THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. JOSE O. VERA, Judge . of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and MARIANO CU UNJIENG, respondents; G.R. No. L-45685 November 16, 1937

TOPIC: Judicial Review

The State can challenge the validity of its own laws. The damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.

FACTS:

1. Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a criminal case filed against him by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) in January 1934.

2. November 1936, Mariano Cu Unjieng filed an application for probation.

3. The Insular Probation Office denied the application for probation in June 1937, 

4. On April 5, 1937, a hearing was set by Judge Jose Vera concerning the petition for probation.

5. Prosecution filed an opposition to the probation saying that Act No. 4221 or the probation law only allows provinces with probation officers and that the City of Manila is not a province and even if it would be considered a province does not have a probation officer.

6. HSBC filed contentions to the Act No. 4221 or The Probation Law stating that it is violative of Art. III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection of the laws since its applicability is not uniform throughout the Islands. Also, section 11 of the said Act endows the provincial boards with the power to make said law effective or otherwise in their respective or otherwise in their respective provinces (if a province wants to adopt the Probation Law to it, a probation officer needs to be hired. Otherwise, it need not.)

7.  The Lower Court, seated by Respondent Judge Vera declined to pass upon the question on the ground that the private prosecutor, not being a party whose rights are affected by the statute, may not raise said question and proceeded on the assumption that Act No. 4221 is constitutional.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the raised questioned constitutionality of Act No. 4221 can be the subject of judicial review.

2. Whether or not Act No. 4221 is unconstitutional.

RULING:

1. 

YES. Act No. 4221's constitutionality can be the subject of judicial review.

While the lower court refused to consider the question solely because it was not raised by a proper party, the issue on the constitutionality may still be raised in an original action of certiorari and prohibition. 

The REQUISITES FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW as applied in the case are as follows:

❶ an actual and appropriate case and controversy exists;

In the case at bar, there was an actual controversy since the law concerning Mariano Cu Unjieng's probation cannot be properly ruled upon if Act No. 4221's constitutionality is yet to be determined.

❷ a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question;

Although HSBC, represented by the private prosecution is not the proper party to raise the constitutional question here, the Supreme Court opined that the People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is such a proper party in the present proceedings. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act No. 4221 really violates the Constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.

❸ the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity;

As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity, so that if not raised by the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised a the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal. But courts, in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine the time when a question affecting the constitutionality of a statute should be presented. (In re Woolsey [19884], 95 N.Y., 135, 144.) Thus, in criminal cases, although there is a very sharp conflict of authorities, it is said that the question may be raised for the first time at any state of the proceedings, either in the trial court or on appeal. Hence, the case at bar can be pleaded in the trial court or on the appellate court.

❹ the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case.

It is a well-settled rule that the constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case; i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented. (McGirr vs. Hamilton and Abreu [1915]

The constitutionality of Act No. 4221 is the lis mota of the case.

Hence all the requisites of a judicial review are present, the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 can be the subject of judicial review.

2. 

Act No. 4221 is declared unconstitutional and void since the Probation Law violates section 1, subsection 1, Article III, of the Constitution of the Philippines and section 2, Art. VIII of the Constitution of the Philippines. 

There is indeed a violation of the equal protection clause as HSBC and the Prosecution contended. Under Act 4221, provinces were given the option to apply the law by simply providing for a probation officer. So if a province decides not to install a probation officer, then the accused within said province will be unduly deprived of the provisions of the Probation Law.

There is undue delegation of legislative power. Act 4221 provides that it shall only apply to provinces where the respective provincial boards have provided for a probation officer. But nowhere in the law did it state as to what standard (sufficient standard test) should provincial boards follow in determining whether or not to apply the probation law in their province. This only creates a roving commission which will act arbitrarily according to its whims.

ADDITIONAL INFO:

REQUISITES FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW:

❶ an actual and appropriate case and controversy exists;

❷ a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question;

❸ the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and

❹ the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case

The Supreme Court declared that the Government of the Philippines is a proper party to question the validity of its own laws, because more than any one, it should be concerned with the constitutionality of its acts. In that case, it was held that the government has substantial interest in having the Probation Law declared as unconstitutional, because more than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal would inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. (Nachura)

To determine legal standing, the Court adopted the direct injury test, which states that a person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result. (Nachura)

The case involved Act No. 2221, otherwise known as the Probation Act, which empowered Provincial Boards to appropriate salaries of probation officers for the maintenance of the probation system in their respective provinces. The Supreme Court said that such delegation of legislative power to the local law making bodies, leaving to them the option to support or not to support a probation system, could result in gross inequalities among the various provinces and thus, in effect, permit denial of equal protection. "We see no difference between a law which denies equal protection and a law which permits such denial,"2 the Court asserted. The law, the Court added, even permitted denial of equal protection to inhabitants of the same province in that the Provincial Board might appropriate money to support the system in one year and refuse to do the same in another year.245 To the objection that the equal protection clause did not require territorial uniformity, as held in Ocampo v. US.,2*6 the Court pointed out that the system approved in the Ocampo case was one which preserved substantial uniformity: the preliminary investigation required by General Orders No. 58 for territories outside Manila had its equivalent, for Manila, in the prescribed investigation conducted by the prosecuting attorney.. If the Vera decision leaves the impression that the equal protection clause requires territorial uniformity, subsequent decisions are clearly to the contrary. (Bernas)

6. Other requisites for judicial review.

In addition to the essential requisites of "actual case" and "standing", jurisprudence has also evolved other auxiliary rules. Thus, it was pointed out in People v. Vera, As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity, so that if not raised by the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised at the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal. ... But we must state that the general rule admits of exceptions. Courts, in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine the time when a question affecting constitutionality of a statute should be presented."124 Another rule is that the Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality unless it really is unavoidable or is the very lis mota. "It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record also presents some other ground upon which the court may raise its judgment, that course will be adopted and the constitutional question will be left for consideration until such question will be unavoidable." (BERNAS)

When the constitutionality of a statute can be raised:

1. mandamus proceedings (Cu Unjieng vs. Patstone ([1922]), 42 Phil., 818)

2. quo warranto ( Springer vs. Government of the Philippine Islands (1928)

3. habeas corpus proceedings ( (12 C. J., p. 783; Bailey on Habeas Corpus, Vol. I, pp. 97, 117), al)

4. certiorari and prohibition (Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad,) - like the present case