YNOT v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT G.R. No. 74457. March 20, 1987 (CASE DIGEST)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

POLICE POWER

RESTITUTO YNOT, petitioner, v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE STATION COMMANDER, INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE, BAROTAC NUEVO, ILOILO and the REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, REGION IV, ILOILO CITY, respondents.

G.R. No. 74457. March 20, 1987

CRUZ, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner in this case 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 the violation of E.O. No. 626-A which prohibits the slaughter of carabaos except under certain conditions. Petitioner sued for recovery, and the trial Court of Iloilo issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of twelve thousand pesos (P 12, 000.00). After considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the confiscation of the said 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 E.O, as raised by the petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its presumed validity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the said Executive Order is unconstitutional.

RULING:

Yes, though police power was invoked by the government in this case for the reason that the present condition demand that the carabaos and the buffaloes be conserved for the benefit of the small farmers who rely on them for energy needs, it does not however, comply with the second requisite for a valid exercise of the said power which is, "that there be a lawful method." The reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing. 

The challenged measure 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 and, worse, is unduly oppressive. To justify the State in the imposition of its authority in behalf of the public, it must be:

1) The interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference;

2) that the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Full text: The Lawphil Project