People V Vera 1937

Petitioners: People of the Philippines and HSBC

Respondents: Jose Vera, Judge ad interim of CFI Manila
Justiciable and Political Questions
SUMMARY: City Fiscal of Manila, in behalf of the People of the Philippine Islands, raises the
question of the constitutionality of Act No 4421. It was declared unconstitutional as it constitutes
an undue delegation of power and denies the equal protection of laws.
FACTS:

Criminal case People v Cu Unjieng was filed in CFI Manila, with HSBC intervening as
private prosecutor
CFI convicted Unjieng: four years and two months to eight years
On Appeal: five years and six months to seven years, six months
On December 17, 1935: Cu Unjiengs Motion for reconsideration and four motions for a
new trial were denied
December 18: Final judgement was rendered
Nov 1936: he filed for certiorari to the Supreme Court and was denied
Cu Unjieng filed an application for probation, under ACT 4221
o He asserts that he is innocent, that he has no criminal record and that he would
observe good conduct in the future
Vera set the hearing for the probation on April 5, 1937
HSBC questioned authority of Vera to hold such hearings and assailed the
constitutionality of the Probation Act since it violates the equal protection of laws and
gives unlawful and improper delegation to provincial boards.
City Fiscal of Manila filed a supplementary petition: that probation is a form of reprieve
and this reprieve is an exclusive power of the Chief Executive

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the constitutionality of Act 4221 has been properly raised in these
proceedings
YES. Constitutional questions will be determined by the courts if they are raised
properly, presented in appropriate cases, at the earliest time and lis mota is necessary.
The legal standing of the petitioner is also evaluated in questioning constitutionality.
The general rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a
personal and substantial interest in such a case. Here, the state is the proper party in
questioning the constitutionality of the statute as the state is always interested in the
integrity of its Constitution or statutes involved.
2. If in the affirmative, whether or not Act 4221 is constitutional based on these three
grounds:
a. It encroaches upon the pardoning power of the executive

No. Pardon is different from probation. Pardoning power is solely within the
power of the Executive. Probation has an effect of temporary suspension, and
the probationer is still not exempt from the entire punishment which the law
inflicts upon him as he remains to be in legal custody for the time being.
b. It constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power
Yes. Whether a statue constitutes an undue delegation of the legislative power,
we should look at whether the statute was complete in all its terms and
provisions when it is left in the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to
the judgement of any other appointee or delegate of the legislature.
The Probation Act does not lay down any definite standards by which the
administrative boards may be guided in the exercise of discretionary powers,
hence they have the power to determine for themselves, whether or not to apply
the law or not. This therefore becomes a surrender of legislative power to the
provincial boards. It is unconstitutional.
c. It denies the equal protection of the laws
Yes.
Section 11 of Art 4221 states that the act shall only be applied in those provinces
wherein the probationary officer is granted salary not lower than provincial fiscals
by respective provincial boards
Due to the unwarranted delegation of legislative power, some provinces may
choose to adopt the law or not, thus denying the equal protection of laws. It is
unconstitutional.