CONSTIUTIONAL LAW 1 | BAM MEDINA | TERM 1 AY 2011-2012

TOPIC:Requisites of Judicial Review | Proper party | Governmental Standing o The application for probation was submitted to the Insular Probation office referred to by Judge Pedro Tuason who then recommended the denial of the application for probation on June 18, 1937. Judge Jose O. Vera then set the petition for hearing on April 5, 1937. April 2, 1937 the Fiscal of the city of Manila and the private prosecution filed oppositions. On June 28, 1937 Judge Vera promulgated a resolution concluding that Cu Unjieng "esinocentepordudaracional" of the crime of which he stands convicted by the Supreme court in GR 41200, but denying the latter's petition for probation. July 3, 1937 counsel for Cu Unjiengfiled an exception to the resolution denying probation and a notice of intention to file a motion for reconsideration. An alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed by counsel on 13 July 1937. August 6, 1937 Fiscal of Manila filed a motion with the trial court for an issuance of an order of execution of the judgment etc etc. HSBC and the people came to the Supreme Court on extraordinary legal process to put an end to the very long proceedings of the court of first instance which caused a delay in the execution of the sentence. THE ISSUE: Is the People of the Philippines through the Solicitor general and the fiscal of Manila a proper party in the case at hand? Undue delegation of authority Questioned probation law HELD: YES. RULING:

PEOPLE v VERA 65 Phil 56 (November 16, 1937)

THE FACTS: Vera was the Judge of the criminal case The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, et al wherein Cu Unjieng applied for the probation of the said case (GR 42649) GR 42649 o Filed on October 15, 1931 in the Court of First Instance of Manila. o On January 8 1934, the court of first instance of Manila rendered a judgment of conviction sentencing Cu Unjieng to indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years and 2 months of prisioncorreccional to 8 years of prision mayor, to pay the costs and with reservation of civil action to the offended party, HSBC. o On March26, 1935 upon appeal the court revised its penalty to an indeterminate penalty of from 5 years and 6 months of prisioncorreccional to 7 years, 6 months and 27 days of prision mayor, but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. o The defendant then (Cu Unjieng) filed a motion for reconsideration and several (4) successive motions for a new trial but all of which were denied by the court. (December 17, 1935) o On December 18, 1935 final judgment. o The defendant sought to file a certiorari to the SC but it was later on denied. (November 1936) o The SC denied the defendants leave to file a second alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial and thereafter returned the case to the court of origin for the execution of the judgment. o On November 27, 1936 the defendant filed a petition for probation wherein the defendant states that he is innocent, of the crime of which he was convicted, that he has no criminal record and that he would observe good conduct in the future. o o o

o o

CONSTIUTIONAL LAW 1 | BAM MEDINA | TERM 1 AY 2011-2012

People won. RATIO: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is 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 sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act 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.