CONSTI 1

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-45685             November 16, 1937

PEOPLE vs.  VERA

PONENTE: JUSTICE LAUREL

FACTS:

Petitioners herein, the People of the Philippine and the Hongkong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation, are respectively the plaintiff and the offended party, and the
respondent herein Mariano Cu Unjieng is one of the defendants, in a criminal case No.
42649 of the CFI of Manila. Respondent herein, Hon. Jose O. Vera, is the Judge ad
interim of the CFI of Manila, who heard the application of the defendant Mariano Cu
Unjieng for probation in the aforesaid criminal case. On June 28, 1937, herein
respondent Judge Jose O. Vera promulgated a resolution denying the defendant’s
petition for probation. Defendant filed a petition for the issuance of the extraordinary
writs of certiorari and prohibition alleging that the respondent judge has acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of his jurisdiction because said respondent judge lacks the
power to place respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng under probation for the reason that
under section 11 of Act No. 4221, it is made to apply only to the provinces of the
Philippines; it nowhere states that it is to be made applicable to chartered cities like the
City of Manila.

ISSUE: W/N the People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor-General and the
Fiscal of the City of Manila, is such a proper party in the present proceedings to impugn
the validity of the Act 4221 in its application outside said city

HELD:

Yes, the unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must
have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act
No. 4221 really violates the constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name
the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside.

Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws. In
this case, Act No. 4221 is declared unconstitutional and void.