Ynot v.

Intermediate Appellate Court

Summary Cases:

● Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) 148 SCRA 659

Subject: DueProcess, Police Power, Undue delegation of legislative power, Exercise ofLegislative
power of President

Facts:

Ynotchallenges the constitutionality of Executive OrderNo. 626-A issued by former President Marcos,
invoking poice power, whichprohibited the “interprovincial movement of carabaos and carabeef” and
further providedthat the caraboas and carabeefs which were the subject of “confiscation andforfeiture” as
a result thereof shall be “distributed to charitableinstitutions and other similar institutions” and “derserving
farmers” as theappointed state agencies may see fit.

Ynot had transported six carabaos in a pump boatfrom Masbate to Iloilo when they were confiscated for
violation of the abovemeasure.

Ynot claims the penalty as invalid because it isimposed without according the owner a right to be heard
before a competent andimpartial court as guaranteed by due process.

Held:

Due Process

The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain also conveniently resilient. The
very elasticity of the due process clause was meant to make it adapt easily to every situation, enlarging
or constricting its protection as the changing times and circumstances may require. Justice Felix
Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court sums up due process as "the embodiment of the sporting idea of
fair play.”

Procedural Due Process (Notice and Hearing)

© Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved

The minimum requirements of procedural due process are notice and hearing. There are occasions
when notice and hearing may be validly dispensed with. Summary action may be validly taken in
administrative proceedings as procedural due process is not necessarily judicial only. EO-262-A violates
procedural due process. It does not comply with the requirement of prior hearing.a. The penalty is
outright confiscation of the carabaoor carabeef being transported, to be meted out by the executive
authorities,usually the police only. No trial is prescribed, and the property beingtransported is
immediately impounded by the police and declared, by the measureitself, as forfeited to the government.

b. In the exceptional cases accepted, there is ajustification for the omission of the right to a previous
hearing, to wit, theimmediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and the urgency of the need
tocorrect it. In this case, there was no such pressure of time or action callingfor peremptory treatment.
The properties involved were not even inimical per seas to require their instant destruction.

c. Considering that EO 626-A is penal in nature, theviolation thereof should have been pronounced not
by the police only but by acourt of justice, which alone would have had the authority to impose
theprescribed penalty, and only after trial and conviction of the accused.

SubstantiveDue Pocess -- Police Power (Lawful subject, Lawful means)

The government invokes police power to justify the enactment of such measure. In the face of the
worsening energy crisis, there is a need that carabaos and the buffaloes be conserved for the benefit of
the small farmers who rely on them for energy needs. To justify the exercise of police power, two
conditions must be present-- it must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished
from those of a particular class, require such interference (lawful subject); and that the means are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals (lawful method). EO 626-A is an invalid exercise of police power because the method
employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and is
unduly oppressive.a. 1st requirement: Lawful subject.

--The carabao, as the poor man's tractor, so to speak, has a direct relevance tothe public welfare and so
is a lawful subject of EO 626-A.

b. 2nd requirement: Lawful method

--We note that to strengthen the original measure, EO 626-A imposes an absoluteban not on the
slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement. The reasonableconnection between the means
employed and the purpose sought to be achieved bythe questioned measure is missing. We do not see
how the prohibition ofthe interprovincial transport of carabaos can prevent their indiscriminateslaughter,
considering that they can be killed anywhere, with no lessdifficulty in one province than in another.

Unduedelegation of legislative power

© Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved

The phrase "may see fit" amounts to a “roving commission” with no prescribed standards to limit the
exercise of the delegated power.a. EO 626-A authorizes that the seized property shall"be distributed to
charitable institutions and other similar institutionsas the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection
Commission may see fit,in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as
theDirector of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos."

b. There is absent theusual standard and the reasonable guidelines or the limitations that the saidofficers
must observe when they make their distribution. The officers named aregiven exclusive discretion to
choose the grantee as they see fit. Definitely,there is here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping
authority thatis not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing."

Exercise ofLegislative power of President

The challenged measure is denominated an executive order but it is really a presidential decree,
promulgating a new rule instead of merely implementing an existing law. It was issued by President
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.

© Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved