Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 191 views

    Ynot VS Intermediate Appellate Court

    Uploaded by

    Ro Che
    The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A, which prohibited the interprovincial movement and slaughter of carabaos. The petitioner had six carabaos confiscated for transporting them across provinces. The Supreme Court ruled the EO unconstitutional for violating due process. Specifically, it found the EO allowed confiscation without notice or a hearing. It also determined the President improperly exercised legislative power in promulgating the EO, and the EO's means of conservation did not reasonably connect to its stated end. The court reversed the lower court decisions and cancelled the bond imposed on the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ynot VS Intermediate Appellate Court

    Uploaded by

    Ro Che
    191 views2 pages
    The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A, which prohibited the interprovincial movement and slaughter of carabaos. The petitioner had six carabaos confiscated for transporting them across provinces. The Supreme Court ruled the EO unconstitutional for violating due process. Specifically, it found the EO allowed confiscation without notice or a hearing. It also determined the President improperly exercised legislative power in promulgating the EO, and the EO's means of conservation did not reasonably connect to its stated end. The court reversed the lower court decisions and cancelled the bond imposed on the petitioner.

    Original Description:

    YNOT VS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

    Original Title

    YNOT VS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A, which prohibited the interprovincial movement and slaughter of carabaos. The petitioner had six carabaos confiscated for transporting them across provinces. The Supreme Court ruled the EO unconstitutional for violating due process. Specifically, it found the EO allowed confiscation without notice or a hearing. It also determined the President improperly exercised legislative power in promulgating the EO, and the EO's means of conservation did not reasonably connect to its stated end. The court reversed the lower court decisions and cancelled the bond imposed on the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    191 views2 pages

    Ynot VS Intermediate Appellate Court

    Uploaded by

    Ro Che
    The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A, which prohibited the interprovincial movement and slaughter of carabaos. The petitioner had six carabaos confiscated for transporting them across provinces. The Supreme Court ruled the EO unconstitutional for violating due process. Specifically, it found the EO allowed confiscation without notice or a hearing. It also determined the President improperly exercised legislative power in promulgating the EO, and the EO's means of conservation did not reasonably connect to its stated end. The court reversed the lower court decisions and cancelled the bond imposed on the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    YNOT VS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

    148 SCRA 659

    Date of Promulgation: March 20, 1987

    Ponente: Cruz, J.

    Quick Guide: Petitioner assails constitutionality of E.O. No. 626-A prohibiting the
    interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of carabaos. E.O. No. 626-A
    was held unconstitutional for violating the due process clause.

    Facts:
    – 13Jan1984: 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. 626-A
    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). This
    amended E.O. 626; the latter prohibiting only the slaughter of carabaos of age.
    – Petitioner sued for recovery; RTC issued writ of replevin after petitioner filed
    supersedeas bond of P12,000.00
    – Trial Court (TC): confiscation of carabaos—sustained; ordered confiscation of the
    bond; 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.
    Petitioner’s 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. Improper exercise of legislative power by the former President.
    Issue/s:
    – WON EO 626-A is constitutional.
    Ruling:
    – EO 626-A is declared unconstitutional. CA decision reversed. Supersedeas bond
    cancelled and the amount thereof is ordered restored to petitioner.
    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.
    – But it was not shown that there is sufficient exigencies to 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.

    You might also like