Case Digest: Restituto Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et. al.

G.R. No. 74457      20 March 1987

Ponente: Cruz, J.

FACTS:

The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo in January 1984, when they were confiscated by the police station commander for violation of E.O. No. 626-A which prohibits the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of carabaos not complying with the requirements of E.O. No. 626 (except when the carabo is seven years old if male, and eleven years old if female).  The penalty is confiscation of the carabaos and/or the carabeef.

ISSUE:

Whether E.O. No. 626-A is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the outright confiscation of carabao and carabeef being transported across provincial boundaries, thus denying due process.

RULING:

The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain so conveniently resilient for due process is not an “iron rule.”  Flexibility must be the best virtue of guaranty.  The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing which, generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because they are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness.

It is noted that E.O. No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement.  The reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the question of measure is missing.  Even if there was a reasonable relation, the penalty being an outright confiscation and a supersedeas bond of Php12,000.00.  The executive order defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment, thus denying the centuries-old guaranty of elementary fair play.

To sum up, it was 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 is unduly oppressive.  Due process is violated for the owner was denied the right to hear his defense and was not seen fit to assert and protect his rights.  Executive Order No. 626-A is hereby declared unconstitutional, and the superseceas bond is cancelled.

Case Digest: Ichong, et. al. vs. Hernandez, etc. and Sarmiento

FACTS:

R.A. No. 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” was passed that nationalizes the retail trade business by prohibiting against persons not citizens of the Philippines, as well as associations, partnerships or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade with the exception of U.S. citizens and juridical entities.  Aliens are required to present registration to the proper authorities a verified statement concerning their businesses.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines; and
2. Whether the provisions of the Act violates the due process of law

RULING:

1. There is no merit in this contention.  The UN Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations.  The Treaty of Amity between China and the Philippines guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals “upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country,” and is therefore not violated for all nationals except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade.
2. A cursory study of the provisions of the law show that it is reasonable as it is made prospective and recognizes the right and privilege of those already engaged in the occupation to continue therein during the rest of their lives.  Furthermore, the test of the validity of a law attacked as a violation of due process, is not in its reasonableness but its unreasonableness and the Court found that these provisions are not unreasonable.