People v.

Vera

Summary Cases:

● People vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56

Subject:

Jurisdiction over constitutionality challenge, Equal protection of laws, Undue delegation of legislative
powers, Pardon vs Probation

Facts:

The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment of conviction against Mariano Cu Unjieng
sentencing him to imprisonment (under indeterminate sentence) and to pay costs to Hongkong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation. After several unsuccessful motions, final judgment was entered on
December 18, 1935.

Mariano Cu Unjieng applied for probation on November 27, 1936 under the provisions of Act No. 4221.

The City Fiscal of Manila opposed the granting of probation and questioned the constitutionality of Act
No. 4221 on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws for the
reason that its applicability is not uniform throughout the Islands (i.e., nowhere in the law is it stated that
it is applicable to a city like Manila; it is indicated therein that only provinces are covered)

It is also alleged that Act No. 4221 is an undue delegation of legislative power to the provincial boards of
several provinces because Section 11 of the said Act endows the provincial boards with the power to
make said law effective or otherwise in their respective provinces.

Further, the said probation law may be an encroachment of the power of the executive to provide pardon
because providing probation, in effect, is granting freedom.

Held:

| Page 1 of 3
Constitutionality Issue and Jurisdiction

1. The general rule is that constitutionality should be raised in the earliest possible opportunity, which
means during the proceedings in the inferior court. However, Supreme Court is granted concurrent
jurisdiction.

2. 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 of Manila sitting on
probation proceedings derived its jurisdiction from Act No. 4221, it cannot determine whether the statute
granting them jurisdiction is constitutionally valid or not.

Non-delegation of legislative power

3. The power to make laws is vested in the legislature and an attempt to abdicate the power is
unconstitutional and void under the principle potestas delegata non delegare potest (i.e., no delegated
powers can be further delegated).

4. The non-delegation principle, however is not absolute and inflexible and are subject to several
exceptions. 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 the judgment of the
appointee or delegate of the legislature.

5. 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.

6. 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 is therefore unconstitutional.

Equal protection of the laws

| Page 2 of 3
7. Sec. 11 of Act No. 4221 is also unconstitutional for being violative of equal protection of the laws.

8. 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 down Sec. 11 of Act No. 4221 on this level.

The entire Act should be Voided.

9. Section 11 is inseparable from the entire Probation Act since it is 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.

Pardon versus Probation

10. The Act does not encroach upon the pardoning power of the Executive.

11. Pardoning power belongs to the executive and has the effect of granting full liberty. Probation is
completely different, as it has the 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.

| Page 3 of 3