Case Digest Sample Page Law Student's Case Digests

Home » Constitutional Law 1 » People vs Vera

Going on a Trip? People vs Vera Search

This entry was posted in Constitutional Law 1 Equal Protection of the Law Legislative Branch

undue delegation of legislative power doctrine and tagged Political Law 1 on November 3, 2014 by Morrie26
Find Hotels

People vs Vera
undue delagation of power; equal protection of the law

Caption: 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:
Book Cheapest Room
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
Planning a Vacation?
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
Categories 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.
› Actual Case or Controversy
› Archipelagic Doctrine
› Bills must originate exclusively from Issues:
Congress
1. Whether or not Act No. 4221 constituted an undue delegation of legislative power
› COMELEC 2. Whether or not the said act denies the equal protection of the laws
› Constittutional Commission
› Constitutional Law 1
Discussions:
› de facto government
› de jure government 1. An act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule or
› Declaration of Principles and State 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
Policies
provisions, fix and impose upon the provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of
› Declaratory Relief
their discretionary power. What is granted, as mentioned by Justice Cardozo in the recent case
› Doctrine of Immunity from Suit of Schecter, supra, is a “roving commission” which enables the provincial boards to exercise
› Doctrine of Incorporation arbitrary discretion. By section 11 if the Act, the legislature does not seemingly on its own
› Doctrine of Non-suability authority extend the benefits of the Probation Act to the provinces but in reality leaves the
› Doctrine of Parens Patria entire matter for the various provincial boards to determine.
2. The equal protection of laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. The classification of
› Due Process Clause
equal protection, to be reasonable, must be based on substantial distinctions which make real
› Equal Protection Clause
differences; it must be germane to the purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing
› Equal Protection of the Law conditions only, and must apply equally to each member of the class.
› Facial Challenge
› Impeachment
› implied consent
› Judicial Branch
› Justiciable Question
› Legal Standing
› Legislative Branch
› One Subject One Title Rule Rulings:

› Police Power 1. The Court concludes that section 11 of Act No. 4221 constitutes an improper and unlawful
› Political Question delegation of legislative authority to the provincial boards and is, for this reason,
› Principle of Proportional Representation 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
› Self Executing
discretion which is violative of the constitution and the doctrine of the non delegation of
› Separation of Power
power. Further, it is a violation of equity so protected by the constitution. The challenged
› Theory of Auto-Limitation section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: This Act shall apply only in
› Transcendental Importanct those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a
› undue delegation of legislative power probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said

doctrine 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. 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.

Post navigation
← Pelaez vs Auditor General Tatad vs Department of Energy →

· © 2018 Case Digest · Powered by · Designed with the Customizr theme ·