Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Title
Citation
65 Phil. 56
I.
Facts:
raised by HSBC ironic because their main stance was the non-applicability
of the probation law only in Manila while recognizing its application in
provinces).
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).
II.
Issues:
1. May the State question its own laws?
2. Is Act 4221 constitutional?
III.
Ruling:
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
penalties.