G.R. Nos.

L-32613-14, December 27, 1972

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
HON. SIMEON. FERRER (in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Branch I),
FELICIANO CO alias LEONCIO CO alias "Bob," and NILO S. TAYAG alias Romy Reyes alias
"Taba," respondents.

Solicitor R. Mutuc for respondent Feliciano Co.

Jose W. Diokno for respondent NiloTayag.

PONENTE:

 CASTRO, J.

NATURE OF THE CASE:

 A criminal complaint for violation of section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed against the respondent
Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac.

FACTS:

On March 5, 1970 a criminal complaint for violation of section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed against the
respondent Feliciano Co on the basis he feloniously became an officer and/or ranking leader of the Communist Party
of the Philippines and, by being an instructor in the Mao Tse Tung University, the training school of recruits of the
New People's Army, the military arm of the said Communist Party of the Philippines.

Co moved to quash on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder.

Meanwhile, on May 25, 1970, another criminal complaint was filed with the same court, sharing the respondent
NiloTayag and five others for becoming officers of KabataangMakabayan, a subversive organization and that they
conducted meetings to instigate the people to rise in arms and overthrow the Government by force.

On July 21, 1970 Tayag moved to quash, impugning the validity of the statute on the grounds that (1) it is a bill of
attainder; (2) it is vague; (3) it embraces more than one subject not expressed in the title thereof; and (4) it denied him
the equal protection of the laws.

The RTC, in its resolution in September 15, 1970, declared the statute void on the grounds that it is a bill of attainder
and that it is vague and overboard, and dismissed the information against the two accused. The Government appealed.
We resolved to treat its appeal as a special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUE:

 Whether the Anti-Subversion Act is a Bill of Attainder?

RULING: NO.

Article III, section 1 (11) of the Constitution states that "No bill of attainder or ex port facto law shall be enacted."
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a
legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. The constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to implement
the principle of separation of powers by confining legislatures to rule-making and thereby forestalling legislative
usurpation of the judicial function. History in perspective, bills of attainder were employed to suppress unpopular
causes and political minorities, and it is against this evil that the constitutional prohibition is directed. The singling
out of a definite class, the imposition of a burden on it, and a legislative intent, suffice to stigmatize a statute as a bill
of attainder.

RTC:
In the case at bar, the Anti-Subversion Act was condemned by the court a quo as a bill of attainder because it "tars
and feathers" the Communist Party of the Philippines as a "continuing menace to the freedom and security of the
country; its existence, a 'clear, present and grave danger to the security of the Philippines.'" By means of the Act, the
trial court said, Congress usurped "the powers of the judge," and assumed "judicial magistracy by pronouncing the
guilt of the CCP without any of the forms or safeguards of judicial trial." Finally, according to the trial court, "if the
only issue [to be determined] is whether or not the accused is a knowing and voluntary member, the law is still a bill
of attainder because it has expressly created a presumption of organizational guilt which the accused can never hope
to overthrow."

SC:

The Anti-Subversion Act does not specify the Communist Party of the Philippines for the purpose of punishment and
instead, uses it for definitional purposes only:

a. The Act puts emphasis on the conduct prohibited and not on a certain definitive class;
b. It is in insufficient to classify the Act as a Bill of Attainder because of the mere fact that it singles out the
CPP and imposes a burden upon it since the Act does not apply solely to the CPP but to other organizations who have
the same purpose of overthrowing the government;
c. The guilt of the accused will still be judicially determined upon and that the courts still have to prove that the
accused “knowingly” joined the party and had the intent to overthrow the government; and
d. The judgment expressed within the act regarding the criminal nature of the Communist Party is acknowledged
and judicially noticeable.

Bill of Attainder - it is not enough that the statute specify persons or groups in order that it may fall within the ambit
of the prohibition against bills of attainder. It is also necessary that it must apply retroactively and reach past conduct.

The Anti-Subversion Act however, applies prospectively and not retroactively.

In this case, the Court stressed the prospective application of the Act. The Anti-Subversion Act. Section 4 thereof
expressly states that the prohibition therein applies only to acts committed "After the approval of this Act." Only those
who "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliate themselves with, become or remain members of the Communist
Party of the Philippines and/or its successors or of any subversive association" after June 20, 1957, are punished.

ACCORDINGLY, the questioned resolution of September 15, 1970 is set aside, and these two cases are hereby
remanded to the court a quo for trial on the merits. Costs de oficio.

Legal Basis/Jargons:

Sec. 2: The Congress hereby declares the Communist Party of the Philippines to be an organized conspiracy to
overthrow the Government of the Republic of the Philippines for the purpose of establishing in the Philippines a
totalitarian regime and place the Government under the control and domination of an alien power. The said party and
ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION having the same purpose and their successors are hereby declared illegal and
outlawed.

Sec. 4 requires that the Government must prove the knowing, willful and direct participation of the accused in the
organization’s unlawful activities through a judicial proceeding. Membership must be knowing or active, with specific
intent to further the illegal objectives of the Party.

Act does not apply retroactively – the opening phrase of Sec. 4 being “After the approval of this act”. It only punishes
who through overt acts affiliate themselves with the same group after June 20, 1957. Law expressly provided for the
exemption of members who shall renounce their membership in writing and under oath.