Ynot v IAC (1987) 148 SCRA 659

J. Cruz
Facts:
Petitioner transported 6 caracbaos from Masbate to Iloilo in 1984 and these wer
confiscated by the station commander in Barotac, Iloilo for violating E.O. 626 A
which prohibits transportation of a carabao or carabeef from one province to
another. Confiscation will be a result of this.
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 raise by the petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its
presumed validity.
The same result was decided in the trial court.
In the Supreme Court, he then petitioned against the constitutionality of the E.O.
due to the outright confiscation without giving the owner the right to heard before
an impartial court as guaranteed by due process. He also challenged the
improper exercise of legislative power by the former president under Amendment
6 of the 1973 constitution wherein Marcos was given emergency powers to issue
letters of instruction that had the force of law.
Issue: Is the E.O. constitutional?
Holding: The EO is unconstitutional. Petition granted.
Ratio:
The lower courts are not prevented from examining the constitutionality of a law.
Constitutional grant to the supreme court to review.
Justice Laurel's said, courts should not follow the path of least resistance by
simply presuming the constitutionality of a law when it is questioned. On the
contrary, they should probe the issue more deeply, to relieve the abscess, and so
heal the wound or excise the affliction.
The challenged measure is denominated an executive order but it is really
presidential decree, promulgating a new rule instead of merely implementing an
existing law due to the grant of legislative authority over the president under
Amendment number 6.
Provisions of the constitution should be cast in precise language to avoid
controvery. In the due process clause, however, the wording was ambiguous so
it would remain resilient. This was due to the avoidance of an iron rule laying
down a stiff command for all circumstances. There was flexibility to allow it to
adapt to every situation with varying degrees at protection for the changing
conditions.

Courts have also refrained to adopt a standard definition for due processlest they
be confined to its interpretation like a straitjacket.
There must be requirements of notice and hearing as a safeguard against
arbitrariness.
There are exceptions such as conclusive presumption which bars omission of
contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience or
rational connection between facts proved and fact presumed. An examples is a
passport of a person with a criminal offense cancelled without hearing.
The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of police power
which both restrains and is restrained by dure process. This power was invoked
in 626-A, in addition to 626 which prohibits slaughter of carabos with an
exception.
While 626-A has the same lawful subjectas the original executive order, it cant
be said that it complies with the existence of a lawful method. The transport
prohibition and the purpose sought has a gap.
Summary action may be taken in valid admin proceedings as procedural due
process is not juridical only due to the urgency needed to correct it.
There was no reason why the offense in the E.O. would not have been proved in
a court of justice with the accused acquired the rights in the constitution.
The challenged measure was an invalid exercise of police power because the
method toconfiscate carabos was oppressive.
Due process was violated because the owener was denied the right to be heard
or his defense and punished immediately.
This was a clear encroachment on judicial functions and against the separataion
of powers.
The policeman wasnt liable for damages since the law during that time was
valid.