Facts: Petitioner Restituto Ynot had transmitted 6 carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo when they were confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac for violating Executive Order No. 626-A. Executive Order No. 626-A prohibits the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of carabaos. Carabao/carabeef transported in violation of E.O. 626A shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the govt, to be distributed to charitable institutions as Chairman of National Meat Inspection may see fit (carabeef) and to deserving farmers as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit (carabao). Before the amandment, E.O. 626 prohibits only the slaughter of carabaos of age. Petitioner sued for recovery; RTC issued writ of replevin after petitioner filed supersedeas bong of P12,000.00. Trial Court (TC) sustained confiscation of carabaos, ordered confiscation of the bond and declined to rule on the constitutionality of the E.O. for lack of authority and its presumed validity Petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC); IAC upheld the TC. Petitioners arguments: 1. E.O. is unconstitutional. It authorizes outright confiscation of carabao or carabeef being transported across provincial boundaries. 2. Penalty is invalid. It is imposed without according the owner a right to be heard before a competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process. 3. 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/s: WON EO 626-A is constitutional. Ruling: EO 626-A is declared unconstitutional. Ratio: On the power of courts to decide on constitutional matters Resolution of such cases may be made in the first instance by lower courts subject
to review of the Supreme Court.
..while lower courts should observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions, they are nonetheless not prevented from resolving the same whenever warranted, subject only to the review of the highest tribunal. Sec. 5[2(a)] Art VIII, 1987 Constitution. On the presumption of constitutionality Not by any means conclusive and in fact may be rebutted On due process Provisions of the charter are to be cats in precise and unmistakable language to avoid controversies that might arise on their correct interpretation. Clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain also conveniently resilient; flexibility MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: a) notice and b) hearing intended as safeguard against official arbitrariness. On the power used by President Marcos in promulgating EO 626-A The challenged measure is denominated as an EO but it is actually a PD issued by Pres. Marcos not for the purpose of taking care that the laws were faithfully executed but in the exercise of his legislative authority under Amendment No. 6. It was provided thereunder that whenever in his judgment there existed a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof or whenever the legislature failed or was unable to act adequately on any matter that in his judgment required immediate action, he could, in order to meet the exigency, issue decrees, orders or letters of instruction that were to have the force and effect of law. As there is no showing of any exigency to justify the exercise of that extraordinary power then, the petitioner has reason, indeed, to question the validity of the executive order and the exercise the extraordinary power. Police power as used by the government to justify E.O. 626-A Test: 1. Compelling state interest 2. Lawful method (as used in the case, but this is the same with the fit between means and objective test) 1 = present conditions demand that the carabaos and the buffaloes be conserved for the benefit of the small farmers who rely on them for energy needs. Failed to comply with #2; there is no reasonable connection between conservation of carabaos (not having them slaughtered) and the means: non-transportation of carabaos.