People vs.

Vera 65 Phil 56

officers; that the City of Manila is not a province, and

For his part, one of the issues raised by Cu Unjieng is

that Manila, even if construed as a province, has no

that, the Prosecution, representing the State as well as

Petitioner(s): People of the Philippine and the

designated probation officer hence, a Manila court

the People of the Philippines, cannot question the

Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation

cannot grant probation.

validity of a law, like Act 4221, which the State itself

created. Further, Cu Unjieng also castigated the fiscal

Defendant(s): Mariano Cu Unjieng, Hon. Jose O.

Meanwhile, HSBC also filed its own comment on the

of Manila who himself had used the Probation Law in

Vera

matter alleging that Act 4221 is unconstitutional for it

the past without question but is now questioning the

violates the constitutional guarantee on equal

validity of the said law (estoppel).

Ponente: Avancea, C.J., Imperial, Diaz and

Concepcion, JJ., concur.
Villa-real and Abad Santos, JJ., concur in the result.
Doctrine: Legislative power may be delegated under
certain exception as provided by law. Read
Constitution also.
Facts: 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

protection of the laws. HSBC averred that the said

law makes it the prerogative of provinces whether or

ISSUE:

nor to apply the probation law if a province chooses

to apply the probation law, then it will appoint a

1. May the State question its own laws?

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

2. Is Act 4221 constitutional?

HELD:
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

a probation law, had in effect encroached upon the

The contention of HSBC and the Prosecution is well

executives power to grant pardon. (Ironically, the

taken on this note. There is violation of the equal

Prosecution agreed with the issues raised by HSBC

protection clause. Under Act 4221, provinces were

ironic because their main stance was the non-

given the option to apply the law by simply providing

applicability of the probation law only in Manila

for a probation officer. So if a province decides not to

while recognizing its application in provinces).

install a probation officer, then the accused within

authorities; and hence while the rule is also

other national emergency, the National Assembly

said province will be unduly deprived of the

fundamental that the power to make laws cannot be

may by law authorize the President, for a limited

provisions of the Probation Law.

delegated,

municipalities

period and subject to such restrictions as it may

exercising local self government has never been held

prescribed, to promulgate rules and regulations to

to trench upon that rule. Such legislation is not

carry out a declared national policy. It is beyond the

regarded as a transfer of general legislative power,

scope of this decision to determine whether or not, in

but rather as the grant of the authority to prescribed

the

local regulations, according to immemorial practice,

provisions, the President could be authorized to

subject of course to the interposition of the superior

exercise the powers thereby vested in him. Upon the

in cases of necessity.

other hand, whatever doubt may have existed has

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

the

creation

of

the

state as to what standard (sufficient standard test)

absence

of

the

foregoing

constitutional

been removed by the Constitution itself.

provincial boards should follow in determining

On quite the same principle, Congress is powered to

whether or not to apply the probation law in their

delegate legislative power to such agencies in the

The case before us does not fall under any of the

province. This only creates a roving commission

territories of the United States as it may select. A

exceptions hereinabove mentioned.

which will act arbitrarily according to its whims.

territory stands in the same relation to Congress as a

municipality or city to the state government.

Encroachment of Executive Power

legislative power, is not absolute and inflexible. It

Legislative power may be delegated by the

Though Act 4221 is unconstitutional, the Supreme

admits of exceptions. Exceptions sanctioned by

Constitution itself. Section 14, paragraph 2, of article

Court recognized the power of Congress to provide

immemorial practice permits the central legislative

VI of the Constitution of the Philippines provides that

for probation. Probation does not encroach upon the

body to delegate legislative powers to local

The National Assembly may by law authorize the

Presidents power to grant pardon. Probation is not

authorities.

President, subject to such limitations and restrictions

pardon. Probation is within the power of Congress to

as it may impose, to fix within specified limits, tariff

fix penalties while pardon is a power of the president

rates, import or export quotas, and tonnage and

to commute penalties.

The rule, however, which forbids the delegation of

It is a cardinal principle of our system of

government, that local affairs shall be managed by
local authorities, and general affairs by the central

wharfage dues. And section 16 of the same article of

the Constitution provides that In times of war or