Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

PP Vs Vera

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

PEOPLE VS VERA

G.R. No. L-45685      65 Phil 56       November 16, 1937


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.
 
 
 
Facts:
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.
 
Issues:
Whether or not Act No. 4221 constituted an undue delegation of legislative power
Whether or not the said act denies the equal protection of the laws
 
Discussions:
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 if 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.
 
 
 
Rulings:
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.
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. 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.

You might also like