80- People V Vera.docx

(80) PEOPLE v. VERA GR 45685, Nov. 16, 1937 EQUAL PROTECTION AND VALID CLASSIFICATION. This basic individual right sheltered by the Constitution is a restraint on all the three grand departments of our government and on the subordinate instrumentalities and subdivisions thereof, and on many constitutional powers, like the police power, taxation and eminent domain. The equal protection of the laws, sententiously observes the Supreme Court of the United States, "is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Of course, what may be regarded as a denial of the equal protection of the laws is a question not always easily determined. No rule that will cover every case can be formulated. Class legislation discriminating against some and favoring others is prohibited. But classification on a reasonable basis, and not made arbitrarily or capriciously, is permitted. 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. A LAW MAY APPEAR FAIR ON ITS FACE OR IMPARTIAL IN APPEARANCE, YET IF IT PERMITS UNJUST AND ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION, IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION. - 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 purposes 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 a 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 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. 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 the other provinces, but one province may appropriate for the salary of a probation officer of a given year — and have probation during that year — and thereafter decline to make further appropriation, and have no probation in 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". People vs. Vera “No existing controversy yet” – applicable to equal protection clause (EPC). “As applied doctrine” – all elements of judicial inquiry need not satisfied. A law may appear on its face or impartial in appearance, yet if permits unjust and illegal discrimination, it is still subject to the constitutional prohibition. FACTS: The instant petition stems from the application for bail filed by Co Unjieng. He claims that he is innocent of the crime charged against him, that he has no existing criminal record and that he would observe proper conduct in the future if his application for bail is granted. The application was referred to the Insular Probation Office, but was consequently denied. The denial was premised on the ground that Act No. 4221 provides probation only to those provinces with available funds for the salary of probation officers, and the province referred to has no sufficient funds. Thus, petitioner now comes before the Court assailing the constitutionality of the Act for being violative of the equal protection clause. ISSUE: Whether there is a violation of the equal protection guarantee? HELD: YES. The probation act is in violation of the said constitutional guarantee. It constitutes as a class legislation which discriminates against persons of the same class and favor others. Person’s with similar circumstances may be afforded with the privilege of probation merely due to the discretion of the provincial officers. Hence, the Court ruled that the said order is not constitutional. In the case at bar, the resultant inequality may be said to flow from the unwarranted delegation of legislative power, although perhaps this is necessarily the result in every case. In the instant case, 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 able 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. 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. 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. We are of the opinion that Section 11 of Act. 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.