bucayon

G.R. No. 74457    

March 20, 1987

Restituto Ynot, Petitioner;

Vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court, The Sation Commander, Integrated National Police, Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo and The Regional Director, Bureau of Animal Industry, Region IV, Iloilo City, Respondents;

Facts:

Marcos issued EO 626-A which prohibits the interprovincial movement and slaughtering of carabaos. On January 13, 1984, petitioner was caught transporting six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo. The police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo confiscated the carabaos for violation of EO626-A. The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a bond of P12,000.00. Petitioner raised the issue of EO’s constitutionality and filed case in the lower court. However, the court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raised by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner appealed the decision to Intermediate Appellate Court with the following contentions:

          1. EO is unconstitutional as confiscation is outright.

2. Penalty is invalid as it is imposed without the owner's right to be heard before a competent and impartial court.

3. Measure should have not been presumed.

4. Raises a challenge to the improper exercise of the legislative power by the former President.

Issue:

Whether or not Executive Order No. 626-A is constitutional

Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that EO 626-A is not valid as it violates due process. The movement of carabaos from one area to another does not mean a subsequent slaughter. The petitioner should be given an opportunity to defend himself and explain why the carabaos are being transferred before they can be confiscated. Moreover, The SC found that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because it is oppressive and the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law. 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

Petiton is GRANTED with the following justifications:

1.    Right of the petitioner to question for constitutionality is valid as there’s no exigency showing to justify the exercise of this extraordinary power of the President

2.    Properties involved were not even inimical per se as to require their instant destruction

3.   Case involved ‘roving commission’ and invalid delegation of powers and invalid exercise of police power

4.   Due process is violated because the owner is denied the right to be heard in his defense and wasimmedeiately condemned and punish