Section 34 of Republic Act No. 4670, the penalty of imprisonment provided in Section 32 thereof should be, as it is hereby, declared unconstitutional.

We shall resolve said queries in inverse order, since prior determination of the constitutionality of the assailed provision of the law involved is necessary for the adjudication of the jurisdictional issue raised in this petition.

1. The disputed section of Republic Act No. 4670 provides:

Sec. 32. Penal Provision. — A person who shall wilfully interfere with, restrain or coerce any teacher in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by this Act or who shall in any other manner commit any act to defeat any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. (Emphasis supplied).

Two alternative and distinct penalties are consequently imposed, to wit: (a) a fine ranging from P100.00 to P1,000.00; or (b) imprisonment. It is apparent that the law has no prescribed period or term for the imposable penalty of imprisonment. While a minimum and maximum amount for the penalty of fine is specified, there is no equivalent provision for the penalty of imprisonment, although both appear to be qualified by the phrase "in the discretion of the court.

Section 32 of Republic Act No. 4670 provides for an indeterminable period of imprisonment, with neither a minimum nor a maximum duration having been set by the legislative authority. The courts are thus given a wide latitude of discretion to fix the term of imprisonment, without even the benefit of any sufficient standard, such that the duration thereof may range, in the words of respondent judge, from one minute to the life span of the accused. Irremissibly, this cannot be allowed. It vests in the courts a power and a duty essentially legislative in nature and which, as applied to this case, does violence to the rules on separation of powers as well as the non-delegability of legislative powers. This time, the preumption of constitutionality has to yield.

On the foregoing considerations, and by virtue of the separability clause in Section 34 of Republic Act No. 4670, the penalty of imprisonment provided in Section 32 thereof should be, as it is hereby, declared unconstitutional.

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-45127 May 5, 1989

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Leyte, petitioner, 
vs.
HON. JUDGE AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, CELESTINO S. MATONDO, SEGUNDINO A, CAVAL and CIRILO M. ZANORIA, respondents.