PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS VERA

G.R. No. L-45685 November 16 1937 En

FACTS:
Cu-Unjieng was convicted of criminal charges by the trial court of Manila.
He filed a motion for reconsideration and four motions for new trial but all
were denied. He then elevated to the Supreme Court of United States for
review, which was also denied. The SC denied the petition subsequently
filed by Cu-Unjieng for a motion for new trial and thereafter remanded the
case to the court of origin for execution of the judgment. CFI of Manila
referred the application for probation of the Insular Probation Office which
recommended denial of the same. Later, 7th branch of CFI Manila set the
petition for hearing. The Fiscal filed an opposition to the granting of
probation to Cu Unjieng, alleging, among other things, that Act No. 4221,
assuming that it has not been repealed by section 2 of Article XV of the
Constitution, is nevertheless violative of section 1, subsection (1), Article III
of the Constitution guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. The private
prosecution also filed a supplementary opposition, elaborating on the
alleged unconstitutionality on Act No. 4221, as an undue delegation of
legislative power to the provincial boards of several provinces (sec. 1, Art.
VI, Constitution).

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is undue delegation of powers.

RULING:
Yes. SC conclude 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.
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.
The clear policy of the law, as may be gleaned from a careful examination of
the whole context, is to make the application of the system dependent
entirely upon the affirmative action of the different provincial boards through
appropriation of the salaries for probation officers at rates not lower than
those provided for provincial fiscals. Without such action on the part of the

various boards, no probation officers would be appointed by the Secretary

of Justice to act in the provinces. The Philippines is divided or subdivided
into provinces and it needs no argument to show that if not one of the
provinces and this is the actual situation now appropriate the
necessary fund for the salary of a probation officer, probation under Act No.
4221 would be illusory. There can be no probation without a probation
officer. Neither can there be a probation officer without the probation
system.