Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Ynot vs. Iac

    Uploaded by

    Christopher Anniban Salipio
    The Supreme Court ruled Executive Order 626-A unconstitutional in the case of Ynot v. IAC. [1] The executive order instituted an absolute ban on transporting carabaos and carabeef between provinces and allowed for outright confiscation without due process. [2] Ynot had six carabaos confiscated for transporting them between provinces. [3] The Supreme Court found the executive order violated due process rights and constituted an invalid delegation of legislative power to the executive branch.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ynot vs. Iac

    Uploaded by

    Christopher Anniban Salipio
    49 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled Executive Order 626-A unconstitutional in the case of Ynot v. IAC. [1] The executive order instituted an absolute ban on transporting carabaos and carabeef between provinces and allowed for outright confiscation without due process. [2] Ynot had six carabaos confiscated for transporting them between provinces. [3] The Supreme Court found the executive order violated due process rights and constituted an invalid delegation of legislative power to the executive branch.

    Original Description:

    YNOT VS. IAC

    Original Title

    YNOT VS. IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled Executive Order 626-A unconstitutional in the case of Ynot v. IAC. [1] The executive order instituted an absolute ban on transporting carabaos and carabeef between provinces and allowed for outright confiscation without due process. [2] Ynot had six carabaos confiscated for transporting them between provinces. [3] The Supreme Court found the executive order violated due process rights and constituted an invalid delegation of legislative power to the executive branch.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views2 pages

    Ynot vs. Iac

    Uploaded by

    Christopher Anniban Salipio
    The Supreme Court ruled Executive Order 626-A unconstitutional in the case of Ynot v. IAC. [1] The executive order instituted an absolute ban on transporting carabaos and carabeef between provinces and allowed for outright confiscation without due process. [2] Ynot had six carabaos confiscated for transporting them between provinces. [3] The Supreme Court found the executive order violated due process rights and constituted an invalid delegation of legislative power to the executive branch.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    YNOT v.

    IAC
    G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987
    CRUZ, J.:

    FACTS

    President Marcos’s Executive Order No. 626-A decreed an absolute ban on the
    inter-provincial transportation of carabao and carabeef. Transported carabao or
    carabeef in violation of this order shall be confiscated and forfeited by the
    government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions. The
    Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) shall distribute the
    carabeef as he may see fit. The carabaos, on the other hand, shall be given to
    deserving farmers as the Director of Animal Industry (AI) may also see fit.

    Restituto Ynot had transported six carabaos in a boat from the province of
    Masbate to the province of Iloilo. The police confiscated these for violating EO 626-A.
    Ynot filed a case for recovery, which the RTC granted upon his filing of supersede as
    bond worth Php 12,000. The lower court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos,
    and as they can no longer be produced, directed the confiscation of the bond. The
    court refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of the executive order, on the
    grounds of want of authority and presumed validity. On appeal to the Intermediate
    Appellate Court, such ruling was upheld. With this, petitioner Ynot asserts that EO 626-A
    is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation, and that its penalty
    suffers from invalidity because it is imposed without giving the owner a right to be heard
    before a competent and impartial court—as guaranteed by due process and invalidly
    delegated legislative power.

    ISSUE

    1. Whether or not Executive Order 626-A is valid

    HELD

    1. NO, the Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Order is not valid as it violates
    due process and the delegation of legislative power. A presumption was treated
    in accordance with EO 626-A, a 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 the chance to defend himself and
    explain why the carabaos are being transferred before they can be confiscated.
    The Supreme Court 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.

    Also, there is a clear invalid delegation of legislative power. The manner


    by which the disposition of the confiscated property clearly presents invalid
    delegation by granting the officers, the Chairman and Director of the NMIC and
    AI respectively, unlimited discretion. The usual standard and reasonable
    guidelines that said officers must observe in making the distribution are not
    present; instead, they are to proceed on it as they may see fit. This makes the
    exercise prone to partiality and abuse, and even corruption.

    You might also like