TITLE: People v Vera, GR no.
45685, Nov 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)
Ponente: Justice
Topics: Judicial Review
Doctrines and Provisions:
Article III and VIII of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines
Act 4221 or the Probation Law
Doctrine: All laws and statures must uphold the constitution.
Facts:
January 8, 1934, Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a criminal case filed against him
by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).
November 27, 1936, Mariano Cu Unjieng filed an application for probation.
June 18, 1937, Insular Probation Office denied the application for probation
April 5, 1937, hearing was set by Judge Jose Vera concerning the petition for probation.
Prosecution filed an opposition to the probation saying that the probation law only allows
provinces with probation officers and that the City of Manila is not a province and even if
it would be considered a province does not have a probation officer.
HSBC filed contentions to the Act 4221 or The Probation Law stating that it goes against
the constitutional guarantee on equal protection of the laws and unduly delegates power
(if a province wants the Probation Law to it, they will hire a probation officer, otherwise
it wont)
Issues and Holdings:
1. May the State question its own laws?
Yes, there is no provision in law that prohibits the act.
2. Is Act 4221 constitutional?
No, Act 4221 or the Probation Law violates section 1, subsection 1, Article III, of
the Constitution of the Philippines and section 2, Art. VIII of the Constitution of
the Philippines.
The contention of HSBC and the Prosecution is well taken on this note. There is
violation of the equal protection clause. Under Act 4221, provinces were given
the option to apply the law by simply providing for a probation officer. So if a
province decides not to install a probation officer, then the accused within said
province will be unduly deprived of the provisions of the Probation Law.
There is undue delegation of legislative power. Act 4221 provides that it shall
only apply to provinces where the respective provincial boards have provided for
a probation officer. But nowhere in the law did it state as to what standard
(sufficient standard test) should provincial boards follow in determining whether
or not to apply the probation law in their province. This only creates a roving
commission which will act arbitrarily according to its whims.
Ruling:
Act No. 4221 is hereby declared unconstitutional and void and the writ of prohibition is,
accordingly, granted. Without any pronouncement regarding costs.
Note:
The petition is to declare Act 4221 or the Probation Act unconstitutional by the virtue of:
violation of section 1, subsection (1), Article III, of the Constitution of the Philippines
guaranteeing equal protection of the laws because it confers upon the provincial board of its
province the absolute discretion to make said law operative or otherwise in their respective
provinces, because it constitutes an unlawful and improper delegation to the provincial boards of
the several provinces of the legislative power lodged by the Jones Law (section 8) in the
Philippine Legislature and by the Constitution (section 1, Art. VI) in the National Assembly; and
for the further reason that it gives the provincial boards, in contravention of the Constitution
(section 2, Art. VIII) and the Jones Law (section 28), the authority to enlarge the powers of the
Court of First Instance of different provinces without uniformity. In another supplementary
petition dated September 14, 1937, the Fiscal of the City of Manila, in behalf of one of the
petitioners, the People of the Philippine Islands, concurs for the first time with the issues raised
by other petitioner regarding the constitutionality of Act No. 4221, and on the oral argument held
on October 6, 1937, further elaborated on the theory that probation is a form of reprieve and
therefore Act. No. 4221 is an encroachment on the exclusive power of the Chief Executive to
grant pardons and reprieves.
Though Act 4221 is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court recognized the power of
Congress to provide for probation. Probation does not encroach upon the Presidents power to
grant pardon. Probation is not pardon. Probation is within the power of Congress to fix penalties
while pardon is a power of the president to commute penalties.
