People vs.

Vera applicability and application of the Probation Act are entirely placed in the hands of
G.R. No. 45685
The constitutionality of Act No. 4221, the Probation Act, is challenged in the case of People v. Vera,
where the court rules that the respondent judge lacks the authority to grant probation and deems
the act unconstitutional due to violations of the equal protection clause and unlawful delegation of
legislative power.
FACTS:
1. This is an original action instituted in this court on August 19, 1937, for the issuance of
the writs of certiorari and of prohibition to the Court of First Instance of Manila so that this
court may review the actuations of the aforesaid Court of First Instance in criminal case
No. 42649 entitled "The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, et Al.
2. Petitioners herein, the People of the Philippine Islands and the Hongkong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation, are respectively the plaintiff and the offended
party, and the respondent herein Mariano Cu Unjieng is one of the defendants.
3. The respondent, Mariano Cu Unjieng, had been convicted of a crime and filed a
petition for probation under Act No. 4221.
• The Court of First Instance of Manila denied the application, stating that
while the evidence did not conclusively establish the defendant's guilt,
granting probation could raise public outcry and undermine the respect
for laws and judicial decisions.
4. The respondent filed various motions for reconsideration and intervention, which led to
the present case being brought before the court.
ISSUE:
the provincial boards. If a 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 is a virtual surrender of legislative power to the provincial boards.
9. RESULTANT INEQUALITY FROM UNWANTED DELEGATION; PROBATION ACT
PERMITS DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION. — In the case of Act No. 4221, the
resultant inequality may be said to flow from the unwarranted delegation of legislative
power to the provincial boards. 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 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 courts 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 denies equal
protection and 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 prohibition. In other words, statutes may be adjudged unconstitutional
because of their effect in operation. If a law has the effect of denying the equal
protection of the law it is unconstitutional.
10. Considering that the Act particularly Section 11 is an undue delegation of
legislative authority that denies equal protection of laws, the court ruled it
unconstitutional. And since the said section is inseparable with the entire Act that
its elimination will render the law ineffective, the court further ruled Act No. 4221
as unconstitutional and void and the writ of prohibition is granted.

5. WON Act No. 4221, also known as the Probation Act is unconstitutional.
Section 11 - "This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which the respective
provincial boards have provided for the sale of a probation officer at rates not
lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officers shall
be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of
the Probation Office."

RULING:

6. Act. No. 4221 is unconstitutional and void.

RATIONALE:

7. ACT NO. 4221 ENCROACHES UPON THE PARDONING POWER OF THE

EXECUTIVE - Probation Act does not conflict with the pardoning power of the Executive.
The pardoning power, in respect to those serving their probationary sentences,
remains as full and complete as if the Probation Law had never been enacted. The
President may yet pardon the probationer and thus place it beyond the power of
the court to order his rearrest and imprisonment.
8. CONSTITUTE UNDUE DELEGATION OF POLICE POWER - By section 11 of the Act,
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
Burgos vs. Macapagal-Arroyo 3. The AFP and the PNP were ordered to explain their failure to provide relevant
documents to the CHR
G.R. No. 183711, 183712 & 183713
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
A mother seeks justice for the enforced disappearance of her son, leading to the identification of
military officials involved and the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 4. The CHR conducted field investigations, interviewed witnesses, and gathered
evidence.
FACTS: 5. Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. of the 56th Infantry Battalion, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army
was identified as one of the abductors based on witness testimonies and other evidence.
1. Jonas Joseph T. Burgos was forcibly abducted on April 28, 2007, from Hapag Kainan
Restaurant in Ever Gotesco Mall, Quezon City.
2. Edita T. Burgos, the mother of Jonas, filed petitions for Habeas Corpus, Contempt,
and Writ of Amparo against various military officials, including President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr., and Lt. Gen. Romeo P. Tolentino.
3. The Court of Appeals (CA)
• Dismissed the petition for the issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus;
• Denied the petitioner's motion to declare the respondents in Contempt; and
• Partially granted the privilege of the Writ of Amparo.
4. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) for
further investigation and gathering of evidence.
5. The CHR conducted field investigations, interviewed witnesses, and obtained new
evidence, including the positive identification of Lt. Harry A. Baliaga Jr. as one of the
abductors of Jonas.
6. The CHR submitted its Investigation Report on the Enforced Disappearance of Jonas
Burgos to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

7. The main issue raised in the case is the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos and
the accountability of the military officials involved.

RULING:

8. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition and issued a
new writ of habeas corpus.
9. The case was referred back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
10. The contempt charge against the respondents was dismissed but could be re-filed in the
future based on the results of ongoing investigations.
11. Lt. Baliaga, Jr. was impleaded as a party to the case.
12. The production of Jonas Burgos and an explanation from the respondents were
required.

INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION

1. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the investigations conducted by
the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
were inadequate and incomplete.
2. Significant lapses were identified, including the failure to identify the abductors
based on eyewitness accounts and the failure to conduct an independent
investigation into the veracity of certain claims.
Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila 5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUALPROTECTION OF
THE LAWS; RIGHTS OF CHINESE ALIENS. — The rights of Chinese laundrymen
G.R. No. 15972 are not less because they may be aliens. The life, liberty, or property of these persons
cannot be taken without due process of law; they are entitled to the equal protection
A Chinese laundryman challenges the validity of an ordinance requiring laundries to issue receipts of the laws without regard to their race; and treaty rights, as effectuated between the
in English and Spanish, but the court rules that the ordinance is valid under the city's municipal United States and China, must be accorded them.
police power.

FACTS:

1. The case involves the validity of Ordinance No. 532 of the city of Manila.
2. The ordinance requires laundries, dyeing, and cleaning establishments to issue
receipts in duplicate in English and Spanish.
3. Kwong Sing, a Chinese laundryman, filed a complaint seeking a declaration that
the ordinance is null and void.
4. The lower court granted a preliminary injunction but denied a permanent injunction after
trial.
• Kwong Sing appealed the decision.

ISSUE:

5. Whether Ordinance No. 532 is valid or not or is an act beyond the scope of police power.

RULING:

6. The court ruled that Ordinance No. 532 is valid. Judgment is affirmed, and the petition for
a preliminary injunction is denied.

RATIONALE:

1. Finding that the ordinance is valid, the general rule to the effect that an injunction will not
be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution should be followed.
2. PUBLIC CORPORATIONS; MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER; ORDINANCE NO. 682,
CITY OF MANILA; LAUNDRIES; LAUNDRY RECEIPTS IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH.
— The government of the city of Manila possesses the power to enact Ordinance No.
532, requiring receipts in duplicate in English and Spanish duly signed showing the kind
and number of articles delivered by laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments.
As said ordinance is neither oppressive, nor unequal, nor unjust, it is valid. The
very foundation of the police power is the control of private interests for the public
welfare.
3. "REGULATE," CONSTRUED. — The word "regulate," as used in subsection (1),
section 2444, of the Administrative Code, means and includes the power to control, to
govern, and to restrain; but "regulate" should not be construed as synonymous
with suppress" or "prohibit."
• Under the power to regulate laundries, the municipal authorities can make
proper police regulations as to the mode in which the employment or business
shall be exercised.
4. The purpose of the ordinance is to promote peace and good order, prevent fraud
and deceit, and protect customers who cannot understand Chinese characters.
• Having receipts in English and Spanish serves the convenience of the
public in a multilingual community.
Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. vs. Alcuaz • The NTC's order did not provide a rational basis for the rate reduction and did
not consider the impact on PHILCOMSAT's operations and the quality of its
G.R. No. 84818 service.
• The Court held that the rate reduction imposed by the NTC was confiscatory
The Philippine Supreme Court rules in favor of Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation and violated substantive due process.
(PHILCOMSAT) in their challenge against the National Telecommunications Commission's order to
• The Supreme Court nullified the NTC's order and directed the NTC to proceed
reduce rates, citing violations of procedural and substantive due process.
with the hearing and determination of PHILCOMSAT's application for a
FACTS: certificate of public convenience and necessity.
8. The power of the State to regulate public utilities is limited by the requirement that
1. The case involves a challenge by the Philippine Communications Satellite rates be reasonable and just.
Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) against an order issued by the National 9. A rate is confiscatory if it unduly deprives the utility of a reasonable return on its property.
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to reduce its rates. 10. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural due process and reasonable
2. PHILCOMSAT is the only company providing public utility services for international rates in the regulation of public utilities.
satellite communications in the Philippines. 11. The order issued by the NTC is void and should be nullified. The respondents
• PHILCOMSAT operates under a legislative franchise and has established should proceed with the hearing and determination of the petitioner's application
various installations and facilities for its services. for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
• PHILCOMSAT leases its satellite circuits to several international carriers,
enabling them to provide communication services such as overseas telephone,
telex, facsimile, and television.
3. In 1987, PHILCOMSAT filed an application with the NTC for authority to continue
operating and maintaining its facilities and to charge the current rates for its
services.
• The NTC granted PHILCOMSAT a provisional authority to continue its
operations and charge the rates it was then charging.
4. In 1988, the NTC issued an order directing PHILCOMSAT to reduce its rates by
fifteen percent (15%) based on an initial evaluation of PHILCOMSAT's financial
statements.
• PHILCOMSAT challenged the order, arguing that it violated procedural due
process and constituted a confiscatory rate reduction.

ISSUE:

5. Whether the NTC's order to reduce PHILCOMSAT's rates violates procedural due
process and constitutes a confiscatory rate reduction.

RULING:

6. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PHILCOMSAT.

RATIONALE:

7. The Court held that the NTC's order violated procedural due process because it
was issued without prior notice and hearing.
• The rate-fixing power of administrative bodies, such as the NTC, is quasi-
judicial in nature and requires notice and hearing.
• The order, even though temporary in nature, still required notice and
hearing as it affected the revenue of PHILCOMSAT during the prescribed
period.
 prevented from resolving the same whenever warranted, subject only to review
by the highest tribunal.
Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court.

G.R. No. 74457

Doctrine: Lower courts have authority to resolve the issue of constitutionality of legislative
measures.

FACTS:

1. The constitutionality of former President Marcos’s Executive Order No. 626-A is

assailed. Said order decreed an absolute ban on the inter-provincial transportation
of carabao (regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose) and carabeef.
• The carabao or carabeef transported in violation of this shall be
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government, to be distributed to
charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the
National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) may see fit, in the case of
carabeef.
• In the case of carabaos, these shall be given to deserving farmers as the
Director of Animal Industry (AI) may also see fit.
2. Petitioner had transported six (6) carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo.
These were confiscated by the police for violation of the above order.
• He sued for recovery, which the RTC granted upon his filing of a supersedeas
bond worth 12k. After trial on the merits, the lower court sustained the
confiscation of the carabaos, and as they can no longer be produced,
directed the confiscation of the bond.
• It deferred from ruling on the constitutionality of the executive order, on the
grounds of want of authority and presumed validity.
3. On appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court, such ruling was upheld. Hence, this
petition for review on certiorari.
• Petitioner asserts that EO 626-A is unconstitutional insofar as it
authorizes outright confiscation, and that its penalty suffers from
invalidity because it is imposed without giving the owner a right to be
heard before a competent and impartial court—as guaranteed by due
process.

ISSUE:

4. Who may exercise the power of Judicial Review?

RULING:

5. The SC ruled that the lower courts are not prevented from resolving constitutional
questions. We have jurisdiction under the Constitution to “review, revise, reverse,
modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may provide,”
final judgments and orders of lower courts in, among others, all cases involving
the constitutionality of certain measures.
• Supreme Court has declared that while lower courts should observe a becoming
modesty in examining constitutional questions, they are nonetheless not