaranty. The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing which, generally
speaking, may not be dispensed with because they are intended as a safeguard against official
arbitrariness.
-----
Note: Justice Felix Frankfurter defines due process as: the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play”

Historical anecdotes na baka tanungin:


-the barons of England extracted from their sovereign liege the ‘reluctant promise’ that the Crown would,
from that time on, NOT proceed against the life, liberty, or property of any of its subjects EXCEPT UPON
LAWFUL JUDGMENT of his peers or the law of the land.
- The solemn vow that King John made at RUNNYMEDE in 1215 became the basis of due process: hat
every person, when confronted with the stern visage of the law, is entitled to have his say IN A FAIR AND
OPEN HEARING OF HIS CAUSE.

HOWEVER, this is not to say that notice and hearing are imperative in every case.
Admitted Exceptions:
1) In cases where there is a NUISANCE PER SE (vs a nuisance per accidens, which s treated
differently)
2) The protection of the general welfare (ang ganda nito: police power is what both RESTRAINS and
IS RESTRAINED by due process)
-----
It is noted that E.O. No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban NOT on the slaughter of the carabaos
but on their movement. The reasonable connection between the means employed and the
purpose sought to be achieved by the question of measure is missing. Even if there was a
reasonable relation, the penalty being an outright confiscation and a supersedeas bond of
Php12,000.00. The executive order defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and
immediately imposed punishment, thus denying the centuries-old guaranty of elementary fair
play.

FINAL DECISION NA TALAGA:


To sum up, it was found 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 is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated for the owner was denied
the right to hear his defense and was not seen fit to assert and protect his rights. Executive
Order No. 626-A is hereby declared unconstitutional, and the supersedeas bond is cancelled.