Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Restituto Ynot Vs Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987)

    Uploaded by

    Ei Bin
    439 views1 page
    EO 626-A banned the movement of carabaos between provinces and the movement and sale of carabeef. Ynot was charged for transporting 6 carabaos from one province to another. The Supreme Court ruled that EO 626-A was not a valid exercise of police power and violated due process. The law presumed that transporting carabaos meant they would be slaughtered, but it did not allow owners to defend themselves before confiscating the carabaos. By punishing owners without a hearing and giving administrative authorities power to judge guilt, the law encroached on judicial powers and violated separation of powers.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law 2 Case digest

    Original Title

    Restituto Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court [G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    EO 626-A banned the movement of carabaos between provinces and the movement and sale of carabeef. Ynot was charged for transporting 6 carabaos from one province to another. The Supreme Court ruled that EO 626-A was not a valid exercise of police power and violated due process. The law presumed that transporting carabaos meant they would be slaughtered, but it did not allow owners to defend themselves before confiscating the carabaos. By punishing owners without a hearing and giving administrative authorities power to judge guilt, the law encroached on judicial powers and violated separation of powers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    439 views1 page

    Restituto Ynot Vs Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987)

    Uploaded by

    Ei Bin
    EO 626-A banned the movement of carabaos between provinces and the movement and sale of carabeef. Ynot was charged for transporting 6 carabaos from one province to another. The Supreme Court ruled that EO 626-A was not a valid exercise of police power and violated due process. The law presumed that transporting carabaos meant they would be slaughtered, but it did not allow owners to defend themselves before confiscating the carabaos. By punishing owners without a hearing and giving administrative authorities power to judge guilt, the law encroached on judicial powers and violated separation of powers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Restituto Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court [G.R. No.

    74457
    March 20, 1987]
    Police Power Not Validly Exercised

    FACTS: There had been an existing law which prohibited the slaughtering
    of carabaos (EO 626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A
    which not only banned the movement of carabaos from interprovinces but
    as well as the movement of carabeef. On 13 Jan 1984, Ynot was caught
    transporting 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He was then charged in
    violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred EO 626-A as unconstitutional for it
    violated his right to be heard or his right to due process. He said that the
    authority provided by EO 626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos even
    without being heard is unconstitutional. The lower court ruled against Ynot
    ruling that the EO is a valid exercise of police power in order to promote
    general welfare so as to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter of
    carabaos.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid.

    HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as it indeed violates due
    process. EO 626-A ctreated a presumption based on the judgment of the
    executive. The movement of carabaos from one area to the other does not
    mean a subsequent slaughter of the same would ensue. Ynot should be
    given to defend himself and explain why the carabaos are being
    transferred before they can be confiscated. The SC found that the
    challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the
    method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary
    to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is
    violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right
    to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished.
    The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge
    the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial
    functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There
    is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers
    mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution
    of the properties arbitrarily taken.

    You might also like