PEOPLE v.

VERA | 23

FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE v. VERA
G.R. No. L-45685. November 16, 1937
Laurel, J p.

TOPIC: Invalid Delegation of Legislative Power; Equal Protection of the Law

DOCTRINE: “The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a

relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is an exception to the non-
delegation of legislative powers. Administrative regulations or "subordinate legislation"
calculated to promote the public interest are necessary because of "the growing
complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations,
and the increased difficulty of administering the law.”

Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the rule-making power must be

confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the
law as it has been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending or
expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the
statute. Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned.

FACTS:
 The People of the Philippine Islands and Hongkong & Shanghai Banking
Corporation, petitioners, vs. Jose O. Vera, Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, and Mariano Cu Unjieng, respondents
 Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for
reconsideration and four motions for new trial but all were denied.
 He then elevated to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court remanded the
appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting new trial, he appealed for
probation alleging that the he is innocent of the crime he was convicted of.
 The Judge of the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the Insular Probation Office. The
IPO denied the application. However, Judge Vera upon another request by petitioner
allowed the petition to be set for hearing.
 The City Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to place Cu Unjieng
under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221 which provides
that the Act of Legislature granting provincial boards the power to provide a
system of probation to convicted person.
 Nowhere in the law is stated that the law is applicable to a city like Manila because it
is only indicated therein that only provinces are covered.
 And even if Manila is covered by the law it is unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art
3 of the Constitution provides equal protection of laws. The said law provides
absolute discretion to provincial boards and this also constitutes undue delegation of
power.
 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, as in pardon.
 PEOPLE v. VERA | 23

ISSUES:
1) Whether Act No. 4221 constituted an undue delegation of legislative power.
2) Whether the said Act denies the equal protection of the laws.

RULING:
1) Yes, Act No. 4221 constituted an undue delegation of legislative power.

The Court concludes that Section 11 of Act No. 4221 constitutes an improper
and unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the provincial boards and is,
for this reason, unconstitutional and void. There is no set standard provided by
Congress on how provincial boards must act in carrying out a system of probation.
The provincial boards are given absolute discretion which is violative of the
constitution and the doctrine of the non-delegation of power.

Further, it is a violation of equity so protected by the constitution. The challenged

section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: “This Act shall apply
only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for
the salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for
provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office.”

The provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine for themselves,
whether the Probation Law shall apply to their provinces or not at all. The
applicability and application of the Probation Act are entirely placed in the hands of
the provincial boards. If the provincial board does not wish to have the Act applied in
its province, all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for
the salary of a probation officer.

2) Yes, the said Act denies the equal protection of the laws.

It is also contended that the Probation Act violates the provisions of our Bill of Rights
which prohibits the denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws. The
resultant inequality may be said to flow from the unwarranted delegation of
legislative power, although perhaps this is not necessarily the result in every case.
Adopting the example given by one of the counsel for the petitioners in the course of
his oral argument, one province may appropriate the necessary fund to defray the
salary of a probation officer, while another province may refuse or fail to do so.

In such a case, the Probation Act would be in operation in the former province but
not in the latter. This means that a person otherwise coming within the purview of
the law would be liable to enjoy the benefits of probation in one province while
another person similarly situated in another province would be denied those same
benefits. This is obnoxious discrimination.
 PEOPLE v. VERA | 23

Contrariwise, it is also possible for all the provincial boards to appropriate the
necessary funds for the salaries of the probation officers in their respective
provinces, in which case no inequality would result for the obvious reason that
probation would be in operation in each and every province by the affirmative action
of appropriation by all the provincial boards.

CONCLUSION:
Petition for stay of execution and the fixing of a supersedeas bond is denied. So
ordered.

PRINCIPLES:
 An act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down any
rule or definite standard by which the administrative officer or board may be guided
in the exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it.
 The Probation Act does not, by the force of any of its provisions, fix and impose
upon the provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of their
discretionary power. What is granted, as mentioned by Justice Cardozo in the recent
case of Schecter, supra, is a “roving commission” which enables the provincial
boards to exercise arbitrary discretion.
 By section 11 of the Act, the legislature does not seemingly on its own authority
extend the benefits of the Probation Act to the provinces but in reality leaves the
entire matter for the various provincial boards to determine.
 The equal protection of laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. The
classification of equal protection, to be reasonable, must be based on substantial
distinctions which make real differences; it must be germane to the purposes of the
law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to each
member of the class.

Also Read: Bernas, SJ (2009). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, pp. 695-696