Practice question
An established immediate public-health danger requires summary action concerning inherently contaminated food. An objector argues the absence of a prior hearing automatically invalidates any protective action regardless of urgency or the property’s nature. Which is best under Ynot?
- The objector is invariably correct
- The court must assess the genuine summary-action justification; prior hearing is not an exceptionless requirement
- Any official may destroy all unrelated property as well
- The emergency permanently abolishes due process
- Only political approval determines validity
Legal references
- Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/mar1987/gr_l-74457_1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.