Topic 3 – Bill of Attainder

Montenegro vs. Castańeda, GR No. L-4221, 30 August 1952

Facts :
About five o’clock in the morning of October 18, 1950, Maximino Montenegro was arrested with others at the
Samanillo Bldg., Manila, by agents of the Military Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for
complicity with a communistic organization in the commission of acts of rebellion, insurrection or sedition.

On October 22, 1950, the President issued Proclamation No. 210 suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. On October 21, 1950, Maximino’s father, the petitioner, submitted this application for a writ of habeas
corpus seeking the release of his son.

Opposing the writ, respondents admitted having the body of Maximino, but questioned judicial authority to go
further in the matter, invoking the above-mentioned proclamation.

Petitioner replied that such proclamation was void because it partakes of a bill of attainder, or an ex post facto law,
unlawfully includes sedition which under the Constitution is not a ground for suspension.

Issue :

Whether or not the Proclamation No. 210 suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus a Bill of Attainder.

Ruling :

NO . The argument is devoid of merit. The prohibition applies only to statutes. A bill of attainder is a legislative act
which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. The writ was ordered in accordance with the powers expressly
vested in the President by the Constitution, such order must be deemed an exception to the general prohibition
against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder — supposing there is a conflict between the prohibition and the
suspension.

Moreover, under the Constitution the only grounds for suspension of the privilege of the writ are invasion,
insurrection, rebellion or imminent danger thereof and sedition is clearly not included. However, the inclusion of
sedition does not invalidate the entire proclamation and immaterial in this case because Maximino is confined in jail
not only for sedition, but for the graver offense of rebellion and insurrection.

c 8- Immunities of Personnel of International Organizations

Lasco vs. UN, 241 SCRA 681

G.R. Nos. 109095

Topi
 -109107 February 23, 1995

Facts:

Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages after being dismissed from their
employment with private respondent, the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources
Exploration (UNRFNRE), which is a special fund and subsidiary organ of the United Nations. The
UNRFNRE is involved in a joint project of the Philippine Government and the United Nations for
exploration work in Dinagat Island.
A Motion to Dismiss was filed by UNRFNRE, private respondent alleged that respondent Labor Arbiter
had no jurisdiction over its personality since it enjoyed diplomatic immunity pursuant to the 1946
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. A letter from Department of Foreign
Affairs dated August 26, 1991, acknowledging the immunity from suit being a special fund administered
by the United Nations was also attached.
On November 25, 1991, respondent Labor Arbiter issued an order dismissing the complaints on the ground that
private respondent was protected by diplomatic immunity.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.

Issue:

Whether or not private respondent waive its diplomatic immunity when it engaged in exploration work and entered
into a contract of employment with the petitioners?

Ruling:

NO. The diplomatic immunity of private respondent was sufficiently established by the letter of the Department of
Foreign Affairs, recognizing and confirming the immunity of UNRFNRE in accordance with the 1946 Convention
on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations where the Philippine Government was a party. As such it
adheres to the doctrine of immunity granted to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Both treaties have
the force and effect of law.

Further , Private respondent is not engaged in a commercial venture in the Philippines. Its presence here is by virtue
of a joint project entered into by the Philippine Government and the United Nations for mineral exploration in
Dinagat Island. Its mission is not to exploit our natural resources and gain pecuniarily thereby but to help improve
the quality of life of the people, including that of petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.