65 Phil.

56 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Bill of Rights – Equal Protection –

Probation Law
Separation of Powers – Undue Delegation of Powers – Power to Pardon
Constitutionality of Laws – May the State Question Its Own Laws
 In 1934, Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a criminal case (for estafa and
falsification of commercial documents) filed against him by the Hongkong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC).
 In 1936, he filed for probation. The matter was referred to the Insular Probation Office
(IPO) which recommended the denial of Cu Unjieng’s petition for probation.
 A hearing was set by Judge Jose Vera concerning the petition for probation. The
Prosecution opposed the petition. Eventually, due to delays in the hearing, the
Prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court alleging that courts
like the Court of First Instance of Manila (which is presided over by Judge Vera) have
no jurisdiction to place accused like Cu Unjieng under probation for the following
reasons:
o under the law (Act No. 4221 or The Probation Law), probation is made to apply
only to the provinces of the Philippines; it nowhere states that it is to be made
applicable to chartered cities like the City of Manila;
o While section 37 of the Admin Code contains a proviso to the effect that in
absence of a special provision, the term “province” may be construed to include
the City of Manila, it is also true that the Act is not a law of general application
because it is made to apply only to those provinces in which the respective
provincial boards shall have provided for the salary of a probation officer
Meanwhile, HSBC also filed its own comment on the matter alleging that Act 4221 is
unconstitutional for it violates the constitutional guarantee on equal protection of the laws.
HSBC averred that the said law makes it the prerogative of provinces whether or not to apply
the probation law – if a province chooses to apply the probation law, then it will appoint a
probation officer, but if it will not, then no probation officer will be appointed – hence, that
makes it violative of the equal protection clause.
Further, HSBC averred that the Probation Law is an undue delegation of power because
it gave the option to the provincial board to whether or not to apply the probation law –
however, the legislature did not provide guidelines to be followed by the provincial board.
Further still, HSBC averred that the Probation Law is an encroachment of the executive’s
power to grant pardon. They say that the legislature, by providing for a probation law,
had in effect encroached upon the executive’s power to grant pardon. (Ironically, the
Prosecution agreed with the issues raised by HSBC – ironic because their main stance
was the non-applicability of the probation law only in Manila while recognizing its
application in provinces).
For his part, one of the issues raised by Cu Unjieng is that, the Prosecution, representing the
State as well as the People of the Philippines, cannot question the validity of a law, like Act
4221, which the State itself created. Further, Cu Unjieng also castigated the fiscal of Manila
who himself had used the Probation Law in the past without question but is now questioning
the validity of the said law (estoppel).

1|Page
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power?
2. Whether or not the averred Probation Law is an encroachment of the pardoning power of the
executive?

HELD:
1. Yes. There was undue Delegation of Legislative Power.
Under the principle of potestas delegate non delegare potest – the legislature may not escape
its duties and responsibilities by delegating the power to any other body or authority, any
attempt to abdicate the power is unconstitutional and void.
However, this principle is not absolute and inflexible. It admit exceptions. One of the
exceptions sanctioned by immemorial practice permits the central legislative body to delegate
legislative powers to local authorities.
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.
In testing whether a statute constitute an undue delegation of legislative power or not, it is usual
to inquire whether the statute was complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands
of the legislature so that nothing was left to the judgement of any other delegate.
Likewise, as a rule, an act of 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.
But nowhere in the law did it state as to what standard (sufficient standard test) provincial
boards should follow in determining in carrying out a system of probation. They are given
absolute discretion which is violative of the Constitution and the doctrine of non-delegation of
power. This only creates a roving commission which will act arbitrarily according to its whims.

2. No. The subject law does not encroaches the pardoning power of the Executive.
Though Act 4221 is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court recognized the power of Congress to
provide for probation. Probation does not encroach upon the President’s 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.

Notes:

Pardon – the privilege granted by the court to a person convicted of a criminal offense to remain in the
community instead of going into jail

- Not pardon; not complete liberty

Probation
Power to suspend sentence
Part of the judicial power
Suspension merely postpones the judgement of the
court temporarily or indefinitely, remain and become
operative when judgement is rendered
Pardon
Power to grant reprieves
Part of the executive power
Reaches both punishment prescribed for the offense
and the guilt of the offender; removes all penalties
and disabilities, and restores him all his civil rights

2|Page