Restituto Ynot was transporting six carabaos by boat when police confiscated them, citing Executive Order 626-A which prohibited interprovincial transportation of carabaos. Ynot challenged the order's constitutionality. The Supreme Court held that the executive order was unconstitutional as it denied Ynot due process by convicting and punishing him without a court hearing. The order also improperly delegated legislative powers. While lower courts should observe modesty in constitutional questions, they have jurisdiction to resolve such issues subject to Supreme Court review.
Restituto Ynot was transporting six carabaos by boat when police confiscated them, citing Executive Order 626-A which prohibited interprovincial transportation of carabaos. Ynot challenged the order's constitutionality. The Supreme Court held that the executive order was unconstitutional as it denied Ynot due process by convicting and punishing him without a court hearing. The order also improperly delegated legislative powers. While lower courts should observe modesty in constitutional questions, they have jurisdiction to resolve such issues subject to Supreme Court review.
Restituto Ynot was transporting six carabaos by boat when police confiscated them, citing Executive Order 626-A which prohibited interprovincial transportation of carabaos. Ynot challenged the order's constitutionality. The Supreme Court held that the executive order was unconstitutional as it denied Ynot due process by convicting and punishing him without a court hearing. The order also improperly delegated legislative powers. While lower courts should observe modesty in constitutional questions, they have jurisdiction to resolve such issues subject to Supreme Court review.
Restituto Ynot was transporting six carabaos by boat when police confiscated them, citing Executive Order 626-A which prohibited interprovincial transportation of carabaos. Ynot challenged the order's constitutionality. The Supreme Court held that the executive order was unconstitutional as it denied Ynot due process by convicting and punishing him without a court hearing. The order also improperly delegated legislative powers. While lower courts should observe modesty in constitutional questions, they have jurisdiction to resolve such issues subject to Supreme Court review.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
RESTITUTO YNOT, petitioner,
vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE STATION COMMANDER, INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE, BAROTAC NUEVO, ILOILO and THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, REGION IV, ILOILO CITY, respondents. G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987
FACTS: Restituto Ynot the petitioner was transporting six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo, when he was apprehended by the Police Station Commander of Iloilo and had his “goods” confiscated. The arrest was based on the violation of Executive Order No. 626-A by President Marcos Executive Order No. 626: prohibiting the interprovincial transportation of carabao and carabeef regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose… and shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the government. The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. After considering the merits of the case, the court sustained; the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond and the court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raise by the petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its presumed validity. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which upheld the trial court, in this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A. Petitioner contends that the penalty is invalid because it is imposed without according the owner a right to be heard before a competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process. He complains that the measure should not have been presumed, and so sustained, as constitutional. There is also a challenge to the improper exercise of the legislative power by the former President under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: a) Whether the Exec. Order is constitutional? b) Whether lower courts can entertain constitutionality questions? HELD: Executive Order No. 626 in UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The executive order defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. The measure struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner without giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him due process. Executive Order No. 626-A is penal in nature, the violation thereof should have been pronounced not by the police only but by a court of justice, which alone would have had the authority to impose the prescribed penalty, and only after trial and conviction of the accused. While it is true that laws are presumed to be constitutional, that presumption is not by any means conclusive and in fact may be rebutted. Indeed, if there be a clear showing of their invalidity, and of the need to declare them so, then "will be the time to make the hammer fall, and heavily," to recall Justice Laurel's trenchant warning. 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. For these reasons, we hereby declare Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional. Lower Courts CAN entertain constitutionality questions. This Court has declared that while lower courts should observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions, they are nonetheless not prevented from resolving the same whenever warranted, subject only to review by the highest tribunal. They have jurisdiction under the Constitution to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may provide," final judgments and orders of lower courts in, among others, all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures. This simply means that the resolution of such cases may be made in the first instance by these lower courts. (Art. VIII, s.5, par.2) WHEREFORE, Executive Order No. 626-A is hereby declared unconstitutional. Except as affirmed above, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The supersedeas bond is cancelled and the amount thereof is ordered restored to the petitioner. No costs.
