POLITICAL LAW 1 - III.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
CASE #3/C
RESTITUTO YNOT, petitioner (WON)
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT et al., respondent
GR. No. 74457| March 20, 1987
(Corazon Aquino; 1986-1992)

CRUZ, J:

THESIS STATEMENT:
Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A stating that:
“No carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be
transported from one province to another.” Violation of this Executive Order shall be subject to
confiscation and forfeiture. – Ferdinand E. Marcos
FACTS:
(1) Petitioner Ynot had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo when they
were confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of
the above measure.
(2) Petitioner Ynot 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.
(3) After considering the merits of the case, the court continued the confiscation of the carabaos,
the Court ordered the confiscation of the bond.
(4) The RTC also declined to rile on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raised by
petitioner, for the lack of authority and also for its presumed validity.
(5) The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court which supported
the trial court and has then come to the Supreme Court for a petition for certiorari.
ARGUMENTS:
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
 The EO is unconstitutional to the extent of  No response from RTC or IAC.
it authorizing outright confiscation of the  Both didn’t challenge the constitutionality
carabao or carabeef being transported of the executive order for they believed
across provincial boundaries. they lacked authority to do so and they
 Penalty is invalid because it is imposed just presumed its validity.
without rendering the owner a right to be  Hence why it was brought up to the
heard before a court as guaranteed by Supreme Court for certiorari.
due process.
 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.
CASE DIGEST | POLITICAL LAW
 POLITICAL LAW 1 - III. JUDICIAL REVIEW

ISSUES:
Whether or not the Executive Order No. 626 – A is constitutional.

RULING:
Court finds that what the police did is an invalid exercise of the police power. 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 bestowal of power to administrative authorities
to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear violation on judicial functions and
influences against the doctrine of separation of powers. There was an invalid delegation of
legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the
distribution of the properties randomly taken.
DECISION:
Executive Order No. 626-A is hereby declared unconstitutional. 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.
THE COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER.
DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLE:
The Doctrine/Principle of Primary Jurisdiction; Lower courts have authority to resolve the issue of
constitutionality of legislative measures. 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.
RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE “POWERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW”:
The Supreme Court has 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 judgements and orders of lower
courts in, among others, all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures.
SUPPORTING DETAILS:
Writ of Replevin – a provisional remedy that provides instant relief to the person being deprived of
his property.
Supersedeas Bond – required in a court of law when a defendant wants to appeal a ruling to a
higher court.
Art. 6 of the 1973 Philippine Constitution – which provides that while the lifting of Martial Law
terminates the power of the President to legislate, he may still do so in cases of grave emergency
or threats or whenever the Batasang Pambansa fails to act on any matter that in his judgment
requires immediate action.

CASE DIGEST | POLITICAL LAW