G.R. No. 74457
March 20, 1987
Facts
The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo. Thereafter, the the police station commander confiscated the carabaos as the act was in violation of Executive Order No. 626-A issued by former President Marcos. Petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of supersedeas bond of P12,000. Further, the RTC sustained the confiscation of the carabao and ordered the confiscation of the bond. The RTC declined to rule on constitutionality for alleged lack of authority. Petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Appelate Court who affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
EO No. 626-A prohibits the inter-provincial movement of carabeef and carabaos regardless of age, sex, and physical condition. Violation of the said order shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos.
Petitioner now prays that EO No. 626-A be declared unconstitutional for it authorizes outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being transported across provincial boundaries. His claim is that the penalty is invalid because it is imposed without according the owner a right to be heard before a competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process.
Issues
- Whether or not the exercise of police power i.e. the enactment of EO No. 626-A is reasonable enough to dispense the right to due process?
- Whether or not the guaranty of due process which includes notice and hearing be dispensed in this case?
Held
First Issue
No. Police power is defined as the power of the State to regulate liberty and property in order to promote general welfare. In US v Toribio, the State is justified in using police power provided that (1) the statute was required by public interest as distinguished form those of a particular class and (2) the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive to individuals.
In this case, the first requisite is satisfied since the Statute was required by public interest, i.e. the Carabao as a poor man man’s tractor has a direct relevance to the public welfare and so is a lawful subject of EO No. 626-A. However, the second requisite was not satisfied since the means are unreasonable or there is an unlawful method – the prohibition of the inter-provincial transport of carabaos cannot prevent their indiscriminate slaughter, considering that they can be killed anywhere, with no less difficulty in one province than in another.
Therefore, the enactment of EO No 626-A, considering that it does not justify the use of police power by the State, is not reasonable to dispense the right to due process.
Second Issue
No. There are occasions when notice and hearing can be dispensed with even if it is the minimum requirement of due process. An example would be a summary action that may be validly taken in administrative proceedings as procedural due process is not necessarily judicial in nature. However, the exception to notice and hearing requirement of due process is conditioned upon the (1) immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and (2) urgency of the need to correct it.
In this case, there was no immediacy nor the need to correct the problem since there was no pressure of time or action calling for the petitioner’s peremptory treatment and the properties involved were not even inimical per se as to require their instant destruction. With this, there should be no reason why the action prohibited by the Court be first proven in the Court of Justice with the accused being accorded all the rights safeguarded to him under the Constitution.
Hence, the guarantee of due process such as notice and hearing should not be dispensed with.