You are on page 1of 2

People v. Ferrer (Cristelle) 3.

Another criminal complaint was filed against Nilo Tayag and five
December 27, 1972| CASTRO, J.| Bill of attainder others for becoming officers of Kabataang Makabayan, a subversive
PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES organization and that they conducted meetings to instigate the people to rise
RESPONDENTS: HON. SIMEON. FERRER (in his capacity as Judge of the Court in arms and overthrow the Government by force
of First Instance of Tarlac, Branch I), FELICIANO CO alias LEONCIO CO alias 4. Tayag moved to quash, impugning the validity of the statute on the
"Bob," and NILO S. TAYAG alias Romy Reyes alias "Taba grounds that it is a bill of attainder, vague, embraced more than one subject
SUMMARY: not expressed in the title thereof and that it denied him equal protection of
Co-respondents herein were charged in violation of RA 1700 or Anti Subversion Law by the laws
instigating, recruiting, inciting others to rise up and take arms against the Government 5. RTC declared the statute void on the grounds that it is a Bill of
with the purpose of overthrowing the Government of the Philippines. Respondents, who Attainder, vague and overbroad
were charged in violations of RA 1700 (Anti Subversion Law) moved to quash the ISSUE: Whether the Anti-Subversion Act is a Bill of Attainder? NO
charged and alleged that the said law is Bill of Attainder. The Law punishes any person
who "knowingly, wilfully and by overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a
member of the Party or of any other similar "subversive organization.
RATIO:
ISSUE: Whether or not the law in question or the RA 1700/ Anti Subversion Law is a bill
of attainder. HELD:No.Article 3 Section 22 of the Constitution provides - No ex post
facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. The singling out of a definite class, the 1. A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment
imposition of burden on it, and a legislative intent to stigmatise statute as a bill of without trial
attainder. The Supreme Court held that when the act is viewed in its actual operation, it a. There is a substitution of a legislative act for a
will be seen that it does not specify the Communist Party of the Philippines or the judicial trial to determine guilt
member thereof for the purpose of punishment. What it does is simple to declare the b. 3 Characteristics:
party to be an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the Government for the i. Singling out of a definitive
purposes of the prohibition.The term "Communist Part of the Philippines" issues solely class
for definitional purposes. In fact the act applies not only to the Communist Party of the ii. Imposition of a burden on the
Philippines but also to "any organisation having the same purpose and their successors."
singled out class
Its focus is not on individuals but on conduct.
iii. There is legislative intent
behind the imposition of
DOCTRINE: A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without
the punishment
trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.
2. The Anti-Subversion Act does not specify the Communist Party of
The constitutional ban against bill of attainders serves to implement the principle of
separation of powers by confining the legislatures to rule-making and thereby forestalling the Philippines for the purpose of punishment and instead, uses it for
legislative usurpation of the judicial function. 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
FACTS:
Attainder because of the mere fact that it singles out the CPP and
1. On March 5, 1970, a criminal complaint for violation of section 4
imposes a burden upon it since the Act does not apply solely to the
of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed against the respondent Feliciano Co in
CPP but to other organizations who have the
the Court of First Instance of Tarlac on the basis he feloniously became an
same purpose of overthrowing the government
officer and/or ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines
c. The guilt of the accused will still be judicially
and , by being an instructor in the Mao Tse Tung University, the training
determined upon and that the courts still have to prove that the
school of recruits of the New People's Army.
accused knowingly joined the party and had the intent to
2. Co moved to quash the case on the ground that the Anti-
overthrow the government
Subversion Act is a bill of attainder
d. The judgment expressed within the act regarding
the criminal nature of the Communist Party is acknowledged and committed "After the approval of this Act." Only those who
judicially noticeable "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliate themselves with,
3. Many cases where Supreme Court found the Communist Party to become or remain members of the Communist Party of the
be an illegal organization, engaging in armed forces with the purpose of Philippines and/or its successors or of any subversive association"
overthrowing the government after June 20, 1957, are punished.
4. Bill of Attainder - it is not enough that the statute specify persons 6. Supreme Court held that a statute becomes a Bill of Attainder only
or groups in order that it may fall within the ambit of the prohibition against when it applies either to:
bills of attainder. It is also necessary that it must apply retroactively and a. Named individuals
reach past conduct. b. Easily ascertainable members of a group as to
5. The Anti-Subversion Act however, applies prospectively and not inflict punishment on them which deprives them of any right, civil
Retroactively or political, and without judicial trial
a. 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

You might also like