Topic Non-delegation Doctrine

Case No. G.R. No. 45685

Case Name People of the Philippines and HSBC v. Jose Vera, Judge ad interim of the CFI of
Manila, and Mariano Cu Unjieng
Ponente Laurel, J.

FACTS

 The criminal case, People v. Cu Unjieng was filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) in Manila, with
HSBC intervening in the case as private prosecutor.

 The CFI rendered a judgment of conviction sentencing Cu Unjieng to an indeterminate penalty

ranging from four years and two months of prision correccional to eight years of prison mayor. (Jan.
8, 1934)
 Upon appeal, it was modified to an indeterminate penalty of from five years and six months
ofprison correccional to seven years, six months and twenty-­­seven days of prison mayor, but
affirmed the judgments in all other respects.

 Cu Unjieng filed a Motion for Reconsideration and four successive motions for new trial which were
all denied on December 17, 1935. Final judgment was entered on Dec. 18, 1935. He filed for
certiorari to the Supreme Court but got denied on Nov 1936. The SC subsequently denied Cu
Unjieng’s petition for leave to file a second alternative

 motion for reconsideration or new trial, then remanded the case to the court of origin for execution
of judgment.

 Cu Unjieng filed an application for probation before the trial court, under the provisions of Act 4221
of the defunct Philippine Legislature. He states he is innocent of the crime; he has no criminal
record; and that he would observe good conduct in the future.

 CFI Manila Judge Jose Vera set the petition for hearing for probation on April 5, 1937.

 HSBC questioned the 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.

 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.1

 The City Fiscal of Manila files a supplementary petition affirming issues raised by HSBC, arguing that
probation is a form of reprieve, hence Act 4221 bypasses this exclusive power of the Chief
Executive.

 Hence, this petition.

1
"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 officers shall be appointed
by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office."
ISSUES & RATIO

1. Whether or not the Constitutional questions will not be determined by the courts unless properly
constitutionality of Act raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination
4221 has been of the case—lis mota. Constitutionality issues may be raised in prohibition
properly raised in and certiorari proceedings, as they may also be raised in mandamus, quo
these proceedings warranto, and habeas corpus proceedings.
(YES) a. Constitutionality should be raised in the earliest possible opportunity
(during proceedings in initial/inferior courts).
b. It may be said that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws,
as in this case.
c. The well-­­settled rule is that the person impugning validity must have
personal and substantial interest in the case (i.e. he has sustained, or
will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement)
d. CASE AT BAR – If Act 4221 is unconstitutional, the People of the
Philippines have substantial interest in having it set aside.
2. If in the affirmative, whether or not Act 4221 is constitutional based on these three grounds:
It encroaches upon No. There exists a distinction between pardon and probation.
the pardoning power a. The Governor-­­General/President has the “exclusive power to grant
of the executive pardons and reprieves and remit finds and forfeitures” (Jones
Law/1935 Constitution)
b. Congress has the power to enact probation laws under its broad power
to fix the punishment of all penal offenses. Also, they have
demonstrated their desire to vest in trial courts large discretion in
imposing penalties which the laws prescribe—this includes suspension
of a sentence through probation. It is important to note however that
probation and pardon are not the same.
c. 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.It is
necessarily a judicial function.
d. Pardon, on the other hand, releases a person from punishment. It is
necessarily an executive function.
It constitutes an The Probation Act is an undue delegation of legislative power, and is, for
undue delegation of this reason, unconstitutional and void.
legislative power a. TEST WHETHER A STATUE CONSTITUTES UNDUE DELEGATION OF
(YES) LEGISLATIVE POWER– Whether the statue was complete in all its
terms and provisions when it left the hands of the legislature so that
nothing was left to the judgment of any other appointee or delegate
of the legislature.
b. EXCEPTION – Matters of detail may be left to be filled in by rules and
regulations to be adopted or promulgated by the executive.
c. WHEN A STATUTE IS INCOMPLETE – 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 discretionary powers delegated to it.
d. CASE AT BAR
1. There are no standards upon which the provincial boards may be
guided in the exercise of their discretionary power. What is
 granted is a “roving commission” which enables them to exercise
arbitrary discretion.
2. Under the Probation Law, provincial boards are regarded as
administrative bodies endowed with the power to determine
when the act would take effect in their respective provinces, i.e.,
whether or not the law applies would be left to their sole
determination.
3. There is a virtual surrender of legislative power to the provincial
boards.
e. DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ADMINSTRATIVE
AGENCIES– The legislature is permitted to provide that the
administrative agent may determine when the facts or circumstances
are such as to require the application of a law. This allows an
administrative official to ascertain what facts of a case require to be
done according to the terms of the law by which heis governed.
1. REQUISITE – At the time the authority is granted, the rule of
public policy is determined by the legislature. The legislature
should determine that, under given circumstances, certain
executive or administrative action is to be taken, and that, under
other circumstances, different or not action at all is to be take.
2. CASE AT BAR – The legislature has not made the operation of the
Probation Act contingent upon specified facts or conditions to be
ascertained by the provincial board.
It denies the equal Yes. Due to the unwarranted delegation of legislative power, some provinces
protection of the laws may choose to adopt the law or not, thus denying the equal protection of
laws. It is unconstitutional.

RULING

Act No. 4221 is hereby declared unconstitutional and void and the writ of prohibition is, accordingly,
granted. Without any pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.