SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

Consti 2 Association April 14, 2016 Juvy

CASE NAME: People vs Ferrer
PONENTE: J. Castro Case Date: December 27, 1972
Case Summary:
Feliciano Co and Nilo Tayag, together with five others, were charged with violation of R.
A. No. 1700 or the Anti-Subversion Law which outlaws the Communist Party of the
Philippines and other subversive associations, and punishes any person who
knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a
member of the Party or of any other similar subversive organization. Both accused
moved to quash the information on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Law is a bill of
attainder. The trial court agreed, and thus, dismissed the information against the two
accused. SC held that the Anti-Subversion Act is not a bill of attainder. It is only when a
statute applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group
in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial does it become a
bill of attainder. It is also not vague and overbroad. The contention about the word
overthrow regarding the government (peaceful overthrowing) is clarified by the
provision of the clause: by means of force, violence, deceit, subversion or any other
illegal means. It did not violate the defendants freedom of association. The freedom of
expression and freedom of association is superseded by the right of the state to self-
preservation. SC did not make any judgment on the crimes of the accused under the Act.
The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the trial court and held the validity of the
Anti-Subversion Act of 1957.
Rule of Law:
Freedom of Association

Detailed Facts:
Hon. Judge Simeon Ferrer is the Tarlac trial court judge that declared RA1700 or the Anti-
Subversive Act of 1957 as a bill of attainder. Thus, dismissing the information of
subversion against the following:
1.) Feliciano Co for being an officer/leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) aggravated by circumstances of contempt and insult to public officers, subversion
by a band and aid of armed men to afford impunity.
2.) Nilo Tayag and 5 others, for being members/leaders of the NPA, inciting, instigating
people to unite and overthrow the Philippine Government. Attended by Aggravating
Circumstances of Aid or Armed Men, Craft, and Fraud.

The trial court is of opinion that

1.) The Congress usurped the powers of the judge
2.) Assumed judicial magistracy by pronouncing the guilt of the CPP without any forms of
safeguard of a judicial trial.
3.) It created a presumption of organizational guilt by being members of the CPP
regardless of voluntariness.

The Anti Subversive Act of 1957 was approved 20 June 1957. It is an act to outlaw the
CPP and similar associations penalizing membership therein, and for other purposes. It
defined the Communist Party being although a political party is in fact an organized
conspiracy to overthrow the Government, not only by force and violence but also by

BLOCK D 2019 1
deceit, subversion and other illegal means. It declares that the CPP is a clear and present
danger to the security of the Philippines. Section 4 provided that affiliation with full
knowledge of the illegal acts of the CPP is punishable. Section 5 states that due
investigation by a designated prosecutor by the Secretary of Justice be made prior to
filing of information in court. Section 6 provides for penalty for furnishing false evidence.
Section 7 provides for 2 witnesses in open court for acts penalized by prision mayor to
death. Section 8 allows the renunciation of membership to the CCP through writing under
oath. Section 9 declares the constitutionality of the statute and its valid exercise under
freedom if thought, assembly and association.
Issue:
(1)Whether or not the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder - NO
(2)Whether or not it is vague and overbroad - NO
(3)Whether or not it violates the defendants freedom of association - NO
Holding:
(1)NO, only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to easily
ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them
without a judicial trial does it become a bill of attainder.

Article III, section 1 (11) of the Constitution states that No bill of attainder or ex post
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.

When the Act is viewed in its actual operation, it will be seen that it does not specify the
Communist Party of the Philippines or the members thereof for the purpose of
punishment. What it does is simply to declare the Party to be an organized conspiracy for
the overthrow of the Government for the purposes of the prohibition, stated in section 4,
against membership in the outlawed organization. The term Communist Party of the
Philippines issued solely for definitional purposes. In fact, the Act applies not only to the
Communist Party of the Philippines but also to any other organization having the same
purpose and their successors. Its focus is not on individuals but on conduct.

Indeed, were the Anti-Subversion Act a bill of attainder, it would be totally unnecessary
to charge Communists in court, as the law alone, without more, would suffice to secure
their punishment. But the undeniable fact is that their guilt still has to be judicially
established. The Government has yet to prove at the trial that the accused joined the
Party knowingly, willfully and by overt acts, and that they joined the Party, knowing its
subversive character and with specific intent to further its basic objective, i.e., to
overthrow the existing Government by force deceit, and other illegal means and place

BLOCK D 2019 2
the country under the control and domination of a foreign power.

As to the claim that under the statute, organizational guilt is nonetheless imputed
despite the requirement of proof of knowing membership in the Party, suffice it to say
that is precisely the nature of conspiracy, which has been referred to as a dragnet
device whereby all who participate in the criminal covenant are liable. The contention
would be correct if the statute were construed as punishing mere membership devoid of
any specific intent to further the unlawful goals of the Party. But the statute specifically
required that membership must be knowing or active, with specific intent to further the
illegal objectives of the Party. That is what section 4 means when it requires that
membership, to be unlawful, must be shown to have been acquired knowingly, willfully
and by overt acts. The ingredient of specific intent to pursue the unlawful goals of the
Party must be shown by overt acts. This constitutes an element of membership
distinct from the ingredient of guilty knowledge. The former requires proof of direct
participation in the organizations unlawful activities, while the latter requires proof of
mere adherence to the organizations illegal objectives.

(2)No. The contention about the word overthrow regarding the government
(peaceful overthrowing) is clarified by the provision of the clause: by means of
force, violence, deceit, subversion or any other illegal means.

(3) No. The freedom of expression and freedom of association is

superseded by the right of the state to self-preservation.

The declaration of that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to overthrow the

Philippine Government should not be the basis of guilt. This declaration is only a
basis of Section 4 of the Act. The EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL justifies the
limitation to the exercise of Freedom of Expression and Association in this matter.
Before the enactment of the statute and statements in the preamble, careful
investigations by the Congress were done. The court further stresses that whatever
interest in freedom of speech and association is excluded in the prohibition
of membership in the CPP are weak considering NATIONAL SECURITY and
PRESERVATION of DEMOCRACY.

The court set basic guidelines to be observed in the prosecution under RA1700. In
addition to proving circumstances/ evidences of subversion, the following elements
must also be established:

1. Subversive Organizations besides the CPP, it must be proven that the

organizations purpose is to overthrow the present Government of the Philippines
and establish a domination of a FOREIGN POWER. Membership is willfully and
knowingly done by overt acts.
2. In the case of the CPP, the continued pursuance of its subversive purpose,
membership is willfully and knowingly done by overt acts.

BLOCK D 2019 3
Ruling:
The court did not make any judgment on the crimes of the accused under the Act. The
Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the trial court and held the validity of the Anti-
Subversion Act of 1957.
Other Opinions:

BLOCK D 2019 4