Primary Holding

Executive Order No. 626-A is unconstitutional because it violated due process by allowing confiscation of property without prior hearing, employed means not reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose, conferred judicial functions on administrative authorities, and contained an invalid delegation of legislative powers.

Background

The case arose during the Marcos regime when the government sought to protect carabaos (water buffalos) as essential farm animals by prohibiting their transportation across provincial boundaries, with the aim of preventing their indiscriminate slaughter.

Facts

• 1. Executive Order No. 626 originally prohibited the slaughter of carabaos except under certain conditions (at least 7 years old for male, 11 years old for female)
• 2. President Marcos issued Executive Order No. 626-A on October 25, 1980, amending the original order to prohibit the interprovincial transport of carabaos and carabeef
• 3. The executive order mandated outright confiscation and forfeiture of carabaos/carabeef transported across provincial boundaries
• 4. Petitioner transported six carabaos via pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, 1984
• 5. The carabaos were confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo
• 6. Petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a P12,000 supersedeas bond
• 7. When the carabaos could not be produced, the court ordered the confiscation of the bond instead

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The executive order is unconstitutional as it authorizes outright confiscation without according the owner the right to be heard
• 2. The penalty is invalid because it is imposed without due process
• 3. The law should not have been presumed constitutional
• 4. The executive order involves an improper exercise of legislative power by the former President under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The Solicitor General argued that the Supreme Court had implicitly affirmed the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A in the case of Pesigan v. Angeles
• 2. The law was presumptively valid at the time it was enforced
• 3. The police station commander was not liable for enforcing the executive order in accordance with its mandate

Issues

• 1. Whether it is a valid exercise of police power
• 2. Whether the penalty of outright confiscation without hearing violates due process
• 3. Whether there is improper exercise of legislative power by the former President
• 4. Whether there is invalid delegation of legislative powers to administrative officers

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court declared Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional for multiple reasons:
• 2. While the carabao has direct relevance to public welfare and is a lawful subject for regulation (as established in United States v. Toribio), the method employed in E.O. 626-A is not reasonably necessary and is unduly oppressive
• 3. The prohibition on interprovincial transport has no reasonable connection to preventing indiscriminate slaughter, as carabaos can be killed anywhere
• 4. Due process is violated because the owner is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished
• 5. The conferment on administrative authorities of the power to adjudge guilt is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and violates the doctrine of separation of powers
• 6. There is invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned (Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission and Director of Animal Industry) who are given unlimited discretion in distributing the confiscated property
• 7. However, the police officer who confiscated the carabaos is not liable in damages for enforcing the presumptively valid executive order

Doctrines

• 1. Due Process: The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing, which generally may not be dispensed with as they safeguard against official arbitrariness
• 2. Police Power: The power inherent in the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare
• 3. Separation of Powers: Powers of government are divided among three branches, and encroachment by one branch upon another's functions is generally prohibited
• 4. Delegation of Legislative Powers: Legislative powers cannot be delegated without reasonable standards or guidelines

Key Excerpts

• 1. "The essence of due process is distilled in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Alcibiades: 'Strike — but hear me first!'"
• 2. "The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain also conveniently resilient."
• 3. "Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, would go no farther than to define due process — and in so doing sums it all up — as nothing more and nothing less than 'the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.'"
• 4. "The closed mind has no place in the open society. It is part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear 'the other side' before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment."
• 5. "The strength of democracy lies not in the rights it guarantees but in the courage of the people to invoke them whenever they are ignored or violated."
• 6. "Rights are but weapons on the wall if, like expensive tapestry, all they do is embellish and impress. Rights, as weapons, must be a promise of protection."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Pesigan v. Angeles (129 SCRA 174): Cited to distinguish the issue in that case (requirement of previous publication) from the constitutionality issue raised in the present case
• 2. United States v. Toribio (15 Phil. 85): Cited as precedent for a similar prohibition on the slaughter of carabaos, which was sustained as a valid police measure due to the necessity of preserving carabaos for agricultural needs
• 3. Dartmouth College Case: Referenced for Daniel Webster's description of due process as "the law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial"

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution: Granted the President legislative authority when in his judgment there existed a grave emergency or whenever the legislature failed to act adequately
• 2. Section 5[2(a)], Article X, 1973 Constitution and Section 5[2(a)], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution: Granting the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review final judgments and orders involving the constitutionality of certain measures