YNOT V IAC 148 SCRA 659

of carabaos except those seven years old if male and eleven if female upon issuance
of a permit adequately works for the conservation of those still fit for farm work or
FACTS: There had been an existing law which prohibited the slaughtering of
breeding, and prevention of their improvident depletion.
carabaos (EO 626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A which not only
Here, while EO 626-A has the same lawful subject, it fails to observe the second
banned the movement of carabaos from one province to another but as well as the
requirement. Notably, said EO imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter of the
movement of carabeef. On 13 Jan 1984, Ynot was caught transporting 6 carabaos
carabaos but on their movement. The object of the prohibition is unclear. The
from Masbate to Iloilo. He was then charged in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred
reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be
that EO 626-A was unconstitutional for it violated his right to be heard or his right to
achieved by the disputed measure is missing. It is not clear how the interprovincial
due process. He said that the authority provided by EO 626-A to outrightly
transport of the animals can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter, as they can be
confiscate carabaos even without being heard is unconstitutional. The lower court
killed anywhere, with no less difficulty in one province than in another. Obviously,
ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid exercise of police power in order to
retaining them in one province will not prevent their slaughter there, any more that
promote general welfare so as to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos.
moving them to another will make it easier to kill them there. Even if assuming there
was a reasonable relation between the means and the end, the penalty is invalid as
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 626-A is valid exercise of police power. it amounts to outright confiscation, denying petitioner a chance to be heard. Unlike
in the Toribio case, here, no trial is prescribed and the property being transported is
DECISION: WHEREFORE, Executive Order No. 626-A is hereby declared immediately impounded by the police and declared as forfeited for the government.
unconstitutional. Except as affirmed above, the decision of the Court of Appeals is Concededly, there are certain occasions when notice and hearing can be validly
reversed. The supersedeas bond is cancelled and the amount thereof is ordered dispensed with, such as summary abatement of a public nuisance, summary
restored to the petitioner. No costs. destruction of pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs.
However, these are justified for reasons of immediacy of the problem sought to
RATIONALE: The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of be corrected and urgency of the need to correct it. In the instant case, no such
the police power which both restraints and is restrained by due process. The police pressure is present.
power is simply defined as the power inherent in the State to regulate liberty and
property for the promotion of the general welfare. By reason of its function, it Ynot should be given to defend himself and explain why the carabaos are being
extends to all the great public needs and is described as the most pervasive, the least transferred before they can be confiscated. The SC found that the challenged
limitable and the most demanding of the three inherent powers of the State, far measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to
outpacing taxation and eminent domain. The individual, as a member of society, is conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and,
hemmed in by the police power, which affects him even before he is born and worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the
follows him still after he is dead — from the womb to beyond the tomb — in property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately
practically everything he does or owns. Its reach is virtually limitless. It is a condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the
ubiquitous and often unwelcome intrusion. Even so, as long as the activity or the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on
property has some relevance to the public welfare, its regulation under the police judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There
power is not only proper but necessary. And the justification is found in the is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned
venerable Latin maxims, Salus populi est suprema lex and Sic utere tuo ut alienum therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties
non laedas, which call for the subordination of individual interests to the benefit of arbitrarily taken. Neither there was usual standard nor reasonable guidelines that
the greater number. said officers must observe, instead, they are to go about it as they may see fit.
Obviously, this makes the exercise prone to partiality and abuse, and even
To warrant a valid exercise of police power, the following must be present: (a) that corruption.
the interests of the public, generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require such interference, and; (b) that the means are reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the purpose. In US v. Toribio, the Court has ruled that EO
626 complies with the above requirements—that is, the carabao, as a poor man’s
tractor so to speak, has a direct relevance to the public welfare and so is a lawful
subject of the order, and that the method chosen is also reasonably necessary for the
purpose sought to be achieved and not unduly oppressive. The ban of the slaughter