Constitutional Law 2

Prepared by: Atty. Judiel M. Pareja

Please read the following cases.

DUE PROCESS

1. Ynot vs. IAC, March 20, 1987

FACTS

Here, the constitutionality of former President Marcos’s Executive Order No. 626-A is assailed. Said order
decreed an absolute ban on the inter-provincial transportation of carabao (regardless of age, sex, physical
condition or purpose) and carabeef. The carabao or carabeef transported in violation of this shall be
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other
similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) may see fit, in
the case of carabeef. In the case of carabaos, these shall be given to deserving farmers as the Director of
Animal Industry (AI) may also see fit. Petitioner had transported six (6) carabaos in a pump boat from
Masbate to Iloilo. These were confiscated by the police for violation of the above order. He sued for
recovery, which the RTC granted upon his filing of a supersedeas bond worth 12k. After trial on the merits,
the lower court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos, and as they can no longer be produced,
directed the confiscation of the bond. It deferred from ruling on the constitutionality of the executive
order, on the grounds of want of authority and presumed validity. On appeal to the
Intermediate Appellate Court, such ruling was upheld. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. On the
main, petitioner asserts that EO 626-A is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation,
and that its penalty suffers from invalidity because it is imposed without giving the owner a right to be
heard before a competent and impartial court—as guaranteed by due process.

ISSUE

Whether EO 626-A is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process clause.

HELD

YES. To warrant a valid exercise of police power, the following must be present: (a) that the interests of
the public, generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference, and; (b)
that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose. In US v. Toribio, the
Court has ruled that EO 626 complies with the above requirements—that is, the carabao, as a poor man’s
tractor so to speak, has a direct relevance to the public welfare and so is a lawful subject of the order, and
that the method chosen is also reasonably necessary for the purpose sought to be achieved and not unduly
oppressive. The ban of the slaughter of carabaos except those seven years old if male and eleven if female
upon issuance of a permit adequately works for the conservation of those still fit for farm work or
breeding, and prevention of their improvident depletion. Here, while EO 626-A has the same lawful
subject, it fails to observe the second requirement. Notably, said EO imposes an absolute ban not on the
slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement. The object of the prohibition is unclear. The reasonable
connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the disputed measure
is missing. It is not clear how the interprovincial transport of the animals can prevent their indiscriminate
slaughter, as they can be killed anywhere, with no less difficulty in one province than in another.
Obviously, retaining them in one province will not prevent their slaughter there, any more that moving
them to another will make it easier to kill them there. Even if assuming there was a reasonable relation
between the means and the end, the penalty is invalid as it amounts to outright confiscation, denying
petitioner a chance to be heard. Unlike in the Toribio case, here, no trial is prescribed and the property
being transported is immediately impounded by the police and declared as forfeited for the government.
Concededly, there are certain occasions when notice and hearing can be validly dispensed with, such
as summary abatement of a public nuisance, summary destruction of pornographic
materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs. However, these are justified for reasons of immediacy
of the problem sought to be corrected and urgency of the need to correct it. In the instant case, no such
pressure is present. The manner by which the disposition of the confiscated property also presents a case
of invalid delegation of legislative powers since the officers mentioned (Chairman and Director of the
NMIC and AI respectively) are granted unlimited discretion. The usual standard and
reasonable guidelines that said officers must observe in making the distribution are nowhere to be found;
instead, they are to go about it as they may see fit. Obviously, this makes the exercise prone to partiality
and abuse, and even corruption.

2. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators vs. City of Manila, July 31, 1967

Facts: On June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of Manila passed Ordinance No. 4760 with the
following provisions questioned for its violation of due process:
refraining from entertaining or accepting any guest or customer unless it fills out a prescribed
form in the lobby in open view;
prohibiting admission o less than 18 years old;
usurious increase of license fee to P4,500 and 6,000 o 150% and 200% respectively (tax issue
also);
making unlawful lease or rent more than twice every 24 hours; and
cancellation of license for subsequent violation.
The lower court issued preliminary injunction and petitioners raised the case to SC on certiorari.

Issue: Is the ordinance compliant with the due process requirement of the constitution?

Held: Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power to minimize certain practices hurtful to public
morals. There is no violation o constitutional due process for being reasonable and the ordinance
is enjoys the presumption of constitutionality absent any irregularity on its face. Taxation may be
made to implement a police power and the amount, object, and instance of taxation is dependent
upon the local legislative body. Judgment of lower court reversed and injunction lifted.

3. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. Panaguiton, July21, 1978

4. Namil vs. COMELEC, October, 28, 2003

5. NHA vs. Evangelista, May 16, 2005
6. Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Hon Olalia, April 19, 2007
7. Saiaw vs. NLRC, Sept. 27, 1991
8. PO2 Montoya vs. Police Director Varilla, Dec. 18, 2008
9. Ateneo de Manila vs. Hon. Capulong, May 27, 1993
10. Sang-an vs. Equator Knights Detective and Security Agency, Inc., Feb. 13, 2013

EQUAL PROTECTION

1. Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City, February 17, 1968
2. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, November 11, 1993
3. Tiu vs. CA, January 20, 1999
4. Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, December 15, 2004
5. City of Manila vs. Hon. Laguio, April 12, 2005
6. Quinto vs. COMELEC, February 22, 2010
7. Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, December 07, 2010
8. Garcia vs. Hon. Drilon, June 25, 2013