CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ATTY. FELONGCO M.E.V. R.

VILLAGONZALO

WHO MAY EXERCISE JUDICIAL REVIEW

CASE 21: Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74457, 20 March 1987

Facts/ Timeline:
Ynot transported 6 carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo, which were confiscated by the
Police Station Commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo (1/13/1984). Ynot sued for recovery, and the RTC
issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of PHP 12K. RTC reviewed the case,
but it upheld the decision of the seizure and kept the bond as well, and also refused to decide on
constitutionality EO 626 because they said they don’t have the authority to do such.

Ynot appealed to the IAC, which upheld RTC’s decision, so Ynot filed a petition to review on certiorari,
wherein the main issue of the petition was whether or not EO 626 is unconstitutional. Ynot claims
that the penalty is INVALID because he was not given the chance to defend himself, which was
against the Due Process Clause. He further argued that EO 626’s constitutionality should not be
assumed & should be examined. Ynot also questioned whether the President can even exercise
legislative powers.

Ynot also argued that the EO functioned more like a Presidential Decree, which is allowed though
because under Amendment No. 6, Presidents can issue decrees, orders, and letters of instruction.
However, this can only be done DURING EMERGENCIES OR WHEN THERE IS A THREAT OR WHEN
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH CANNOT ACT IMMEDIATELY. Given that Ynot’s case did not require
such urgency, Ynot has the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

EO 626 states that it is not allowed to slaughter carabaos because there are small farmers that rely on
them, and these are necessary for the energy crisis. Ynot’s defense is that the Due Process Clause was
not upheld in his case.
● [DPC] ensures fairness and protection of individual rights; was derived from the Magna Carta
in 1215 → no life, liberty, or property can be taken without lawful judgment and due process.
Each one has the right to a fair and open hearing when facing legal consequences.
● The minimum requisites for the DPC are notice & hearing. However, these two can be
disregarded in the name of police power, which depends on the nature of the issue and the
immediate need to protect general welfare.
- Remember: Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex & Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas

Ynot raised the question on the second requisite of EO 626 (Lawful Method). Yes, EO 626-A prohibits
the slaughtering and interprovincial transportation of carabaos. There was no connection between
the means of the seizure and the intended goal of the EO. How can prohibiting the interprovincial
transportation of carabaos effectively keep them from getting slaughtered when they can be
slaughtered anywhere? The penalty faced by Ynot was too harsh because there was no immediate
harm caused by Ynot.

Issues:
1. WoN EO 626 is unconstitutional for going against the Due Process Clause
2. WoN the case of Penigan v Angeles should be revisited
3. WoN the case of US v Tiribio should be revisited
4. Who may exercise the power of Judicial Review?

Rule of Law/ Principle & Application:

1. Yes! To validly exercise police power, these requisites must be present: (a) Public interest requires
such interference, and; (b) The means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose. What makes EO 626-A unconstitutional?
● The treatment of the confiscated goods is questionable because it states that government
institutions will do what they will with the confiscated goods what they deem fits the
situation. This creates room for potential grave abuse of discretion– it lacks clear standards or
limits.
● EO 626-A also fails to meet the basic requisite of reasonable necessity, and it violates the Due
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ATTY. FELONGCO M.E.V. R. VILLAGONZALO

Process Law.
● EO 626-A also encroaches on judicial functions and has improper delegation of legislative
powers.

2. NO! Because that case was irrelevant. It centered on WoN an EO should be published first in the
Official Gazette before enforced.

3. Yes! That case involved a law that prevented the killing of carabaos due to their scarcity, so the State
imposed better registration & branding. Following the principles of this precedent, EO 626 restricts
carabao slaughter, unless with a permit and carabaos have reached a specific age (7 for males, 11 for
females). The legislative intent is to prevent the depletion of carabaos.

4. The PH legal system allows lower courts to hear and decide constitutional questions, and whatever
their decisions may be, can be reviewed by higher courts (hierarchy of courts). Although laws are
presumed constitutional, this is not absolute and can be challenged especially when the law is clearly
invalid, so it must be declared as such.

Conclusion:
EO 626-A was declared unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeal’s decision was then reversed.
Ynot’s supersedeas bond was canceled, and his property was restored to him. No costs were imposed.