People v.

Vera (1937, Laurel)

Facts: Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a criminal proceeding (People v.
Mariano Cu Unjieng1 G.R. No. L-41200) initiated by a complaint filed by Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation. The People and complainant HSBC filed a
motion for execution of judgment and simultaneously, Mariano Cu Unjieng applied
for probation under Act No. 4221 (Probation Act). Judge Jose Vera of Branch 7 of
CFI Manila suspended the hearing for execution of judgment to pave way for the
hearing for probation. The complainant bank questioned the authority of the judge
to hold probation hearings and assailed the constitutionality of the Probation Act
because it violates the equal protection laws and it gives unlawful and improper
delegation of legislative power to provincial board. The assailed law, by virtue of
Section 11, allows the existence of a probationary officer if the provincial board
grants it a salary as high as a city fiscal. The City Fiscal of Manila filed a
supplementary petition, affirming the issues raised by the complainant bank, further
arguing that probation is a form of reprieve and therefore Act No. 4221 encroaches
upon the exclusive power of the Chief Executive. Both petitioners filed this original
action in the Supreme Court to deal with the issues.
Issues/Ruling:
1. (Procedural Issue) Whether or not the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 has been
properly raised in the proper proceedings?
YES. The general rule is that constitutionality should be raised in the earliest
possible opportunity, which means during proceedings in the inferior court.
However, Supreme Court is granted concurrent jurisdiction. When the inferior
court or tribunal derives its jurisdiction exclusively from an unconstitutional
statute, it may be prevented by a writ of prohibition from enforcing that statute.
Since the CFI Manila sitting on probation proceedings derive its jurisdiction
from Act No. 4221, it cannot determine whether the statute granting them
jurisdiction is constitutionally valid or not. On the second level of the argument
of the defence, the public prosecutors representing the People of the Philippines
is also allowed to assail the constitutionality of an act promulgated by the
legislative because the State is always interested in the integrity of its
constitution or statutes involved.
2. (Main Substantive Issue) Whether or not said Act is constitutional? The
constitutionality 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 granting
full liberty. Probation is completely different, as it has an effect of temporary
suspension and operates under strict terms and conditions. It is a manner of
enforcing punishment, a lighter form of penalty provided that such terms and
conditions are deemed complied with. Therefore, legislative has the power to
enact policies regarding probation and empowering the judiciary to decide
on that penalty.

b. Does it constitute an undue delegation of legislative

power?
YES. Under our constitutional system, we follow a separation of powers in
three independent organs: the executive, legislative and the judiciary. The
power to make laws is vested in the judiciary and an attempt to abdicate the
1

FYI, charges were for a complex crime involving forgery of quedans. The case itself was on
several motions of the defence particularly the motion for a new trial.

power is unconstitutional and void under the principle potestas delegata non
delegare potest2. The non-delegation principle, however is not absolute and
inflexible and are subject to several exceptions: (1) Congress could delegate
legislative power to agencies in certain territories; (2) the Constitution could
delegate legislative power; (3) the National Assembly may authorise the
President, subject to limitations and restrictions, to fix tariff rates,
import/export quotas, and the like; and (4) the National Assembly also grants
emergency powers to the president at times of war. The test of the propriety
of delegation lies on the completeness of the statute in its terms and
provisions when it left the hands of legislature so much so that nothing is left
to judgment of the appointee or delegate of the legislature. The general rule
is that an act of legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay
down 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 a
roving commission because the provincial board is completely left to its
arbitrary discretion to decide whether or not they should apply the
Probationary Act, all it has to do is to decline the appropriate amount needed
for the salary of the probation officer. This becomes a virtual surrender of
legislative 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
arbitrary application of the law in the different provinces. Statutes may be
adjudged unconstitutional because of their effect in operation. It is possible
that all the provinces could choose to have a probationary officer, or all could
choose not to 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
obnoxious discrimination based on each independent provincial board, the
Supreme Court 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 that
provides 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 of the intended beneficial results of that system. The probationary officers
designated under Section 10 cannot replace the ones in Section 11 either, because
those are the ones reporting to the main office of the Department of Justice in
Manila.]

Translation: No delegated powers can be further delegated.