De Leon vs.

Esguerra
G.R. No. 78059 August 31, 1987

Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987

Facts:

Facts:

On May 17, 1982, pursuant to BP 222, a barangay election was held

wherein petitioner De Leon was elected as Brgy. Captain, and his 5 co-petitioners
were elected as Brgy. Councilmen of Brgy. Dolores, Taytay, Rizal.
On February 9, 1987, De Leon received a memorandum (antedated Dec. 1,
1986) signed on February 8, 1987 by herein respondent OIC Gov. Esguerra
designating another co-respondent Magno as Brgy. Captain. A memorandum of the
same nature was also signed by Esguerra on Feb. 8, 1987, designating other 5 corespondents as councilmen.
De Leon and his 5 co-petitioners filed petition for prohibition with Supreme
Court praying that said memoranda be declared null and void. Petitioners argued
that they had 6-year term of office under BP222 and that Respondent Esguerra no
longer had the authority to replace them, under Provisional Constitution, because
the 1987 Constitution was already ratified. In defense, Respondent Esguerra derived
his argument from 2, Art. 3 of PC.

On January 13, 1984, petitioner Restituto Ynot transported six carabaos in a

pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo. Upon arrival in Iloilo, the police station
commander confiscated the carabaos alleging violation of EO 626-A (amending E.O
626 an order prohibiting slaughtering of carabaos and buffalos for the protection
of small farmers). Said EO 626-A prohibited interprovincial movement of carabaos
and carabeefs; while giving discretion to govt officers to decide regarding the
confiscated carabaos and carabeefs.
Petitioner sued for recovery with RTC of Iloilo claiming that EO 626-A is
unconstitutional. Without ruling on the constitutionality issue, RTC sustained the
confiscation of the carabaos. Petitioner filed an appeal with IAC but was denied.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of EO 626-A on the grounds of: 1)
lack of due process as there was outright denial of right to be heard; 2) improper
exercise of legislative power.

Issue:

Issue:

W/N Memoranda issued by OIC Respondent pursuant to 2, Art. 3 of PC are

null and void.

Ruling:

Ruling:
Yes! 1987 Constitution was ratified and took effect on February 2, 1987,
which means 2, Art. 3 of PC must be deemed to have overtaken by 7, Art. XVII of
the 1987 Constitution.
The 6-year term under BP 222 is still operative there being no inconsistency
between said law and the 1987 Constitution (8 Art. X).
Petition is GRANTED! Memoranda are both declared null and void.
f. Interpretation/Construction:
(As discussed in concurring opinion of CJ Teehankee answering one lone dissent)
The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987 the date of ratification and
not on February 11, 1987 the date of announcement of its ratification.
The record of the proceedings of the constitutional convention supports this view.

W/N EO626-A is constitutional.

Yes! EO 626-A is an invalid exercise of police power because the method

employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of
the law.
Due process is violated because the owner of property confiscated is
denied the right to be heard, and is immediately condemned and punished.
Moreover, the power to adjudge the guilt of supposed offender is clear
encroachment of judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation
of powers.
There is invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned
therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties
arbitrarily taken.
Petition is GRANTED! IAC (Court of Appeals) decision is reversed.
a. Who may exercise the power of Judicial Review?
SC: The lower courts are not prevented from resolving constitutional questions.
We 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.
*Presumption of constitutionality is not conclusive and maybe rebutted. 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.