Case Title Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et. al.

G.R. no. G.R. No. 74457

Main Topic Due Process
Other Related Topic Police Power
Date: 20 March 1987

DOCTRINES
1. Due Process
2. Police Power

FACTS:
The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo in
January1984, 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..

HELD:
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: that 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.