Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3


Pardon distinguished from probation


People vs. Vera


65 Phil. 56



In 1934, Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a criminal case 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
which recommended the denial of Cu Unjiengs 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 because under the law (Act No. 4221 or The Probation Law),
probation is only meant to be applied in provinces with probation officers;
that the City of Manila is not a province, and that Manila, even if construed
as a province, has no designated probation officer hence, a Manila court
cannot grant probation.
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 nor 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
executives power to grant pardon. They say that the legislature, by
providing for a probation law, had in effect encroached upon the executives
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
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. May the State question its own laws?
2. Is Act 4221 constitutional?


1. Yes. There is no law which prohibits the State, or its duly
authorized representative, from questioning the validity of a law.
Estoppel will also not lie against the State even if it had been using
an invalid law.
2. No, Act 4221 or the [old] Probation Law is unconstitutional.
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause
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.
Undue Delegation of Legislative Power
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.
Encroachment of Executive Power
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