Ynot vs
Intermediate Appellate Court
Facts:
The case was about the constitutionality of EO 626-A which prohibits
interprovincial movement of carabaos.
The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate
to Iloilo on January 13, 1984, when they were confiscated by the police station
commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of the above measure. 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. 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.
Held:
The due
process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain also
conveniently resilient. This was felt necessary
because due process is not, like some provisions of the fundamental law, an
"iron rule" laying down an implacable and immutable command for all
seasons and all persons. Flexibility must be the best virtue of the guaranty.
The very elasticity of the due process clause was meant to make it adapt easily
to every situation, enlarging or constricting its protection as the changing
times and circumstances may require.
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 a
gratifying commentary on our judicial system that the jurisprudence of this
country is rich with applications of this guaranty as proof of our fealty to
the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fair play. We have consistently
declared that every person, faced by the awesome power of the State, is
entitled to "the law of the land," which Daniel Webster described
almost two hundred years ago in the famous Dartmouth College Case, as "the
law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial." It has to be so if the rights of every person
are to be secured beyond the reach of officials who, out of mistaken zeal or
plain arrogance, would degrade the due process clause into a worn and empty
catchword.
It has
already been remarked that there are occasions when notice and hearing may be
validly dispensed with notwithstanding the usual requirement for these minimum
guarantees of due process. It is also conceded that summary action may be
validly taken in administrative proceedings as procedural due process is not
necessarily judicial only. In the exceptional cases accepted, however there is
a justification for the omission of the right to a previous hearing, to wit,
the immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and the urgency of the need
to correct it.
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.
EO 626-A was declared unconstitutional.
