Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Questions of Law
Administrative bodies may be allowed to resolve questions of law in
the exercise of their quasi-judicial function as an incident of their
primary power of regulation.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
- Branch of public law that fixes the organization of the
government and determines competence of authorities who
execute the law and indicates to the individual remedies for the
violations of his rights.
b.
4.
ii.
iii.
publication
Reasonable
i.
2.
3.
How Created:
1. by constitutional provision;
2. by legislative enactment; and
3. by authority of law.
II. POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES:
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTIONS
QUASIJUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
1. Legislative regulation
a. Supplementary or detailed legislation, e.g. Rules and
1.
consists of
issuance of rules
and regulations
1.
2.
general
applicability
2. applies to a
specific situation
b. Contingent regulation
2. Interpretative legislation, e.g. BIR Circulars
Requisites for valid exercise:
3. prospective; it
envisages the
promulgation of a
rule or regulation
generally
applicable in the
future
3.
present
determination of
rights, privileges
or duties as of
previous or
present time or
occurrence
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
right to a hearing;
tribunal must consider evidence presented;
decision must have something to support itself;
evidence must be substantial;
decision must be based on evidence adduced at hearing or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to parties;
board of judges must act on its independent consideration of
facts and law of the case, and not simply accept view of
subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
decision must be rendered in such a manner that parties to
controversy can know various issues involved and reason for
decision rendered.(Ang Tibay vs CIR, 69 Phil 635)
1.
1.
1.
Substantial Evidence relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
2.
Administrative Determinations Where Notice and Hearing Not
Necessary:
delinquent taxpayer;
2.
3.
4.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Characteristics:
-Public office is a public trust.
-Public office is not property and is outside the commerce of man. It
cannot be subject of a contract. (Cruz, Law on Public Officers, p.5)
II. PUBLIC OFFICERS
-
3.
4.
Statutory;
Non-statutory inherent power of the court to review such
proceedings upon questions of jurisdiction and questions of
law;
Direct proceeding;
Collateral attack.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
the
legislature may not increase or reduce qualifications except
when Constitution itself provides otherwise as when only
minimum or no qualifications are prescribed( ex: Art XIII Sec 17
(2), Art VIII Sec 7 (2) Consti) ;
when office created by statute, Congress has generally plenary
power to prescribe qualification but such must be:
a. germane to purpose of office; and
b. not too specific so as to refer to only one individual.
3.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
entitled to
compensation for
services rendered
4.
not
entitled
compensation
b.
4.
7.
DE FACTO
OFFICER
OFFICER
1.
1.
on reputation
2.
2.
has
possession
and
performs the duties under
color of right without
being technically qualified
in all points of law to act
3.
cannot be
removed in a
direct proceeding
3.
DE FACTO OFFICER
1.
INTRUDER
1.
to
Entitlement to Salaries
General Rule: rightful incumbent may recover from de facto officer
salary received by latter during time of wrongful tenure even
though latter is in good faith and under color of title.(Monroy v.
CA, 20 SCRA 620)
Exception: when there is no de jure public officer, de facto officer
entitled to salaries for period when he actually discharged
functions.(Civil Liberties Union v. Exec. Sec., 194 SCRA 317)
Challenge to a De Facto Officer: must be in a direct proceeding where
the title will be the principal issue
by appointment; or
by election
Classification of Appointments:
Classifications of vacancy:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ad interim
appointment
Once confirmed by
the CA continues
until t he end of
the term of the
appointee
Shall cease to be
valid if
disapproved by
the CA or upon the
next adjournment
II.
Public Officer shall not be civilly liable for acts done in the
performance of his duties
Exceptions:
1. statutory liability under the Civil Code (Arts. 27, 32 and 34);
2. When there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice or negligence
(Administrative Code of 1987);
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
Appointive Officials
b.
c.
d.
PENDING
PENDING
INVESTIGATION
APPEAL
[Sec.51, E.O.292]
2. no compensation
due for the period
of suspension
even if found
innocent of the
charges.
1. Punitive in
character
2. If exonerated, he
should be
reinstated with full
pay for the period
of suspension.
iii.
iv.
e.
Preventive Suspension
ii.
A Presidential Appointee:
a.
b.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
ii.
iii.
b.
c.
grounds:
i.
reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has
committed the act or acts complained of;
ii.
iii.
Forms of Compensation:
a.
iv.
d.
b.
c.
d.
e.
1.
R.A. 3019;
2.
3.
2.
Right to Salary
Basis: legal title to office and the fact the law attaches
compensation to the office.
Salary compensation provided to be paid to public
officer for his services.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Limitations on Recall:
VIII. MODES OF TERMINATION
OFFICIAL RELATIONSHIP:
(TR3A3P DIFC2IT)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
2. no recall shall take place within one year from date of the
officials assumption to office or one year immediately
preceding a regular local election.
Procedure for Recall (Secs. 70-72, R.A. 7160)
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
Legislative District:
iv.
iiia.
iiib.
i.
Retirement:
b.
ii.
iii.
ELECTION LAW
I.SUFFRAGE
- right to vote in election of officers chosen by people and in
the determination of questions submitted to people. It
includes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
election;
plebiscite;
initiative; and
referendum.
Kinds:
1.
2.
b.
c.
Filipino citizen;
At least 18 years of age;
Resident of the Philippines for at least one year;
Resident of place where he proposes to vote for at least 6
months; and
Not otherwise disqualified by law.
Disqualification:
1.
2.
3.
2.
II. POLITICAL PARTY
- organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of
government and which, as the most immediate means of securing
their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its
leaders and members as candidate in public office. (Bayan Muna v.
Comelec, GR No. 147613, June 28, 2001)
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
NATIONAL
LOCAL
POSITIONS
POSITIONS
CANDIDATES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
60 minutes
for TV
2.
180 minutes
for Radio
2.
90 minutes
for Radio
Limitation on Expenses:
1.
for candidates:
1.
Nuisance Candidate
COMELEC may motu propio or upon petition of
interested party, refuse to give due course to or
cancel certificate of candidacy if shown that said
certificate was filed:
1. to put election process in mockery or disrepute;
2. to cause confusion among voters by similarity of names of
registered candidates;
3. by other circumstances or acts which demonstrate that a
candidate has no bona fide intention to run for office for which
certificate has been filed, and thus prevent a faithful
determination of true will of electorate.
120 minutes
for TV
Prohibited Campaign
3.
- When a candidate has not yet been disqualified by final
judgment during the election day and was voted for, the votes
cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. To do so would
amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty
resides. (Codilla vs. Hon. Jose De Venecia, G.R. No. 150605,
December 10, 2002)
1.
2.
Election Survey
The SC held that Sec. 5.4 of the Fair Election Act prohibiting
publication of survey results 15 days immediately preceding a
national election and 7 days before a local election violates the
constitutional rights of speech, expression, and the press
because:
V. PRE-PROCLAMATION
CONTROVERSY
Appellate Jurisdiction:
1.
3.
4.
2.
3.
1.
Election Protest
- May be filed by any candidate who has filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been voted upon for the same officer;
Grounds:
a.
b.
c.
d.
fraud;
terrorism;
irregularities; or
illegal acts
2.
Quo warranto
- Filed by any registered voter in the constituency
Grounds:
a. ineligibility; or
b. disloyalty to Republic.
Time to file: within 10 days from proclamation of results of
election.
QUO WARRANTO
QUO WARRANTO
IN ELECTIVE
IN APPOINTIVE OFFICE
OFFICE
1. determination is
eligibility of
candidate-elect
2. when person
elected is declared
ineligible, court
nd
cannot declare 2
placer as elected,
even if eligible
IV.
1. determination is
legality of
appointment
2.
court
may
determine as to
who among the
parties has legal
title to office
ELECTION OFFENSES
5.
LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION
I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991 (R.A. 7160)
all provinces,
cities,
municipalities,
barangays;
and other political subdivisions as may be created by law; and
to the extent provided in the Local Government Code:
a. to officials,
b. offices, or
c. agencies of the National Government.
6.
3.
PRIVATE
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
1. established for
purposes of
administration of civil
and local governments
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2. created by will of
incorporators with
recognizance of State
3. involuntary
consequence legislation
3. voluntary agreement
by and among
members
Requisites:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Abolition of LGU:
b.
1.
2.
3.
4.
c.
c.
d.
e.
f.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
b.
d.
th
2.
3.
4.
b.
Elected by District
a. regular members of Sanggunian
b. ex-officio members of Sanggunian
(i.) panlalawigan
3.
LOCAL OFFICIALS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Elected at large
a. Governor; Vice Governor;
b. City or municipal mayor; City or municipal vice-mayor;
c. Punong barangay,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
2.
1. ENABLING powers
DISTINCTIONS
LEGISLATIVE
INTERPRETATIVE
1. Capacity that
Legislative
Judicial
administrative agency
is acting in
2. What
It supplements the It says what the statute
administrative agency statute by filling in means
is doing
the details
3. Force and effect
Legislative
Merely
regulations have
persuasive/Received by
the force and effecr the courts with much
of law immediately respect but not accorded
upon going into
with finality
effect. Such is
accorded by the
courts or by
express provision
of statute.
Those that PERMIT the doing of an act which the law undertakes to
regulate and would be unlawful without government approval.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
3.
It can be either:
1. LEGISLATIVE
If the rules/rates are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind
throughout the country.
No prior notice and hearing is required.
2. QUASI-JUDICIAL
Questions Reviewable on Judicial Review:
If the rules and rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party,
based upon a finding of fact. Prior notice and hearing is required.
Requirement of Publication
Administrative Regulations that MUST be published:
1.
2.
1.
Interpretative regulations
Internal rules and regulations governing the personnel of
the administrative agency.
Letters of instruction issued by administrative superiors
concerning guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates. (Tanada v. Tuvera)
1. Questions of FACT
The general rule is that courts will not disturb the findings of
administrative agencies acting within the parameters of their own
competence so long as such findings are supported by substantial
evidence. By reason of their special knowledge, expertise, and
experience, the courts ordinarily accord respect if not finality to
factual findings of administrative tribunals.
2. Question of LAW
Administrative decision may be appealed to the courts
independently of legislative permission.
It may be appealed even against legislative prohibition because the
judiciary cannot be deprived of its inherent power to review all
decisions on questions of law.
Doctrine of Finality
Jurisdiction
Due process
2.
1.
Reasons :
1. to enable the administrative superiors to corr
ect the errors committed by their subordinat
es.
2. courts should refrain from disturbing the findi
ngs of administrative.
bodies in deference to the doctrine of separa
tion of powers.
3. courts should not be saddled with the review
of administrative cases
4. judicial review of administrative cases is usually
effected through special civil actions which are
available only if their is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
3. Exceptions
a. when the question raised is purely legal, involves constitutional
questions
b. when the administrative body is in estopped
c. when act complained of is patently illegal
d. when there is urgent need for judicial intervention
e. when claim involved is small
f. when irreparable damage is involved
JOHNS, J.:
At its special session of 1919, the Philippine Legislature passed Act
No. 2868, entitled "An Act penalizing the monopoly and holding of,
and speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under extraordinary
circumstances, regulating the distribution and sale thereof, and
authorizing the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council
of State, to issue the necessary rules and regulations therefor, and
making an appropriation for this purpose," the material provisions of
which are as follows:
Section 1. The Governor-General is hereby authorized, whenever,
for any cause, conditions arise resulting in an extraordinary rise in
the price of palay, rice or corn, to issue and promulgate, with the
consent of the Council of State, temporary rules and emergency
measures for carrying out the purpose of this Act, to wit:
(a) To prevent the monopoly and hoarding of, and speculation in,
palay, rice or corn.
(b) To establish and maintain a government control of the
distribution or sale of the commodities referred to or have such
distribution or sale made by the Government itself.
(c) To fix, from time to time the quantities of palay rice, or corn that
a company or individual may acquire, and the maximum sale price
that the industrial or merchant may demand.
(d) . . .
SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful to destroy, limit, prevent or in any other
manner obstruct the production or milling of palay, rice or corn for
the purpose of raising the prices thereof; to corner or hoard said
products as defined in section three of this Act; . . .
Section 3 defines what shall constitute a monopoly or hoarding of
palay, rice or corn within the meaning of this Act, but does not
specify the price of rice or define any basic for fixing the price.
SEC. 4. The violations of any of the provisions of this Act or of the
regulations, orders and decrees promulgated in accordance
therewith shall be punished by a fine of not more than five
thousands pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than two years,
or both, in the discretion of the court: Provided, That in the case of
companies or corporations the manager or administrator shall be
criminally liable.
SEC. 7. At any time that the Governor-General, with the consent of
the Council of State, shall consider that the public interest requires
the application of the provisions of this Act, he shall so declare by
proclamation, and any provisions of other laws inconsistent
herewith shall from then on be temporarily suspended.
Upon the cessation of the reasons for which such proclamation was
issued, the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of
State, shall declare the application of this Act to have likewise
terminated, and all laws temporarily suspended by virtue of the
same shall again take effect, but such termination shall not prevent
the prosecution of any proceedings or cause begun prior to such
termination, nor the filing of any proceedings for an offense
order, but has left it to the sole judgement and discretion of the
Governor-General to say what is or what is not "a cause," and what
is or what is not "an extraordinary rise in the price of rice," and as to
what is a temporary rule or an emergency measure for the carrying
out the purposes of the Act. Under this state of facts, if the law is
valid and the Governor-General issues a proclamation fixing the
minimum price at which rice should be sold, any dealer who, with or
without notice, sells rice at a higher price, is a criminal. There may
not have been any cause, and the price may not have been
extraordinary, and there may not have been an emergency, but, if
the Governor-General found the existence of such facts and issued a
proclamation, and rice is sold at any higher price, the seller commits
a crime.
By the organic law of the Philippine Islands and the Constitution of
the United States all powers are vested in the Legislative, Executive
and Judiciary. It is the duty of the Legislature to make the law; of the
Executive to execute the law; and of the Judiciary to construe the
law. The Legislature has no authority to execute or construe the law,
the Executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the
Judiciary has no power to make or execute the law. Subject to the
Constitution only, the power of each branch is supreme within its
own jurisdiction, and it is for the Judiciary only to say when any Act
of the Legislature is or is not constitutional. Assuming, without
deciding, that the Legislature itself has the power to fix the price at
which rice is to be sold, can it delegate that power to another, and, if
so, was that power legally delegated by Act No. 2868? In other
words, does the Act delegate legislative power to the GovernorGeneral? By the Organic Law, all Legislative power is vested in the
Legislature, and the power conferred upon the Legislature to make
laws cannot be delegated to the Governor-General, or any one else.
The Legislature cannot delegate the legislative power to enact any
law. If Act no 2868 is a law unto itself and within itself, and it does
nothing more than to authorize the Governor-General to make rules
and regulations to carry the law into effect, then the Legislature
itself created the law. There is no delegation of power and it is valid.
On the other hand, if the Act within itself does not define crime, and
is not a law, and some legislative act remains to be done to make it a
law or a crime, the doing of which is vested in the Governor-General,
then the Act is a delegation of legislative power, is unconstitutional
and void.
The Supreme Court of the United States in what is known as the
Granger Cases (94 U.S., 183-187; 24 L. ed., 94), first laid down the
rule:
Railroad companies are engaged in a public employment affecting
the public interest and, under the decision in Munn vs. Ill., ante, 77,
are subject to legislative control as to their rates of fare and freight
unless protected by their charters.
The Illinois statute of Mar. 23, 1874, to establish reasonable
maximum rates of charges for the transportation of freights and
passengers on the different railroads of the State is not void as being
repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or to that of the
State.
It was there for the first time held in substance that a railroad was a
public utility, and that, being a public utility, the State had power to
establish reasonable maximum freight and passenger rates. This was
followed by the State of Minnesota in enacting a similar law,
providing for, and empowering, a railroad commission to hear and
Where an act is clothed with all the forms of law, and is complete in
and of itself, it may be provided that it shall become operative only
upon some certain act or event, or, in like manner, that its operation
shall be suspended.
The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can
make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of
things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action
to depend.
The Village of Little Chute enacted an ordinance which provides:
All saloons in said village shall be closed at 11 o'clock P.M. each day
and remain closed until 5 o'clock on the following morning, unless
by special permission of the president.
1
Construing it in 136 Wis., 526; 128 A. S. R., 1100, the Supreme Court
of that State says:
We regard the ordinance as void for two reasons; First, because it
attempts to confer arbitrary power upon an executive officer, and
allows him, in executing the ordinance, to make unjust and
groundless discriminations among persons similarly situated;
second, because the power to regulate saloons is a law-making
power vested in the village board, which cannot be delegated. A
legislative body cannot delegate to a mere administrative officer
power to make a law, but it can make a law with provisions that it
shall go into effect or be suspended in its operations upon the
ascertainment of a fact or state of facts by an administrative officer
or board. In the present case the ordinance by its terms gives power
to the president to decide arbitrary, and in the exercise of his own
discretion, when a saloon shall close. This is an attempt to vest
legislative discretion in him, and cannot be sustained.
The legal principle involved there is squarely in point here.
It must be conceded that, after the passage of act No. 2868, and
before any rules and regulations were promulgated by the
Governor-General, a dealer in rice could sell it at any price, even at a
peso per "ganta," and that he would not commit a crime, because
there would be no law fixing the price of rice, and the sale of it at
any price would not be a crime. That is to say, in the absence of a
proclamation, it was not a crime to sell rice at any price. Hence, it
must follow that, if the defendant committed a crime, it was
because the Governor-General issued the proclamation. There was
no act of the Legislature making it a crime to sell rice at any price,
and without the proclamation, the sale of it at any price was to a
crime.
2
(5) The maximum selling price of palay, rice or corn is hereby fixed,
for the time being as follows:
In Manila
Palay at P6.75 per sack of 57 kilos, or 29 centavos per ganta.
Rice at P15 per sack of 57 kilos, or 63 centavos per ganta.
other product of the Islands. In the very nature of things, all of that
class of laws should be general and uniform. Otherwise, there would
be an unjust discrimination of property rights, which, under the law,
must be equal and inform. Act No. 2868 is nothing more than a
floating law, which, in the discretion and by a proclamation of the
Governor-General, makes it a floating crime to sell rice at a price in
excess of the proclamation, without regard to grade or quality.
When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the violation of the
proclamation of the Governor-General which constitutes the crime.
Without that proclamation, it was no crime to sell rice at any price.
In other words, the Legislature left it to the sole discretion of the
Governor-General to say what was and what was not "any cause" for
enforcing the act, and what was and what was not "an extraordinary
rise in the price of palay, rice or corn," and under certain undefined
conditions to fix the price at which rice should be sold, without
regard to grade or quality, also to say whether a proclamation
should be issued, if so, when, and whether or not the law should be
enforced, how long it should be enforced, and when the law should
be suspended. The Legislature did not specify or define what was
"any cause," or what was "an extraordinary rise in the price of rice,
palay or corn," Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon
which the proclamation should be issued. In the absence of the
proclamation no crime was committed. The alleged sale was made a
crime, if at all, because the Governor-General issued the
proclamation. The act or proclamation does not say anything about
the different grades or qualities of rice, and the defendant is
charged with the sale "of one ganta of rice at the price of eighty
centavos (P0.80) which is a price greater than that fixed by Executive
order No. 53."
We are clearly of the opinion and hold that Act No. 2868, in so far as
it undertakes to authorized the Governor-General in his discretion to
issue a proclamation, fixing the price of rice, and to make the sale of
rice in violation of the price of rice, and to make the sale of rice in
violation of the proclamation a crime, is unconstitutional and void.
It may be urged that there was an extraordinary rise in the price of
rice and profiteering, which worked a severe hardship on the poorer
classes, and that an emergency existed, but the question here
presented is the constitutionality of a particular portion of a statute,
and none of such matters is an argument for, or against, its
constitutionality.
The Constitution is something solid, permanent an substantial. Its
stability protects the life, liberty and property rights of the rich and
the poor alike, and that protection ought not to change with the
wind or any emergency condition. The fundamental question
involved in this case is the right of the people of the Philippine
Islands to be and live under a republican form of government. We
make the broad statement that no state or nation, living under
republican form of government, under the terms and conditions
specified in Act No. 2868, has ever enacted a law delegating the
power to any one, to fix the price at which rice should be sold. That
power can never be delegated under a republican form of
government.
In the fixing of the price at which the defendant should sell his rice,
the law was not dealing with government property. It was dealing
with private property and private rights, which are sacred under the
Constitution. If this law should be sustained, upon the same
principle and for the same reason, the Legislature could authorize
Separate Opinions
MALCOLM, J., concurring:
I concur in the result for reasons which reach both the facts and the
law. In the first place, as to the facts, one cannot be convicted ex
post facto of a violation of a law and of an executive order issued
pursuant to the law, when the alleged violation thereof occurred on
August 6, 1919, while the Act of the Legislature in question was not
published until August 13, 1919, and the order was not published
until August 20, 1919. In the second place, as to the law, one
cannot be convicted of a violation of a law or of an order issued
pursuant to the law when both the law and the order fail to set up
an ascertainable standard of guilt. (U.S. vs. Cohen Grocery Company
[1921], 255 U.S., 81, holding section 4 of the Federal Food Control
Act of August 10, 1917, as amended, invalid.)
In order that there may not be any misunderstanding of our
position, I would respectfully invite attention to the decision of the
United States Supreme Court in German Alliance Ins. Co. vs. Lewis
([1914, 233 U.S., 389), concerning the legislative regulation of the
prices charged by business affected with a public interest, and to
another decision of the United States Supreme Court, that of
Marshall Field & Co. vs. Clark ([1892], 143 U.S., 649), which adopts
as its own the principles laid down in the case of Locke's Appeal
([1873], 72 Pa. St., 491), namely; "The Legislature cannot delegate its
power to make a law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to
determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or
intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to
stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which
wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to
the law-making power, and must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry
and determination outside of the halls of legislation."
Avancea and Villamor, JJ., concur.
CRUZ, J.:
The essence of due process is distilled in the immortal cry of
Themistocles to Alcibiades "Strike but hear me first!" It is this cry
that the petitioner in effect repeats here as he challenges the
constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A.
The said executive order reads in full as follows:
WHEREAS, the President has given orders prohibiting the
interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of
carabaos not complying with the requirements of Executive Order
No. 626 particularly with respect to age;
WHEREAS, it has been observed that despite such orders the
violators still manage to circumvent the prohibition against interprovincial movement of carabaos by transporting carabeef instead;
and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve the purposes and objectives of
Executive Order No. 626 and the prohibition against interprovincial
movement of carabaos, it is necessary to strengthen the said
Executive Order and provide for the disposition of the carabaos and
carabeef subject of the violation;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby promulgate the following:
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 626 is hereby amended such that
henceforth, no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or
purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to
another. The carabao or carabeef transported in violation of this
Executive Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation and
forfeiture by the government, to be distributed to charitable
institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the
National Meat Inspection Commission may ay see fit, in the case of
carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director
of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos.
SECTION 2. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.
Done in the City of Manila, this 25th day of October, in the year of
Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty.
The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from
Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, 1984, when they were confiscated
by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for
violation of the above measure. 1 The petitioner sued for recovery,
and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin
upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. After
considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the
confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be
produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court also
declined to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as
raise by the petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its
2
presumed validity.
of the problem not from one or the other perspective only but in its
totality. A judgment based on less that this full appraisal, on the
pretext that a hearing is unnecessary or useless, is tainted with the
vice of bias or intolerance or ignorance, or worst of all, in repressive
regimes, the insolence of power.
The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing
13 which, generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because
they are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness. It is a
gratifying commentary on our judicial system that the jurisprudence
of this country is rich with applications of this guaranty as proof of
our fealty to the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fair play.
We have consistently declared that every person, faced by the
awesome power of the State, is entitled to "the law of the land,"
which Daniel Webster described almost two hundred years ago in
the famous Dartmouth College Case, 14 as "the law which hears
before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial." It has to be so if the rights of every person
are to be secured beyond the reach of officials who, out of mistaken
zeal or plain arrogance, would degrade the due process clause into a
worn and empty catchword.
This is not to say that notice and hearing are imperative in every
case for, to be sure, there are a number of admitted exceptions. The
conclusive presumption, for example, bars the admission of contrary
evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience
or there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the
fact ultimately presumed therefrom. 15 There are instances when
the need for expeditions action will justify omission of these
requisites, as in the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a
mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight because of the
immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people.
Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are
inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed. The
passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be cancelled
without hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled. 16
Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the
public health and bawdy houses to protect the public morals. 17 In
such instances, previous judicial hearing may be omitted without
violation of due process in view of the nature of the property
involved or the urgency of the need to protect the general welfare
from a clear and present danger.
The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of
the police power which both restraints and is restrained by due
process. The police power is simply defined as the power inherent in
the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the
general welfare. 18 By reason of its function, it extends to all the
great public needs and is described as the most pervasive, the least
limitable and the most demanding of the three inherent powers of
the State, far outpacing taxation and eminent domain. The
individual, as a member of society, is hemmed in by the police
power, which affects him even before he is born and follows him still
after he is dead from the womb to beyond the tomb in
practically everything he does or owns. Its reach is virtually limitless.
It is a ubiquitous and often unwelcome intrusion. Even so, as long as
the activity or the property has some relevance to the public
welfare, its regulation under the police power is not only proper but
necessary. And the justification is found in the venerable Latin
maxims, Salus populi est suprema lex and Sic utere tuo ut alienum
non laedas, which call for the subordination of individual interests to
the benefit of the greater number.
In the case before us, there was no such pressure of time or action
calling for the petitioner's peremptory treatment. The properties
involved were not even inimical per se as to require their instant
destruction. There certainly was no reason why the offense
prohibited by the executive order should not have been proved first
in a court of justice, with the accused being accorded all the rights
safeguarded to him under the Constitution. Considering that, as we
21
held in Pesigan v. Angeles, Executive Order No. 626-A is penal in
nature, the violation thereof should have been pronounced not by
the police only but by a court of justice, which alone would have had
the authority to impose the prescribed penalty, and only after trial
and conviction of the accused.
We also mark, on top of all this, the questionable manner of the
disposition of the confiscated property as prescribed in the
questioned executive order. It is there authorized that the seized
property shall "be distributed to charitable institutions and other
similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection
Commission may see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving
farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see
fit, in the case of carabaos." (Emphasis supplied.) The phrase "may
see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition, if
condition it is. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality
and abuse, and even corruption. One searches in vain for the usual
standard and the reasonable guidelines, or better still, the
limitations that the said officers must observe when they make their
distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless.
Who shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by
what criteria shall they be chosen? Only the officers named can
supply the answer, they and they alone may choose the grantee as
they see fit, and in their own exclusive discretion. Definitely, there is
here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping authority that is
not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing," in short,
a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative
powers.
To sum up then, we find that the challenged measure is an invalid
exercise of the police power because the method employed to
conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of
the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated
because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to
be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and
punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the
power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear
encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the
doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid
delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein
who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the
properties arbitrarily taken. For these reasons, we hereby declare
Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional.
We agree with the respondent court, however, that the police
station commander who confiscated the petitioner's carabaos is not
liable in damages for enforcing the executive order in accordance
with its mandate. The law was at that time presumptively valid, and
it was his obligation, as a member of the police, to enforce it. It
would have been impertinent of him, being a mere subordinate of
the President, to declare the executive order unconstitutional and,
on his own responsibility alone, refuse to execute it. Even the trial
court, in fact, and the Court of Appeals itself did not feel they had
the competence, for all their superior authority, to question the
order we now annul.
The Court notes that if the petitioner had not seen fit to assert and
protect his rights as he saw them, this case would never have
reached us and the taking of his property under the challenged
measure would have become a fait accompli despite its invalidity.
We commend him for his spirit. Without the present challenge, the
matter would have ended in that pump boat in Masbate and
another violation of the Constitution, for all its obviousness, would
have been perpetrated, allowed without protest, and soon forgotten
in the limbo of relinquished rights.
The strength of democracy lies not in the rights it guarantees but in
the courage of the people to invoke them whenever they are
ignored or violated. Rights are but weapons on the wall if, like
expensive tapestry, all they do is embellish and impress. Rights, as
weapons, must be a promise of protection. They become truly
meaningful, and fulfill the role assigned to them in the free society,
if they are kept bright and sharp with use by those who are not
afraid to assert them.
WHEREFORE, Executive Order No. 626-A is hereby declared
unconstitutional. Except as affirmed above, the decision of the Court
of Appeals is reversed. The supersedeas bond is cancelled and the
amount thereof is ordered restored to the petitioner. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras,
Gancayco, Padilla Bidin Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera and Feliciano, JJ., are on leave.
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-23825
All barrios existing at the time of the passage of this Act shall come
under the provisions hereof.
several officers affected and assign such officers to the new districts
so formed.
Hence, since January 1, 1960, when Republic Act No. 2370 became
effective, barrios may "not be created or their boundaries altered
nor their names changed" except by Act of Congress or of the
corresponding provincial board "upon petition of a majority of the
voters in the areas affected" and the "recommendation of the
council of the municipality or municipalities in which the proposed
barrio is situated." Petitioner argues, accordingly: "If the President,
under this new law, cannot even create a barrio, can he create a
municipality which is composed of several barrios, since barrios are
units of municipalities?"
Respondent answers in the affirmative, upon the theory that a new
municipality can be created without creating new barrios, such as,
by placing old barrios under the jurisdiction of the new municipality.
This theory overlooks, however, the main import of the petitioner's
argument, which is that the statutory denial of the presidential
authority to create a new barrio implies a negation of the bigger
power to create municipalities, each of which consists of several
barrios. The cogency and force of this argument is too obvious to be
denied or even questioned. Founded upon logic and experience, it
cannot be offset except by a clear manifestation of the intent of
Congress to the contrary, and no such manifestation, subsequent to
the passage of Republic Act No. 2379, has been brought to our
attention.
There are only two (2) other points left for consideration, namely,
respondent's claim (a) that "not all the proper parties" referring
to the officers of the newly created municipalities "have been
impleaded in this case," and (b) that "the present petition is
premature."
As regards the first point, suffice it to say that the records do not
show, and the parties do not claim, that the officers of any of said
municipalities have been appointed or elected and assumed office.
At any rate, the Solicitor General, who has appeared on behalf of
respondent Auditor General, is the officer authorized by law "to act
and represent the Government of the Philippines, its offices and
agents, in any official investigation, proceeding or matter requiring
the services of a lawyer" (Section 1661, Revised Administrative
Code), and, in connection with the creation of the aforementioned
municipalities, which involves a political, not proprietary, function,
said local officials, if any, are mere agents or representatives of the
national government. Their interest in the case at bar has,
8
accordingly, been, in effect, duly represented.
With respect to the second point, respondent alleges that he has not
as yet acted on any of the executive order & in question and has not
intimated how he would act in connection therewith. It is, however,
a matter of common, public knowledge, subject to judicial
cognizance, that the President has, for many years, issued executive
orders creating municipal corporations and that the same have been
organized and in actual operation, thus indicating, without
peradventure of doubt, that the expenditures incidental thereto
have been sanctioned, approved or passed in audit by the General
Auditing Office and its officials. There is no reason to believe,
therefore, that respondent would adopt a different policy as regards
the new municipalities involved in this case, in the absence of an
allegation to such effect, and none has been made by him.
WHEREFORE, the Executive Orders in question are hereby declared
null and void ab initio and the respondent permanently restrained
from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in
implementation of said Executive Orders or any disbursement by the
municipalities above referred to. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Dizon, JJ.,
concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
EN BANC
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.
The fiscal and all others are justified in relying upon the statute and
treating it as valid until it is held void by the courts in proper cases.
It remains to consider whether the determination of the
constitutionality of Act No. 4221 is necessary to the resolution of the
instant case. For, ". . . while the court will meet the question with
firmness, where its decision is indispensable, it is the part of
wisdom, and just respect for the legislature, renders it proper, to
waive it, if the case in which it arises, can be decided on other
points." (Ex parte Randolph [1833], 20 F. Cas. No. 11, 558; 2 Brock.,
447. Vide, also Hoover vs. wood [1857], 9 Ind., 286, 287.) It has been
held that the determination of a constitutional question is necessary
whenever it is essential to the decision of the case (12 C. J., p. 782,
citing Long Sault Dev. Co. vs. Kennedy [1913], 158 App. Div., 398;
143 N. Y. Supp., 454 [aff. 212 N.Y., 1: 105 N. E., 849; Ann. Cas.
1915D, 56; and app dism 242 U.S., 272]; Hesse vs. Ledesma, 7 Porto
Rico Fed., 520; Cowan vs. Doddridge, 22 Gratt [63 Va.], 458; Union
Line Co., vs. Wisconsin R. Commn., 146 Wis., 523; 129 N. W., 605), as
where the right of a party is founded solely on a statute the validity
of which is attacked. (12 C.J., p. 782, citing Central Glass Co. vs.
Niagrara F. Ins. Co., 131 La., 513; 59 S., 972; Cheney vs. Beverly, 188
Mass., 81; 74 N.E., 306). There is no doubt that the respondent Cu
Unjieng draws his privilege to probation solely from Act No. 4221
now being assailed.
Apart from the foregoing considerations, that court will also take
cognizance of the fact that the Probation Act is a new addition to
our statute books and its validity has never before been passed
upon by the courts; that may persons accused and convicted of
crime in the City of Manila have applied for probation; that some of
them are already on probation; that more people will likely take
advantage of the Probation Act in the future; and that the
respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng has been at large for a period of
about four years since his first conviction. All wait the decision of
this court on the constitutional question. Considering, therefore, the
importance which the instant case has assumed and to prevent
multiplicity of suits, strong reasons of public policy demand that the
constitutionality of Act No. 4221 be now resolved. (Yu Cong Eng vs.
Trinidad [1925], 47 Phil., 385; [1926], 271 U.S., 500; 70 Law. ed.,
1059. See 6 R.C.L., pp. 77, 78; People vs. Kennedy [1913], 207 N.Y.,
533; 101 N.E., 442, 444; Ann. Cas. 1914C, 616; Borginis vs. Falk Co.
[1911], 147 Wis., 327; 133 N.W., 209, 211; 37 L.R.A. [N.S.] 489;
Dimayuga and Fajardo vs. Fernandez [1922], 43 Phil., 304.) In Yu
Cong Eng vs. Trinidad, supra, an analogous situation confronted us.
We said: "Inasmuch as the property and personal rights of nearly
twelve thousand merchants are affected by these proceedings, and
inasmuch as Act No. 2972 is a new law not yet interpreted by the
courts, in the interest of the public welfare and for the advancement
of public policy, we have determined to overrule the defense of
want of jurisdiction in order that we may decide the main issue. We
have here an extraordinary situation which calls for a relaxation of
the general rule." Our ruling on this point was sustained by the
Supreme Court of the United States. A more binding authority in
support of the view we have taken can not be found.
We have reached the conclusion that the question of the
constitutionality of Act No. 4221 has been properly raised. Now for
the main inquiry: Is the Act unconstitutional?
Under a doctrine peculiarly American, it is the office and duty of the
judiciary to enforce the Constitution. This court, by clear implication
from the provisions of section 2, subsection 1, and section 10, of
U.S., 27; 61 L. Ed., 129; L.R.A., 1917E, 1178; 37 Sup. Ct. Rep., 72 Ann.
Cas. 1917B, 355), the Supreme Court denied the right of the district
courts to suspend sentenced. In the same opinion the court pointed
out the necessity for action by Congress if the courts were to
exercise probation powers in the future . . .
Since this decision was rendered, two attempts have been made to
enact probation legislation. In 1917, a bill was favorably reported by
the Judiciary Committee and passed the House. In 1920, the
judiciary Committee again favorably reported a probation bill to the
House, but it was never reached for definite action.
If this bill is enacted into law, it will bring the policy of the Federal
government with reference to its treatment of those convicted of
violations of its criminal laws in harmony with that of the states of
the Union. At the present time every state has a probation law, and
in all but twelve states the law applies both to adult and juvenile
offenders. (see, also, Johnson, Probation for Juveniles and Adults
[1928], Chap. I.)
The constitutionality of the federal probation law has been
sustained by inferior federal courts. In Riggs vs. United States supra,
the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit said:
Since the passage of the Probation Act of March 4, 1925, the
questions under consideration have been reviewed by the Circuit
Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit (7 F. [2d], 590), and the
constitutionality of the act fully sustained, and the same held in no
manner to encroach upon the pardoning power of the President.
This case will be found to contain an able and comprehensive review
of the law applicable here. It arose under the act we have to
consider, and to it and the authorities cited therein special reference
is made (Nix vs. James, 7 F. [2d], 590, 594), as is also to a decision of
the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit (Kriebel vs. U.S.,
10 F. [2d], 762), likewise construing the Probation Act.
We have seen that in 1916 the Supreme Court of the United States;
in plain and unequivocal language, pointed to Congress as
possessing the requisite power to enact probation laws, that a
federal probation law as actually enacted in 1925, and that the
constitutionality of the Act has been assumed by the Supreme Court
of the United States in 1928 and consistently sustained by the
inferior federal courts in a number of earlier cases.
We are fully convinced that the Philippine Legislature, like the
Congress of the United States, may legally enact a probation law
under its broad power to fix the punishment of any and all penal
offenses. This conclusion is supported by other authorities. In Ex
parte Bates ([1915], 20 N. M., 542; L.R.A. 1916A, 1285; 151 Pac.,
698, the court said: "It is clearly within the province of the
Legislature to denominate and define all classes of crime, and to
prescribe for each a minimum and maximum punishment." And in
State vs. Abbott ([1910], 87 S.C., 466; 33 L.R.A. [N. S.], 112; 70 S. E.,
6; Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1189), the court said: "The legislative power to
set punishment for crime is very broad, and in the exercise of this
power the general assembly may confer on trial judges, if it sees fit,
the largest discretion as to the sentence to be imposed, as to the
beginning and end of the punishment and whether it should be
certain or indeterminate or conditional." (Quoted in State vs. Teal
[1918], 108 S. C., 455; 95 S. E., 69.) Indeed, the Philippine Legislature
has defined all crimes and fixed the penalties for their violation.
Invariably, the legislature has demonstrated the desire to vest in the
But the desire of the legislature to relax what might result in the
undue harshness of the penal laws is more clearly demonstrated in
various other enactments, including the probation Act. There is the
Indeterminate Sentence Law enacted in 1933 as Act No. 4103 and
subsequently amended by Act No. 4225, establishing a system of
parole (secs. 5 to 100 and granting the courts large discretion in
imposing the penalties of the law. Section 1 of the law as amended
provides; "hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offenses
punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the
said Code, and to a minimum which shall be within the range of the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense;
and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum
term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and
the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by
the same." Certain classes of convicts are, by section 2 of the law,
excluded from the operation thereof. The Legislature has also
enacted the Juvenile Delinquency Law (Act No. 3203) which was
subsequently amended by Act No. 3559. Section 7 of the original Act
and section 1 of the amendatory Act have become article 80 of the
Revised Penal Code, amended by Act No. 4117 of the Philippine
Legislature and recently reamended by Commonwealth Act No. 99
of the National Assembly. In this Act is again manifested the
intention of the legislature to "humanize" the penal laws. It allows,
in effect, the modification in particular cases of the penalties
prescribed by law by permitting the suspension of the execution of
the judgment in the discretion of the trial court, after due hearing
and after investigation of the particular circumstances of the
offenses, the criminal record, if any, of the convict, and his social
history. The Legislature has in reality decreed that in certain cases
no punishment at all shall be suffered by the convict as long as the
conditions of probation are faithfully observed. It this be so, then, it
cannot be said that the Probation Act comes in conflict with the
power of the Chief Executive to grant pardons and reprieves,
because, to use the language of the Supreme Court of New Mexico,
"the element of punishment or the penalty for the commission of a
wrong, while to be declared by the courts as a judicial function
under and within the limits of law as announced by legislative acts,
concerns solely the procedure and conduct of criminal causes, with
which the executive can have nothing to do." (Ex parte Bates, supra.)
In Williams vs. State ([1926], 162 Ga., 327; 133 S.E., 843), the court
upheld the constitutionality of the Georgia probation statute against
the contention that it attempted to delegate to the courts the
pardoning power lodged by the constitution in the governor alone is
vested with the power to pardon after final sentence has been
imposed by the courts, the power of the courts to imposed any
penalty which may be from time to time prescribed by law and in
such manner as may be defined cannot be questioned."
We realize, of course, the conflict which the American cases
disclose. Some cases hold it unlawful for the legislature to vest in the
courts the power to suspend the operation of a sentenced, by
probation or otherwise, as to do so would encroach upon the
pardoning power of the executive. (In re Webb [1895], 89 Wis., 354;
27 L.R.A., 356; 46 Am. St. Rep., 846; 62 N.W., 177; 9 Am. Crim., Rep.,
702; State ex rel. Summerfield vs. Moran [1919], 43 Nev., 150; 182
Pac., 927; Ex parte Clendenning [1908], 22 Okla., 108; 1 Okla. Crim.
Rep., 227; 19 L.R.A. [N.S.], 1041; 132 Am. St. Rep., 628; 97 Pac., 650;
People vs. Barrett [1903], 202 Ill, 287; 67 N.E., 23; 63 L.R.A., 82; 95
Am. St. Rep., 230; Snodgrass vs. State [1912], 67 Tex. Crim. Rep.,
615; 41 L. R. A. [N. S.], 1144; 150 S. W., 162; Ex parte Shelor [1910],
33 Nev., 361;111 Pac., 291; Neal vs. State [1898], 104 Ga., 509; 42 L.
R. A., 190; 69 Am. St. Rep., 175; 30 S. E. 858; State ex rel. Payne vs.
Anderson [1921], 43 S. D., 630; 181 N. W., 839; People vs. Brown, 54
Mich., 15; 19 N. W., 571; States vs. Dalton [1903], 109 Tenn., 544; 72
S. W., 456.)
Other cases, however, hold contra. (Nix vs. James [1925; C. C. A.,
9th], 7 F. [2d], 590; Archer vs. Snook [1926; D. C.], 10 F. [2d], 567;
Riggs. vs. United States [1926; C. C. A. 4th], 14]) [2d], 5; Murphy vs.
States [1926], 171 Ark., 620; 286 S. W., 871; 48 A. L. R., 1189; Re
Giannini [1912], 18 Cal. App., 166; 122 Pac., 831; Re Nachnaber
[1928], 89 Cal. App., 530; 265 Pac., 392; Ex parte De Voe [1931], 114
Cal. App., 730; 300 Pac., 874; People vs. Patrick [1897], 118 Cal., 332;
50 Pac., 425; Martin vs. People [1917], 69 Colo., 60; 168 Pac., 1171;
Belden vs. Hugo [1914], 88 Conn., 50; 91 A., 369, 370, 371; Williams
vs. State [1926], 162 Ga., 327; 133 S. E., 843; People vs. Heise [1913],
257 Ill., 443; 100 N. E., 1000; Parker vs. State [1893], 135 Ind., 534;
35 N. E., 179; 23 L. R. A., 859; St. Hillarie, Petitioner [1906], 101 Me.,
522; 64 Atl., 882; People vs. Stickle [1909], 156 Mich., 557; 121 N.
W., 497; State vs. Fjolander [1914], 125 Minn., 529; State ex rel.
Bottomnly vs. District Court [1925], 73 Mont., 541; 237 Pac., 525;
State vs. Everitt [1913], 164 N. C., 399; 79 S. E., 274; 47 L. R. A. [N.
S.], 848; State ex rel. Buckley vs. Drew [1909], 75 N. H., 402; 74 Atl.,
875; State vs. Osborne [1911], 79 N. J. Eq., 430; 82 Atl. 424; Ex parte
Bates [1915], 20 N. M., 542; L. R. A., 1916 A. 1285; 151 Pac., 698;
People vs. ex rel. Forsyth vs. Court of Session [1894], 141 N. Y., 288;
23 L. R. A., 856; 36 N. E., 386; 15 Am. Crim. Rep., 675; People ex rel.
Sullivan vs. Flynn [1907], 55 Misc., 639; 106 N. Y. Supp., 928; People
vs. Goodrich [1914], 149 N. Y. Supp., 406; Moore vs. Thorn [1935],
245 App. Div., 180; 281 N. Y. Supp., 49; Re Hart [1914], 29 N. D., 38;
L. R. A., 1915C, 1169; 149 N. W., 568; Ex parte Eaton [1925], 29
Okla., Crim. Rep., 275; 233 P., 781; State vs. Teal [1918], 108 S. C.,
455; 95 S. E., 69; State vs. Abbot [1910], 87 S. C., 466; 33 L.R.A., [N.
S.], 112; 70 S. E., 6; Ann. Cas., 1912B, 1189; Fults vs. States [1854],34
Tenn., 232; Woods vs. State [1814], 130 Tenn., 100; 169 S. W., 558;
Baker vs. State [1814], 130 Tenn., 100; 169 S. W., 558; Baker vs.
State [1913],70 Tex., Crim. Rep., 618; 158 S. W., 998; Cook vs. State
[1914], 73 Tex. Crim. Rep., 548; 165 S. W., 573; King vs. State [1914],
72 Tex. Crim. Rep., 394; 162 S. W., 890; Clare vs. State [1932], 122
Tex. Crim. Rep., 394; 162 S. W., 890; Clare vs. State [1932], 122 Tex.
Crim. Rep., 211; 54 S. W. [2d], 127; Re Hall [1927], 100 Vt., 197; 136
A., 24; Richardson vs. Com. [1921], 131 Va., 802; 109 S.E., 460; State
vs. Mallahan [1911], 65 Wash., 287; 118 Pac., 42; State ex rel.
Tingstand vs. Starwich [1922], 119 Wash., 561; 206 Pac., 29; 26 A. L.
R., 393; 396.) We elect to follow this long catena of authorities
holding that the courts may be legally authorized by the legislature
to suspend sentence by the establishment of a system of probation
however characterized. State ex rel. Tingstand vs. Starwich ([1922],
119 Wash., 561; 206 Pac., 29; 26 A. L. R., 393), deserved particular
mention. In that case, a statute enacted in 1921 which provided for
the suspension of the execution of a sentence until otherwise
ordered by the court, and required that the convicted person be
placed under the charge of a parole or peace officer during the term
of such suspension, on such terms as the court may determine, was
held constitutional and as not giving the court a power in violation
of the constitutional provision vesting the pardoning power in the
chief executive of the state. (Vide, also, Re Giannini [1912], 18 Cal
App., 166; 122 Pac., 831.)
Probation and pardon are not coterminous; nor are they the same.
They are actually district and different from each other, both in
origin and in nature. In People ex rel. Forsyth vs. Court of Sessions
([1894], 141 N. Y., 288, 294; 36 N. E., 386, 388; 23 L. R. A., 856; 15
Am. Crim. Rep., 675), the Court of Appeals of New York said:
. . . The power to suspend sentence and the power to grant
reprieves and pardons, as understood when the constitution was
adopted, are totally distinct and different in their nature. The former
was always a part of the judicial power; the latter was always a part
of the executive power. The suspension of the sentence simply
postpones the judgment of the court temporarily or indefinitely, but
the conviction and liability following it, and the civil disabilities,
remain and become operative when judgment is rendered. A pardon
reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the
guilt of the offender. It releases the punishment, and blots out of
existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law, the offender is as
innocent as if he had never committed the offense. It removes the
penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights. It
makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and
capacity. (Ex parte Garland, 71 U. S., 4 Wall., 333; 18 Law. ed., 366;
U. S. vs. Klein, 80 U. S., 13 Wall., 128; 20 Law. ed., 519; Knote vs. U.
S., 95 U. S., 149; 24 Law. ed., 442.)
The framers of the federal and the state constitutions were perfectly
familiar with the principles governing the power to grant pardons,
and it was conferred by these instruments upon the executive with
full knowledge of the law upon the subject, and the words of the
constitution were used to express the authority formerly exercised
by the English crown, or by its representatives in the colonies. (Ex
parte Wells, 59 U. S., 18 How., 307; 15 Law. ed., 421.) As this power
was understood, it did not comprehend any part of the judicial
functions to suspend sentence, and it was never intended that the
authority to grant reprieves and pardons should abrogate, or in any
degree restrict, the exercise of that power in regard to its own
judgments, that criminal courts has so long maintained. The two
powers, so distinct and different in their nature and character, were
still left separate and distinct, the one to be exercised by the
executive, and the other by the judicial department. We therefore
conclude that a statute which, in terms, authorizes courts of criminal
jurisdiction to suspend sentence in certain cases after conviction,
a power inherent in such courts at common law, which was
understood when the constitution was adopted to be an ordinary
judicial function, and which, ever since its adoption, has been
exercised of legislative power under the constitution. It does not
encroach, in any just sense, upon the powers of the executive, as
they have been understood and practiced from the earliest times.
(Quoted with approval in Directors of Prisons vs. Judge of First
Instance of Cavite [1915], 29 Phil., 265, Carson, J., concurring, at pp.
294, 295.)
In probation, the probationer is in no true sense, as in pardon, a free
man. He is not finally and completely exonerated. He is not exempt
from the entire punishment which the law inflicts. Under the
Probation Act, the probationer's case is not terminated by the mere
fact that he is placed on probation. Section 4 of the Act provides
that the probation may be definitely terminated and the probationer
finally discharged from supervision only after the period of
probation shall have been terminated and the probation officer shall
have submitted a report, and the court shall have found that the
probationer has complied with the conditions of probation. The
probationer, then, during the period of probation, remains in legal
custody subject to the control of the probation officer and of the
court; and, he may be rearrested upon the non-fulfillment of the
conditions of probation and, when rearrested, may be committed to
847; 107 A.L.R., 1500 and cases cited. See also R. C. L., title
"Constitutional Law", sec 174.) In the case at bar, what rules are to
guide the provincial boards in the exercise of their discretionary
power to determine whether or not the Probation Act shall apply in
their respective provinces? What standards are fixed by the Act? We
do not find any and none has been pointed to us by the
respondents. The probation Act does not, by the force of any of its
provisions, fix and impose upon the provincial boards any standard
or guide in the exercise of their discretionary power. What is
granted, if we may use the language of Justice Cardozo in the recent
case of Schecter, supra, is a "roving commission" which enables the
provincial boards to exercise arbitrary discretion. By section 11 if the
Act, the legislature does not seemingly on its own authority extend
the benefits of the Probation Act to the provinces but in reality
leaves the entire matter for the various provincial boards to
determine. In other words, 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 plain language of the Act is not susceptible of any other
interpretation. This, to our minds, is a virtual surrender of legislative
power to the provincial boards.
"The true distinction", says Judge Ranney, "is between the
delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a
discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or
discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in
pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid
objection can be made." (Cincinnati, W. & Z. R. Co. vs. Clinton
County Comrs. [1852]; 1 Ohio St., 77, 88. See also, Sutherland on
Statutory Construction, sec 68.) To the same effect are the decision
of this court in Municipality of Cardona vs. Municipality of
Binangonan ([1917], 36 Phil., 547); Rubi vs. Provincial Board of
Mindoro ([1919],39 Phil., 660) and Cruz vs. Youngberg ([1931], 56
Phil., 234). In the first of these cases, this court sustained the validity
of the law conferring upon the Governor-General authority to adjust
provincial and municipal boundaries. In the second case, this court
held it lawful for the legislature to direct non-Christian inhabitants
to take up their habitation on unoccupied lands to be selected by
the provincial governor and approved by the provincial board. In the
third case, it was held proper for the legislature to vest in the
Governor-General authority to suspend or not, at his discretion, the
prohibition of the importation of the foreign cattle, such prohibition
to be raised "if the conditions of the country make this advisable or
if deceased among foreign cattle has ceased to be a menace to the
agriculture and livestock of the lands."
It should be observed that in the case at bar we are not concerned
with the simple transference of details of execution or the
promulgation by executive or administrative officials of rules and
regulations to carry into effect the provisions of a law. If we were,
recurrence to our own decisions would be sufficient. (U. S. vs.
Barrias [1908], 11 Phil., 327; U.S. vs. Molina [1914], 29 Phil., 119;
Alegre vs. Collector of Customs [1929], 53 Phil., 394; Cebu Autobus
Co. vs. De Jesus [1931], 56 Phil., 446; U. S. vs. Gomez [1915], 31 Phil.,
218; Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro [1919], 39 Phil., 660.)
It is connected, however, that a legislative act may be made to the
effect as law after it leaves the hands of the legislature. It is true that
equal laws." (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins [1886], 118 U. S., 356; 30 Law. ed.,
220; 6 Sup. Ct. Rep., 10464; Perley vs. North Carolina, 249 U. S., 510;
39 Sup. Ct. Rep., 357; 63 Law. ed., 735.) Of course, what may be
regarded as a denial of the equal protection of the laws in a question
not always easily determined. No rule that will cover every case can
be formulated. (Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co. [1902], 184, U. S.,
540; 22 Sup. Ct., Rep., 431; 46 Law. ed., 679.) Class legislation
discriminating against some and favoring others in prohibited. But
classification on a reasonable basis, and nor made arbitrarily or
capriciously, is permitted. (Finely vs. California [1911], 222 U. S., 28;
56 Law. ed., 75; 32 Sup. Ct. Rep., 13; Gulf. C. & S. F. Ry Co. vs. Ellis
[1897], 165 U. S., 150; 41 Law. ed., 666; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep., 255; Smith,
Bell & Co. vs. Natividad [1919], 40 Phil., 136.) The classification,
however, to be reasonable must be based on substantial distinctions
which make real differences; it must be germane to the purposes of
the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must
apply equally to each member of the class. (Borgnis vs. Falk. Co.
[1911], 147 Wis., 327, 353; 133 N. W., 209; 3 N. C. C. A., 649; 37 L. R.
A. [N. S.], 489; State vs. Cooley, 56 Minn., 540; 530-552; 58 N. W.,
150; Lindsley vs. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.[1911], 220 U. S., 61, 79,
55 Law. ed., 369, 377; 31 Sup. Ct. Rep., 337; Ann. Cas., 1912C, 160;
Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. vs. Clough [1917], 242 U.S., 375; 37 Sup.
Ct. Rep., 144; 61 Law. ed., 374; Southern Ry. Co. vs. Greene [1910],
216 U. S., 400; 30 Sup. Ct. Rep., 287; 54 Law. ed., 536; 17 Ann. Cas.,
1247; Truax vs. Corrigan [1921], 257 U. S., 312; 12 C. J., pp. 1148,
1149.)
In the case at bar, however, 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. On that hypothesis,
every person coming within the purview of the Probation Act would
be entitled to avail of the benefits of the Act. Neither will there be
any resulting inequality if no province, through its provincial board,
should appropriate any amount for the salary of the probation
officer which is the situation now and, also, if we accept the
contention that, for the purpose of the Probation Act, the City of
Manila should be considered as a province and that the municipal
board of said city has not made any appropriation for the salary of
the probation officer. These different situations suggested show,
indeed, that while inequality may result in the application of the law
and in the conferment of the benefits therein provided, inequality is
not in all cases the necessary result. But whatever may be the case,
it is clear that in section 11 of the Probation Act creates a situation
in which discrimination and inequality are permitted or allowed.
There are, to be sure, abundant authorities requiring actual denial of
the equal protection of the law before court should assume the task
of setting aside a law vulnerable on that score, but premises and
circumstances considered, we are of the opinion that section 11 of
Act No. 4221 permits of the denial of the equal protection of the law
and is on that account bad. We see no difference between a law
which permits of such denial. A law may appear to be fair on its face
and impartial in appearance, yet, if it permits of unjust and illegal
discrimination, it is within the constitutional prohibitions. (By
analogy, Chy Lung vs. Freeman [1876], 292 U. S., 275; 23 Law. ed.,
550; Henderson vs. Mayor [1876], 92 U. S., 259; 23 Law. ed., 543; Ex
parte Virginia [1880], 100 U. S., 339; 25 Law. ed., 676; Neal vs.
Delaware [1881], 103 U. S., 370; 26 Law. ed., 567; Soon Hing vs.
Crowley [1885], 113 U. S., 703; 28 Law. ed., 1145, Yick Wo vs.
Hopkins [1886],118 U. S., 356; 30 Law. ed., 220; Williams vs.
Mississippi [1897], 170 U. S., 218; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep., 583; 42 Law. ed.,
1012; Bailey vs. Alabama [1911], 219 U. S., 219; 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145;
55 Law. ed., Sunday Lake Iron Co. vs. Wakefield [1918], 247 U. S.,
450; 38 Sup. Ct. Rep., 495; 62 Law. ed., 1154.) In other words,
statutes may be adjudged unconstitutional because of their effect in
operation (General Oil Co. vs. Clain [1907], 209 U. S., 211; 28 Sup. Ct.
Rep., 475; 52 Law. ed., 754; State vs. Clement Nat. Bank [1911], 84
Vt., 167; 78 Atl., 944; Ann. Cas., 1912D, 22). If the law has the effect
of denying the equal protection of the law it is unconstitutional. (6 R.
C. L. p. 372; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3; 3 Sup. Ct. Rep., 18; 27
Law. ed., 835; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, supra; State vs. Montgomery, 94
Me., 192; 47 Atl., 165; 80 A. S. R., 386; State vs. Dering, 84 Wis., 585;
54 N. W., 1104; 36 A. S. R., 948; 19 L. R. A., 858.) Under section 11 of
the Probation Act, not only may said Act be in force in one or several
provinces and not be in force in other provinces, but one province
may appropriate for the salary of the probation officer of a given
year and have probation during that year and thereafter
decline to make further appropriation, and have no probation is
subsequent years. While this situation goes rather to the abuse of
discretion which delegation implies, it is here indicated to show that
the Probation Act sanctions a situation which is intolerable in a
government of laws, and to prove how easy it is, under the Act, to
make the guaranty of the equality clause but "a rope of sand".
(Brewer, J. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. vs. Ellis [1897], 165 U. S., 150 154;
41 Law. ed., 666; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep., 255.)lawph!1.net
Great reliance is placed by counsel for the respondents on the case
of Ocampo vs. United States ([1914], 234 U. S., 91; 58 Law. ed.,
1231). In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed
the decision of this court (18 Phil., 1) by declining to uphold the
contention that there was a denial of the equal protection of the
laws because, as held in Missouri vs. Lewis (Bowman vs. Lewis)
decided in 1880 (101 U. S., 220; 25 Law. ed., 991), the guaranty of
the equality clause does not require territorial uniformity. It should
be observed, however, that this case concerns the right to
preliminary investigations in criminal cases originally granted by
General Orders No. 58. No question of legislative authority was
involved and the alleged denial of the equal protection of the laws
was the result of the subsequent enactment of Act No. 612,
amending the charter of the City of Manila (Act No. 813) and
providing in section 2 thereof that "in cases triable only in the court
of first instance of the City of Manila, the defendant . . . shall not be
entitled as of right to a preliminary examination in any case where
the prosecuting attorney, after a due investigation of the facts . . .
shall have presented an information against him in proper form . . .
." Upon the other hand, an analysis of the arguments and the
decision indicates that the investigation by the prosecuting attorney
although not in the form had in the provinces was considered a
reasonable substitute for the City of Manila, considering the peculiar
conditions of the city as found and taken into account by the
legislature itself.
Reliance is also placed on the case of Missouri vs. Lewis, supra. That
case has reference to a situation where the constitution of Missouri
permits appeals to the Supreme Court of the state from final
judgments of any circuit court, except those in certain counties for
which counties the constitution establishes a separate court of
appeals called St. Louis Court of Appeals. The provision complained
of, then, is found in the constitution itself and it is the constitution
that makes the apportionment of territorial jurisdiction.
We are of the opinion that section 11 of the Probation Act is
unconstitutional and void because it is also repugnant to equalprotection clause of our Constitution.
Section 11 of the Probation Act being unconstitutional and void for
the reasons already stated, the next inquiry is whether or not the
entire Act should be avoided.
In seeking the legislative intent, the presumption is against any
mutilation of a statute, and the courts will resort to elimination only
where an unconstitutional provision is interjected into a statute
otherwise valid, and is so independent and separable that its
removal will leave the constitutional features and purposes of the
act substantially unaffected by the process. (Riccio vs. Hoboken, 69
N. J. Law., 649, 662; 63 L. R. A., 485; 55 Atl., 1109, quoted in Williams
vs. Standard Oil Co. [1929], 278 U.S., 235, 240; 73 Law. ed., 287, 309;
49 Sup. Ct. Rep., 115; 60 A. L. R., 596.) In Barrameda vs. Moir
([1913], 25 Phil., 44, 47), this court stated the well-established rule
concerning partial invalidity of statutes in the following language:
. . . where part of the a statute is void, as repugnant to the Organic
Law, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from
the valid, may stand and be enforced. But in order to do this, the
valid portion must be in so far independent of the invalid portion
that it is fair to presume that the Legislative would have enacted it
by itself if they had supposed that they could not constitutionally
enact the other. (Mutual Loan Co. vs. Martell, 200 Mass., 482; 86 N.
E., 916; 128 A. S. R., 446; Supervisors of Holmes Co. vs. Black Creek
Drainage District, 99 Miss., 739; 55 Sou., 963.) Enough must remain
to make a complete, intelligible, and valid statute, which carries out
the legislative intent. (Pearson vs. Bass. 132 Ga., 117; 63 S. E., 798.)
The void provisions must be eliminated without causing results
affecting the main purpose of the Act, in a manner contrary to the
intention of the Legislature. (State vs. A. C. L. R., Co., 56 Fla., 617,
642; 47 Sou., 969; Harper vs. Galloway, 58 Fla., 255; 51 Sou., 226; 26
L. R. A., N. S., 794; Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S., 540,
565; People vs. Strassheim, 240 Ill., 279, 300; 88 N. E., 821; 22 L. R.
A., N. S., 1135; State vs. Cognevich, 124 La., 414; 50 Sou., 439.) The
language used in the invalid part of a statute can have no legal force
or efficacy for any purpose whatever, and what remains must
express the legislative will, independently of the void part, since the
court has no power to legislate. (State vs. Junkin, 85 Neb., 1; 122 N.
W., 473; 23 L. R. A., N. S., 839; Vide, also,. U. S., vs. Rodriguez [1918],
38 Phil., 759; Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. [1895], 158 U.
S., 601, 635; 39 Law. ed., 1108, 1125; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep., 912; 6 R.C.L.,
121.)
It is contended that even if section 11, which makes the Probation
Act applicable only in those provinces in which the respective
provincial boards provided for the salaries of probation officers were
inoperative on constitutional grounds, the remainder of the Act
would still be valid and may be enforced. We should be inclined to
accept the suggestions but for the fact that said section is, in our
opinion, is inseparably linked with the other portions of the Act that
with the elimination of the section what would be left is the bare
idealism of the system, devoid of any practical benefit to a large
number of people who may be deserving of the intended beneficial
result of that system. 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.
Section 2 of the Acts provides that the probation officer shall
supervise and visit the probationer. Every probation officer is given,
as to the person placed in probation under his care, the powers of
the police officer. It is the duty of the probation officer to see that
the conditions which are imposed by the court upon the probationer
under his care are complied with. Among those conditions, the
following are enumerated in section 3 of the Act:
That the probationer (a) shall indulge in no injurious or vicious
habits;
(b) Shall avoid places or persons of disreputable or harmful
character;
(c) Shall report to the probation officer as directed by the court or
probation officers;
(d) Shall permit the probation officer to visit him at reasonable times
at his place of abode or elsewhere;
(e) Shall truthfully answer any reasonable inquiries on the part of
the probation officer concerning his conduct or condition; "(f) Shall
endeavor to be employed regularly; "(g) Shall remain or reside
within a specified place or locality;
(f) Shall make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved parties for
actual damages or losses caused by his offense;
(g) Shall comply with such orders as the court may from time to time
make; and
(h) Shall refrain from violating any law, statute, ordinance, or any bylaw or regulation, promulgated in accordance with law.
The court is required to notify the probation officer in writing of the
period and terms of probation. Under section 4, it is only after the
period of probation, the submission of a report of the probation
officer and appropriate finding of the court that the probationer has
complied with the conditions of probation that probation may be
definitely terminated and the probationer finally discharged from
supervision. Under section 5, if the court finds that there is non-
court shall notify "the probation officer" in writing of the period and
terms of probation (sec. 3, last par.), it means the probation officer
who is in charge of a particular probationer in a particular province.
It never could have been intention of the legislature, for instance, to
require the probationer in Batanes, to report to a probationer
officer in the City of Manila, or to require a probation officer in
Manila to visit the probationer in the said province of Batanes, to
place him under his care, to supervise his conduct, to instruct him
concerning the conditions of his probation or to perform such other
functions as are assigned to him by law.
That under section 10 the Secretary of Justice may appoint as many
probation officers as there are provinces or groups of provinces is, of
course possible. But this would be arguing on what the law may be
or should be and not on what the law is. Between is and ought there
is a far cry. The wisdom and propriety of legislation is not for us to
pass upon. We may think a law better otherwise than it is. But much
as has been said regarding progressive interpretation and judicial
legislation we decline to amend the law. We are not permitted to
read into the law matters and provisions which are not there. Not
for any purpose not even to save a statute from the doom of
invalidity.
Upon the other hand, the clear intention and policy of the law is not
to make the Insular Government defray the salaries of probation
officers in the provinces but to make the provinces defray them
should they desire to have the Probation Act apply thereto. The sum
of P50,000, appropriated "to carry out the purposes of this Act", is
to be applied, among other things, for the salaries of probation
officers in the central office at Manila. These probation officers are
to receive such compensations as the Secretary of Justice may fix
"until such positions shall have been included in the Appropriation
Act". It was the intention of the legislature to empower the
Secretary of Justice to fix the salaries of the probation officers in the
provinces or later on to include said salaries in an appropriation act.
Considering, further, that the sum of P50,000 appropriated in
section 10 is to cover, among other things, the salaries of the
administrative personnel of the Probation Office, what would be left
of the amount can hardly be said to be sufficient to pay even
nominal salaries to probation officers in the provinces. We take
judicial notice of the fact that there are 48 provinces in the
Philippines and we do not think it is seriously contended that, with
the fifty thousand pesos appropriated for the central office, there
can be in each province, as intended, a probation officer with a
salary not lower than that of a provincial fiscal. If this a correct, the
contention that without section 11 of Act No. 4221 said act is
complete is an impracticable thing under the remainder of the Act,
unless it is conceded that in our case there can be a system of
probation in the provinces without probation officers.
Probation as a development of a modern penology is a
commendable system. Probation laws have been enacted, here and
in other countries, to permit what modern criminologist call the
"individualization of the punishment", the adjustment of the penalty
to the character of the criminal and the circumstances of his
particular case. It provides a period of grace in order to aid in the
rehabilitation of a penitent offender. It is believed that, in any cases,
convicts may be reformed and their development into hardened
criminals aborted. It, therefore, takes advantage of an opportunity
for reformation and avoids imprisonment so long as the convicts
gives promise of reform. (United States vs. Murray [1925], 275 U. S.,
347 357, 358; 72 Law. ed., 309; 312, 313; 48 Sup. Ct. Rep., 146;
Kaplan vs. Hecht, 24 F. [2d], 664, 665.) The Welfare of society is its
chief end and aim. The benefit to the individual convict is merely
incidental. But while we believe that probation is commendable as a
system and its implantation into the Philippines should be
welcomed, we are forced by our inescapable duty to set the law
aside because of the repugnancy to our fundamental law.
In arriving at this conclusion, we have endeavored to consider the
different aspects presented by able counsel for both parties, as well
in their memorandums as in their oral argument. We have examined
the cases brought to our attention, and others we have been able to
reach in the short time at our command for the study and
deliberation of this case. In the examination of the cases and in then
analysis of the legal principles involved we have inclined to adopt
the line of action which in our opinion, is supported better reasoned
authorities and is more conducive to the general welfare. (Smith,
Bell & Co. vs. Natividad [1919], 40 Phil., 136.) Realizing the conflict of
authorities, we have declined to be bound by certain adjudicated
cases brought to our attention, except where the point or principle
is settled directly or by clear implication by the more authoritative
pronouncements of the Supreme Court of the United States. This
line of approach is justified because:
(a) The constitutional relations between the Federal and the State
governments of the United States and the dual character of the
American Government is a situation which does not obtain in the
Philippines;
(b) The situation of s state of the American Union of the District of
Columbia with reference to the Federal Government of the United
States is not the situation of the province with respect to the Insular
Government (Art. I, sec. 8 cl. 17 and 10th Amendment, Constitution
of the United States; Sims vs. Rives, 84 Fed. [2d], 871),
(c) The distinct federal and the state judicial organizations of the
United States do not embrace the integrated judicial system of the
Philippines (Schneckenburger vs. Moran [1936], 35 Off. Gaz., p.
1317);
(d) "General propositions do not decide concrete cases" (Justice
Holmes in Lochner vs. New York [1904], 198 U. S., 45, 76; 49 Law.
ed., 937, 949) and, "to keep pace with . . . new developments of
times and circumstances" (Chief Justice Waite in Pensacola Tel. Co.
vs. Western Union Tel. Co. [1899], 96 U. S., 1, 9; 24 Law. ed., 708;
Yale Law Journal, Vol. XXIX, No. 2, Dec. 1919, 141, 142), fundamental
principles should be interpreted having in view existing local
conditions and environment.
Act No. 4221 is hereby declared unconstitutional and void and the
writ of prohibition is, accordingly, granted. Without any
pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.
Avancea, C.J., Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
Villa-real and Abad Santos, JJ., concur in the result.
Melendres v COMELEC
Facts:
Melendres (who lost the Brgy. Chairman position to Concepcion in
the May 1997 elections) filed an election protest at the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Pasig contesting results of the elections. After
preliminary hearing, it was found that no filing of docket fee was
paid by Melendres (which was required in Sec.6, Rule 37 of
COMELEC Rules of Procedure) so Concepcion moved to dismiss the
case on grounds of failure to comply with it. Trial Court denied the
motion to dismiss and said that the case should be continued on the
ground that the filing of docket fee is merely an admin. procedural
matter and not jurisdictional. Concepcion elevated the case for
COMELEC to decide on and ruling was that the Trial Court should
cease and desist form further acting on the Election case.
Main issue:
W/N COMELEC acted with a grave abuse of discretion in its ruling
Sub-issue:
W/N payment of filing fee in an election protest is a jurisdictional
reqt
Held:
Sub-issue: No. The payment of filing fee is an admin. procedural
matter, proceeding as it does from an admin. body. Sec 6, Rule 37 of
COMELEC Rules of Procedure is explicit and does not speak of
conferment of jurisdiction upon the Trial Court or acquisition by the
Court of jurisdiction upon payment of filing fee. Contemporaneous
construction is resorted for certainty and predictability in laws esp.
those involving specific terms having tech. agencies.
Main Issue: No. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
in its ruling. The interpretation of an admin. govt agency is accorded
with great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the
courts. When it renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it
merely interprets a pre-existing law. Courts give weight to govt
agency or officials charged with the implementation of law, their
competence, expertness, experience and informed judgment.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 129958 November 25, 1999
MIGUEL MELENDRES, JR., petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RUPERTO P. CONCEPCION,
respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
1
14.13 in ignoring the real issue in SPR 16-97, which is the right and
the authority of the lower court to order the Clerk of Court to accept
the payment of the filing fee in protest cases;
14.15 in not applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
3
of Rodillas v. Commission on Elections consistent with the
provisions of Section 18 of Rule 42 of the COMELEC RULES OF
PROCEDURES.
The Court issued a Resolution dated September 14, 1999 which,
among others, gave due course to the petition and required the
parties to submit their respective memoranda within thirty (30) days
from notice. However, in view of petitioner's "Urgent Motion for
4
5
Early Resolution" and private respondent's Comment thereon,
echoing petitioner's desire that the petition be "immediately
resolved in order that the issues raised may be finally put to rest,"
the Court deemed it to the best interest of justice to dispense with
the filing of the said memoranda and to forthwith decide the
questions raised on the basis of the parties' pleadings.
The issues raised here boils down to whether or not: 1.] the
payment of the filing fee in an election protest is a jurisdictional
requirement and non-compliance can be a valid basis for the
dismissal of the protest; 2.] subsequent full payment of the filing fee
after the lapse of the reglementary period will cure the jurisdictional
defect; and, 3.] public respondent observed due process prior to the
promulgation of the questioned resolution in SPR No. 16-97.
With regard to the first issue, it appears from the record that private
respondent was proclaimed as the duly elected Punong Barangay of
6
Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City on May 12, 1997. On May 21, 1997,
petitioner filed an election protest challenging the results of the
barangay elections with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City
where the same was docketed as Election Protest Case No. 083-97
and raffled to Branch 68 of said court.
On June 4, 1997, after the preliminary hearing of the case, it was
shown that no filing or docket fee was paid by petitioner/protestant,
7
prompting private respondent/protestee to move for the dismissal
of the election protest on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for
failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of payment of
filing fee as required under Section 6, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure which provides that
Sec. 6. Filing fee. No protest shall be given due course without the
payment of a filing fee of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) and the
legal research fee as required by law. (Emphasis supplied).
On June 5, 1997, the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Pasig City, Branch 68, issued an Order which reads:
Upon verification with the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of
Pasig City, it was found out that indeed, no filing fee was paid for
this petition, as none was collected by the Clerk of Court from all
those who filed election protests.
Be that as it may, the question raised in this case is whether or not
compliance with Sec. 6, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
is jurisdictional.
In ordinary civil actions to which the Revised Rules of Court and
other related doctrines apply, the court acquires jurisdiction over
the case only upon payment of the filing fee. It should be noted,
however, that the instant case is not an ordinary action but an
election case. By express provision of Rule 143, the Revised Rules of
Court shall not apply to election cases except by analogy or in a
suppletory character whenever practicable and convenient. Suffice it
to say that the suppletory character is applied only when a law or
Rule in question is silent on the matter in contention. The COMELEC
Rule in question is, however, explicit. Under the circumstances, the
Revised Rules of Court and its related doctrines do not apply to this
case.
As afore-cited, the COMELEC Rule in question (Sec. 6, Rule 37) is
explicit. The Rule does not speak of conferment of jurisdiction upon
the Court or the acquisition by the Court of jurisdiction upon
payment of the filing fee. Nothing extant in the COMELEC Rules
either expressly or by implication requires the payment of the filing
fee for purposes of conferment upon or acquisition by the Court of
jurisdiction over the case. The Rule speaks only of "giving due
course" to the protest upon the payment of the filing fee.
Undeniably therefore, the payment of the filing fee is an
administrative procedural matter, proceeding as it does from an
administrative body.
Due course has been given to this protest when it was accepted for
filing by the Clerk of Court without payment of the filing fee. There
was an honest error of omission on the part of the Clerk of Court as
evidenced by the fact that all the other election protests were
accepted for filing by the Clerk of Court without the payment of
filing fee. This petition was no exception. There simply was an
administrative procedural lapse but which does not detract from the
fact that the Court has jurisdiction over this case as conferred upon
it by substantive law, the Omnibus Election Code.
The Court had acquired jurisdiction over the case. The jurisdiction of
the Court over a contest attaches when motion containing the
proper jurisdictional averments is filed within the time prescribed by
law; the jurisdiction of the Court cannot thereafter be determined
by law; what the law itself may do or may not do (Lucero vs. De
Guzman, 46 Phil. 852). The payment of the filing fee is not one of the
jurisdictional facts required to be alleged in the petition. At any rate,
the sufficiency of the allegations in the petition is not essential for
the acquisition of jurisdiction (which had already been acquired by
the filing of the petition, as afore-cited), but only to continue in its
10
Sec. 3. Period to file petition. The petition shall be filed within ten
(10) days following the date of proclamation of the results of the
election.
the subsequent payment of the filing fee on June 6, 1997 did not
cure the jurisdictional defect because the said date which is deemed
the actual date of filling the election protest is twenty-five (25) days
after the proclamation of the results of the election on May 12, 1997
and, needless to state, way beyond the ten-day reglementary period
to file the same. In this regard, it bears stressing that
The rule prescribing the ten-day period is mandatory and
jurisdictional and the filing of an election protest beyond the period
27
deprives the court of jurisdiction over the protest. Violation of this
rule should not be taken lightly nor should it be brushed aside as a
mere procedural lapse that can be overlooked. The rule is not a mere
technicality but an essential requirement, the non-compliance of
which would oust the court of jurisdiction over the case.
28
29
because, aside from the fact that decisions, order or actions of the
COA in the exercise of its audit functions are appealable to the
7
Supreme Court pursuant to Sec. 50 of PD 1445, the benefits under
said Res. 56, though referred to as "financial assistance", constituted
additional retirement benefits, and the scheme partook of the
nature of a supplementary pension/retirement plan proscribed by
law.
The law referred to above is RA 4968 (The Teves Retirement Law),
which took effect June 17, 1967 and amended CA 186 (otherwise
known as the Government Service Insurance Act, or the GSIS
Charter), making Sec. 28 (b) of the latter act read as follows:
(b) Hereafter, no insurance or retirement plan for officers or
employees shall be created by employer. All supplementary
retirement or pension plans heretofore in force in any government
office. agency or instrumentality or corporation owned or controlled
by the government, are hereby declared in operative or abolished;
Provided, That the rights of those who are already eligible to retire
there under shall not be affected." (emphasis supplied)
On January 12, 1993, herein petitioners filed with respondent COA
8
their "letter-appeal/protest" seeking reconsideration of COA's
ruling of July 10, 1989 disallowing claims for financial assistance
under Res. 56.
On November 15, 1993, petitioner Conte sought payment from SSS
of the benefits under Res. 56. On December 9, 1993, SSS
9
Administrator Renato C. Valencia denied the request in consonance
with the previous disallowance by respondent COA, but assured
petitioner that should the COA change its position, the SSS will
resume the grant of benefits under said Res. 56.
On March 15, 1994, respondent COA rendered its COA Decision No.
94-126 denying petitioners' request for reconsideration.
Thus this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The Issues
10
N
D
E
.
M
A
R
C
O
S
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
R
e
p
u