Scribd
Upload
3K views3 pages

People vs. Vera

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding whether a law allowing provincial boards to determine if a probation system would apply in their province constituted an improper delegation of legislative powers. The Supreme Court ruled that allowing the provincial boards to decide violated the constitution as it gave them control over applicability of a law, which is a legislative power. However, some delegation is allowed, such as to local authorities based on tradition, or to executive agencies to fill in details, as long as the legislature provides standards to guide them.

Uploaded by

Francis Coronel Jr.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views3 pages

People vs. Vera

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding whether a law allowing provincial boards to determine if a probation system would apply in their province constituted an improper delegation of legislative powers. The Supreme Court ruled that allowing the provincial boards to decide violated the constitution as it gave them control over applicability of a law, which is a legislative power. However, some delegation is allowed, such as to local authorities based on tradition, or to executive agencies to fill in details, as long as the legislature provides standards to guide them.

Uploaded by

Francis Coronel Jr.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS VERA

Posted by kaye lee on 1:31 PM


G.R. No. L-45685 November 16 1937 En Banc [Non Delegation of Legislative Powers]

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.

RULE FORBIDDING DELEGATION OF


LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY NOT INFLEXIBLE; EXCEPTIONS.—

The rule, however, which forbids the delegation of legislative power is not
absolute and
inflexible. It admits of exceptions. An exception sanctioned by immemorial practice
permits the
central legislative body to delegate legislative powers to local authorities. On
quite the same principle, Congress is empowered to delegate legislative power to
such agencies
in the territories of the United States as it may select, Courts have also
sustained the delegation of
legislative power to the people at large, though some authorities maintain that
this may not be done.
Doubtless, also, legislative power may be delegated by the Constitution itself.
Section 14, paragraph 2,
of Article VI of the Constitution of the Philippines ilippines provides that "The
National As limitations
and restrictions as it may impose, -to fix within specified limits, tariff rates,
import or export
quotas, and tonnage and wharfage dues." And section 16 of the Same article of the
Constitution provides
that "In times of war or other national emergency, the National Assembly may by law
authorize the President, for a
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to promulgate
rules and regulations to carry out
a declared national policy."

TEST OF UNDUE DELEGATION ; DETAILS OF EXECUTION.—

In testing whether a statute constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power


or not, it is usual to inquire
whether the statutewas complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the
hands of the legislature so -that
nothing was left to the judgment of any other appointee or delegate of the
legislature.

In United States vs. Ang Tang Ho, the Supreme Court adhered to the foregoing rule.
The general rule, however, is
limited by another rule that to a certain extent matters of detail may be left to
be filled in by rules and regulations
to be adopted or promulgated by executive officers and administrative boards. As a
rule,
an act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down
any rule or definite standard by
which the administrative board may be guided in the exercise of the discretionary
powers delegated to it.

You might also like