Powers of Congress

Title: People vs Vera

Citation: G.R. No. 45685, November 16, 1937

Facts:
Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for
reconsideration and four motions for new trial but all were denied. He then elevated
to the Supreme Court which was remanded to the lower court for new trial. While
awaiting new trial, he appealed for probation alleging that he is innocent of the crime
he was convicted of. The Judge of the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the Insular
Probation Office. The IPO denied the application. However, Judge Vera upon
another request by petitioner allowed the petition to be set for hearing. The City
Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to place Mariano Cu Unijeng
under probation because it is in violation of Sec 11, Act No. 4221 which provides
that the act of legislature granting provincial boards the power to provide a system of
probation to a convicted person. The law does not state that the law is applicable to a
city like Manila because it is only indicated therein that only provinces are covered.
And even if Manila is covered by the law it is unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of
the Constitution provides equal protection of laws. The said law provides absolute
discretion to provincial boards and this also constitutes undue delegation of power.
The said probation law may be an encroachment of the power of the executive to
provide pardon because providing probation, in effect, is granting freedom, as in
pardon.

Issue/s:
Whether of not Act No. 4221 constituted an undue delegation of legislative power.
Whether or not the said act denies the equal protection of the laws.

Ruling:

1. The Court concludes that section 11 of Act No. 4221 constitutes an improper and
unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the provincial boards and is, for this
reason, unconstitutional and void. There is no set standard provided by Congress on
how provincial boards must act in carrying out a system of probation. The provincial
boards are given absolute discretion which is violative of the constitution and the
doctrine of the non delegation of power. Further, it is a violation of equity so
protected by the constitution. The challenged section of Act No. 4221 in section 11
which reads as follows: 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 officer
 shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of
the Probation Office.

The provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine for themselves,
whether the Probation Law shall apply to their provinces or not at all. The
applicability and application of the Probation Act are entirely placed in the hands of
the provincial boards. If the provincial board does not wish to have the Act applied in
its province, all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the
salary of a probation officer.

2. It is also contended that the Probation Act violates the provisions of our Bill of
Rights which prohibits the denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws.
The resultant inequality may be said to flow from the unwarranted delegation of
legislative power, although perhaps this is not necessarily the result in every case.
Adopting the example given by one of the counsel for the petitioners in the course of
his oral argument, one province may appropriate the necessary fund to defray the
salary of a probation officer, while another province may refuse or fail to do so. In
such a case, the Probation Act would be in operation in the former province but not
in the latter. This means that a person otherwise coming within the purview of the
law would be liable to enjoy the benefits of probation in one province while another
person similarly situated in another province would be denied those same benefits.
This is obnoxious discrimination. Contrariwise, it is also possible for all the
provincial boards to appropriate the necessary funds for the salaries of the probation
officers in their respective provinces, in which case no inequality would result for the
obvious reason that probation would be in operation in each and every province by
the affirmative action of appropriation by all the provincial boards.