Case Summary (G.R. No. 74457)
Procedural History
• RTC of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon petitioner’s P12,000 supersedeas bond.
• Trial court upheld confiscation on merits, ordered bond forfeited, and declined to rule on EO 626-A’s constitutionality.
• IAC affirmed.
• Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law and Jurisdiction
• Executive Order No. 626-A amending EO 626 under Amendment 6, 1973 Constitution’s legislative‐by‐decree power.
• Jurisdiction: certiorari on constitutionality of a measure under Sec. 5(2)(a), Art. X, 1973 Constitution.
• Fundamental guarantee: Due Process Clause of the 1973 Constitution.
• Police power: State authority to regulate for public welfare (Salus populi est suprema lex).
Issues Presented
- Whether EO 626-A exceeds lawful exercise of police power by prohibiting interprovincial movement of live carabaos and carabeef.
- Whether EO 626-A violates due process by authorizing summary confiscation without notice and hearing before a competent tribunal.
- Whether EO 626-A represents an improper exercise of legislative power and an invalid delegation of authority to administrative officers.
Nature and Scope of Due Process
• Due process requires, as minimum guarantees, notice and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial tribunal.
• Exceptions exist where immediate state action is justified by urgent public necessity—nuisance abatement, destruction of dangerous goods, etc.
• Absent exigency, summary forfeiture of private property without judicial trial contravenes due process.
Validity of Original Regulation (EO 626)
• EO 626 regulated slaughter of carabaos over certain ages to conserve beasts of burden for small farmers.
• Similar U.S. precedent (U.S. v. Toribio) upheld restrictions on slaughter as valid police measures, subject to reasonable means–ends relationship.
Defects in EO 626-A’s Method and Sanction
• EO 626-A bans all interprovincial transport of carabaos and carabeef, irrespective of age or condition—a measure untethered to conservation objectives.
• No rational nexus between prohibiting movement and preventing improvident slaughter within the same province.
• Sanction: immediate confiscation by police, without trial or conviction by court, deprives owners of procedural safeguards.
• Summary confiscation converts administrative officers into triers of fact, usurping judicial function and ignoring separation of powers.
Invalid Delegation and Disposition of Forfeited Property
• EO 626-A authorizes the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission and the Director of Animal Industry to distribute confiscated property “as may see fit.”
• Absence of standards or guidelines confers unbridled discre
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 74457)
Facts
- Petitioner Restituto Ynot transported six live carabaos by pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, 1984.
- The Station Commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, acting under Executive Order No. 626-A, confiscated the animals for alleged violation of the interprovincial transport ban.
- Ynot filed a suit for recovery, prompting the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City to issue a writ of replevin upon posting of a ₱12,000 supersedeas bond.
Executive Order No. 626-A (25 October 1980)
- Preamble (“Whereas” clauses) cites:
• Presidential orders prohibiting interprovincial movement and slaughter of carabaos not meeting age requirements under EO 626.
• Observations of violators circumventing the ban by transporting processed carabeef.
• Need to strengthen EO 626 and provide for disposition of contraband animals and meat. - Section 1 amends EO 626 to prohibit “no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeef” from being transported province to province.
- Mandates immediate confiscation and forfeiture of violative carabaos and carabeef, with distribution:
• Carabeef to charitable and similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit.
• Carabaos to deserving farmers as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit. - Section 2 declares immediate effectivity.
Procedural History
- Trial Court (RTC Iloilo City):
• Granted writ of replevin on bond.
• After merits hearing, sustained confiscation of carabaos.
• Ordered forfeiture of supersedeas bond for non-production of animals.
• Declined to pass on constitutionality of EO 626-A. - Intermediate Appellate Court:
• Affirmed RTC’s judgment without addressing due process challenge. - Supreme Court:
• Petitioner invoked certiorari to question the constitutionality of EO 626-A as violative of due process and separation of powers.
Issues
- Whether Executive Order No. 626-A, authorizing summary confiscation of carabaos and carabeef, violates the constitutional guarantee of due process by denying notice and hearing.
- Whether the President’s amendment of EO 626 under Amendment No. 6, 1973 Constitution, unlawfully exercises legislative power.
- Whether the method and sanctions imposed by EO 626-A are a valid exercise of the police power.
Lower Courts’ Treatment of Constitutionality
- Both RTC and IAC presumed the validity of EO 626-A and declined to rule on its constitutionality.
- Petitioner argues that lower courts showed “becoming modesty,” but the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and duty to resolve constitutional questions whenever warranted.
Jurisdiction and Presumption of Constitutionality
- Supreme Court’s jurisdic