7/28/2019 People+v+Vera
1/3
People v. Vera (1937, Laurel)
Facts: Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a criminal proceeding
(People v. MarianoCu Unjieng1 G.R. No. L-41200) initiated by a
complaint filed by Hongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation. The
People and complainant HSBC filed a motion forexecution of judgment
and simultaneously, Mariano Cu Unjieng applied for probationunder
Act No. 4221 (Probation Act). Judge Jose Vera of Branch 7 of CFI
Manilasuspended the hearing for execution of judgment to pave way
for the hearing forprobation. The complainant bank questioned the
authority of the judge to holdprobation hearings and assailed the
constitutionality of the Probation Act because itviolates the equal
protection laws and it gives unlawful and improper delegation
oflegislative power to provincial board. The assailed law, by
virtue of Section 11, allowsthe existence of a probationary officer
if the provincial board grants it a salary ashigh as a city fiscal.
The City Fiscal of Manila filed a supplementary petition,
affirmingthe issues raised by the complainant bank, further arguing
that probation is a form ofreprieve and therefore Act No. 4221
encroaches upon the exclusive power of theChief Executive. Both
petitioners filed this original action in the Supreme Court todeal
with the issues.
Issues/Ruling:
1. (Procedural Issue) Whether or not the constitutionality of
Act No. 4221 has beenproperly raised in the proper proceedings?
YES. The general rule is that constitutionality should be raised
in the earliestpossible opportunity, which means during proceedings
in the inferior court.However, Supreme Court is granted concurrent
jurisdiction. When the inferiorcourt or tribunal derives its
jurisdiction exclusively from an unconstitutionalstatute, it may be
prevented by a writ of prohibition from enforcing that
statute.Since the CFI Manila sitting on probation proceedings
derive its jurisdiction fromAct No. 4221, it cannot determine
whether the statute granting them jurisdictionis constitutionally
valid or not. On the second level of the argument of thedefence,
the public prosecutors representing the People of the Philippines
is also
allowed to assail the constitutionality of an act promulgated by
the legislativebecause the State is always interested in the
integrity of its constitution orstatutes involved.
2. (Main Substantive Issue)Whether or not said Act is
constitutional?Theconstitutionality was challenged on the following
grounds:
a. Does the Act encroach upon the pardoning power of the
Executive?
No. Pardoning power belongs to the executive and has the effect
of grantingfull liberty. Probation is completely different, as it
has an effect of temporarysuspension and operates under strict
terms and conditions. It is a manner of
enforcing punishment, a lighter form of penalty provided that
such terms andconditions are deemed complied with. Therefore,
legislative has the power toenact policies regarding probation and
empowering the judiciary to decide onthat penalty.
1FYI, charges were for a complex crime involving forgery
ofquedans. The case itself was on
several motions of the defence particularly the motion for a new
trial.
7/28/2019 People+v+Vera
2/3
b. Does it constitute an undue delegation of
legislativepower?
YES. Under our constitutional system, we follow a separation of
powers inthree independent organs: the executive, legislative and
the judiciary. Thepower to make laws is vested in the judiciary and
an attempt to abdicate the
power is unconstitutional and void under the principlepotestas
delegata nondelegare potest2. The non-delegation principle, however
is not absolute andinflexible and are subject to several
exceptions: (1) Congress could delegatelegislative power to
agencies in certain territories; (2) the Constitution coulddelegate
legislative power; (3) the National Assembly may authorise
thePresident, subject to limitations and restrictions, to fix
tariff rates,import/export quotas, and the like; and (4) the
National Assembly also grantsemergency powers to the president at
times of war. The test of the proprietyof delegation lies on the
completeness of the statute in its terms andprovisions when it left
the hands of legislature so much so that nothing is leftto judgment
of the appointee or delegate of the legislature. The general ruleis
that an act of legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it
does not laydown any rule or definite standards by which the
administrative board may be
guided in the exercise of discretionary powers.
The assailed Act DOES NOT have such rules or definite standards.
It is aroving commission because the provincial board is completely
left to itsarbitrary discretion to decide whether or not they
should apply theProbationary Act, all it has to do is to decline
the appropriate amount neededfor the salary of the probation
officer. This becomes a virtual surrender oflegislative power to
the provincial board, and therefore is unconstitutional.
c. Does it deny equal protection of the laws?
Yes. Due to the undue delegation of legislative power, there
could be arbitraryapplication of the law in the different
provinces. Statutes may be adjudgedunconstitutional because of
their effect in operation. It is possible that all theprovinces
could choose to have a probationary officer, or all could choose
notto have one, and then equal protection would be maintained, but
since this is
just a likely outcome, and it is still possible that there could
be obnoxiousdiscrimination based on each independent provincial
board, the SupremeCourt strikes Sec. 11 of Act No. 4221 on this
level as well.
[Sub-issue on this issue: Should the entire Act be avoided?
Yes. Section 11 is inseparable to the entire Probation Act since
its the provision thatprovides for a probation officer. Without it,
what is left is bare idealism of the system,devoid of any practical
benefit to a large number of people who may be deserving ofthe
intended beneficial results of that system. The probationary
officers designatedunder Section 10 cannot replace the ones in
Section 11 either, because those are the
2Translation: No delegated powers can be further delegated.
