Case Digests in Administrative Law
Case Digests in Administrative Law by Mark Anthony N. Manuel
2012
PEOPLE vs. VERA
G.R. No. L-45685
November 16, 1937
FACTS: This case involves the constitutionality of the old probation law. Respondent Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting new trial, he appealed for probation under the provisions of Act No. 4221. Judge Tuason 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 Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221, which grants provincial boards the power to provide a system of probation to convicted person. Nowhere in the law is stated that it is applicable to a cities like Manila as it is only indicated therein that only provinces are covered. And even if Manila is covered by the law, it is unconstitutional because it is violative of the equal protection clause of the constitution. It also avers that the said law provides absolute discretion to provincial boards, thus it constitutes undue delegation of power.
ISSUE: Whether or not Act 4221 or the old probation law is an undue delegation of legislative power on the ground that there is no standard set by congress for its implementation.
HELD: Yes. There is undue delegation of power because there is no 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 delegability 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
2012
PEOPLE vs. VERA
G.R. No. L-45685
November 16, 1937
FACTS: This case involves the constitutionality of the old probation law. Respondent Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting new trial, he appealed for probation under the provisions of Act No. 4221. Judge Tuason 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 Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221, which grants provincial boards the power to provide a system of probation to convicted person. Nowhere in the law is stated that it is applicable to a cities like Manila as it is only indicated therein that only provinces are covered. And even if Manila is covered by the law, it is unconstitutional because it is violative of the equal protection clause of the constitution. It also avers that the said law provides absolute discretion to provincial boards, thus it constitutes undue delegation of power.
ISSUE: Whether or not Act 4221 or the old probation law is an undue delegation of legislative power on the ground that there is no standard set by congress for its implementation.
HELD: Yes. There is undue delegation of power because there is no 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 delegability 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