People v Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382

8/9/2019 People v Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382

1/34

G.R. Nos. L-32613-14 December 27, 1972

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.HON. SIEON. FERRER !"# $"s c%&%c"'( %s )*+e o '$e o*r' o F"rs' I#s'%#ce oT%r/%c, 0r%#c$ I, FELIINO O %/"%s LEONIO O %/"%s 0ob, %#+ NILO S. TG

%/"%s Rom( Re(es %/"%s T%b%,respondents.

Solicitor R. Mutuc for respondent Feliciano Co.

Jose W. Diokno for respondent Nilo Tayag.

STRO, J.: p

I. Statement of te Case

Posed in issue in these two cases is the constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion

Act, 1 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" organiation.

!n arch #, $%&' a criminal complaint for violation of section ( of the Anti-Subversion Actwas filed against the respondent )eliciano Co in the Court of )irst *nstance of +arlac. !narch $' udge ose C. de uman conducted a preliminary investigation and, findinga prima facie case against Co, directed the overnment prosecutors to file thecorresponding information. +he twice-amended information, docketed as Criminal Case o./&, recites0

+hat on or about ay $%1% to 2ecember #, $%1%, in the unicipality ofCapas, Province of +arlac, Philippines, and within the 3urisdiction of this4onorable Court, the abovenamed accused, feloniously became an officerand5or ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an outlawedand illegal organiation aimed to overthrow the overnment of thePhilippines by means of force, violence, deceit, subversion, or any otherillegal means for the purpose of establishing in the Philippines a totalitarianregime and placing the government under the control and domination of analien power, by being an instructor in the ao +se +ung 6niversity, thetraining school of recruits of the ew People7s Army, the military arm of thesaid Communist Party of the Philippines.

+hat in the commission of the above offense, the following aggravating

circumstances are present, to wit0

8a9 +hat the crime has been committed in contempt of or with insult to publicauthorities:

8b9 +hat the crime was committed by a band: and afford impunity.

8c9 ;ith the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.


2/34

Co moved to


3/34

people to organie and unite for the purpose of overthrowing the overnmentof the =epublic of the Philippines through armed revolution, deceit,subversion and5or other illegal means, and establishing in the Philippines aCommunist overnment.

+hat the following aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the

offense0 8a9 aid of armed men or persons to insure or afford impunity: and 8b9craft, fraud, or disguise was employed.

!n uly /$, $%&' +ayag moved to


4/34

+his feature of the Act distinguishes it from section #'( of the 6.S. )ederal abor-anagement =eporting and 2isclosure Act of $%#% 11 which, in 6.S. vs. >rown, 12 was held tobe a bill of attainder and therefore unconstitutional. Section #'( provided in its pertinent parts asfollows0

8a9 o person who is or has been a member of the Communist

Party ... shall serve H

8$9 as an officer, director, trustee, member of any eEecutive board or similargoverning body, business agent, manager, organier, or other employee8other than as an employee performing eEclusively clerical or custodialduties9 of any labor organiation.

during or for five years after the termination of his membership in theCommunist Party....

8b9 Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more thanI$',''' or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

+his statute specified the Communist Party, and imposes disability and penalties on itsmembers. embership in the Party, without more, ipso facto dis


5/34

title, and8ii9 operates primarily to advance the ob3ectives of such worldCommunist movement... 1( Stat %J%, #' 6SC sec. &J/ 8$%#J ed.9

A ma3ority of the Court re3ected the argument that the Act was a bill ofattainder, reasoning that sec. D does not specify the persons or groups uponwhich the deprivations setforth in the Act are to be imposed, but instead sets

forth a general definition. Although the >oard has determined in $%#D that theCommunist Party was a "Communist-action organiation," the Court foundthe statutory definition not to be so narrow as to insure that the Party wouldalways come within it0

*n this proceeding the >oard had found, and the Court of Appeals hassustained its conclusion, that the Communist Party, by virtud of the activitiesin which it now engages, comes within the terms of the Act. *f the Partyshould at anytime choose to abandon these activities, after it is onceregistered pursuant to sec. &, the Act provides adeut the undeniable fact is that their guilt still has to be 3udicially established. +heovernment has yet to prove at the trial that the accused 3oined the Party knowingly, willfullyand by overt acts, and that they 3oined the Party, knowing its subversive character and withspecific intent to further its basic ob3ective, i.e., to overthrow the eEisting overnment byforce deceit, and other illegal means and place the country under the control and dominationof a foreign power.

As to the claim that under the statute organiationl guilt is nonetheless imputed despite thereut the statute specifically re


6/34

not members of the Communist Party and that they are not members of any organiation whichteaches the overthrow of the overnment by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional method,"was upheld by this Court. 19

*ndeed, it is only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainablemembers of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a 3udicial trial

does it become a bill of attainder.2

*t is upon this ground that statutes which disut when the 3udgment eEpressed in legislation is so universally acknowledged to be certainas to be "3udicially noticeable," the legislature may apply its own rules, and 3udicial hearing isnot needed fairly to make such determination. 25

*n Ne' *ork e$ rel. "ryant +s. ,immerman, 26 the ew @ork legislature passed a law re


7/34

orders, labor unions and college fraternities have eEisted for many years,and, while not immune from hostile criticism, have on the whole 3ustified theireEistence."

;e assume that the legislature had before it such information as was readilyavailable including the published report of a hearing, before a committee of

the 4ouse of =epresentatives of the #&th Congress relating to the formation,purposes and activities of the lu luE lan. *f so it was advised H puttingaside controverted evidence H that the order was a revival of the u luElan of an earlier time with additional features borrowed from the nowothing and the A. P. A. orders of other periods: that its memberships waslimited to native-born, gentile, protestant whites: that in part of its constitutionand printed creed it proclaimed the widest freedom for all and full adherenceto the Constitution of the 6nited States: in another eEacted of its member anoath to shield and preserve "white supremacy:" and in still another declaredany person actively opposing its principles to be "a dangerous ingredient inthe body politic of our country and an enemy to the weal of our nationalcommonwealth:" that it was conducting a crusade against Catholics, ews,and egroes, and stimulating hurtful religious and race pre3udices: that it wasstriving for political power and assuming a sort of guardianship over theadministration of local, state and national affairs: and that at times it wastaking into its own hands the punishment of what some of its membersconceived to be crimes.27

*n the Philippines the character of the Communist Party has been the ob3ect of continuingscrutiny by this Court. *n $%D/ we found the Communist Party of the Philippines to be anillegal association. 2 *n $%1% we again found that the ob3ective of the Party was the "overthrow of the Philippine overnment by armed struggle and to establish in the Philippines a communistform of government similar to that of Soviet =ussia and =ed China." 29 ore recently, in -ansang+s. arcia, 3 we noted the growth of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the organiationof Communist fronts among youth organiations such as the abataang akabayan 89 and

the emergence of the ew People7s Army. After meticulously reviewing the evidence, we said0";e entertain, therefore, no doubts about the eEistence of a sieable group of men who havepublicly risen in arms to overthrow the government and have thus been and still are engaged inrebellion against the overnment of the Philippines.

D. or is it enough that the statute specify persons or groups in order that it may fall withinthe ambit of the prohibition against bills of attainder. *t is also necessary that it must applyretroactively and reach past conduct. +his re


8/34

or who may, after this section becomes effective, become a member of oraffiliated with any group, society, association, organiation or party whichadvises, advocates or teaches or has within said period of five 8#9 yearsadvised, advocated, or taught the overthrow by force or violence of theovernment of the 6nited States of America or of the State of California.

*n upholding the statute, the Court stressed the prospective application of the Act to thepetitioner therein, thus0

... *mmaterial here is any opinion we might have as to the charter provisioninsofar as it purported to apply restrospectively for a five-year period to itseffective date. ;e assume that under the )ederal Constitution the Charter

Amendment is valid to the eEtent that it bars from the city7s public servicepersons who, subse


9/34

provides that such renunciationshall operate to eEempt such persons frompenalliability. 34 +he penalties prescribed by the Act are thereforenot inescapable.

III. Te !ct and te Re%uirements of Due )rocess

$. As already stated, the legislative declaration in section / of the Act that the Communist

Party of the Philippinesis an organied conspiracy for the overthrow of theovernment isinteded not to provide the basis for a legislativefinding of guilt of the members of the Partybutrather to 3ustify the proscription spelled out in section (. )reedom of eEpression andfreedom of association are sofundamental that they are thought by some to occupya"preferred position" in the hierarchy of constitutional values. 35 Accordingly, any limitation ontheir eEercise mustbe 3ustified by the eEistence of a substantive evil. +his isthe reason why beforeenacting the statute in


10/34

ad3udicativefacts H those which tie the legislative enactment to the litigant Hare to be demonstrated and found according to the ordinarystandardsprevailing for 3udicial trials. 36

+he test formulated in Ne((ia +s. ne' *ork , 37 andadopted by this Court in -ansang +s.arcia, 3 is that 7if laws are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislati+e purpose,

and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the re


11/34

embership in an organiation renders aid and encouragement to theorganiation: and when membership is acceptedor retained with knowledgethat the organiation is engaged inan unlawful purpose, the one accepting orretaining membershipwith such knowledge makes himself a party to theunlawfulenterprise in which it is engaged. 44

D. +he argument that the Act is unconstitutionallyoverbroad because section / merely speaksof "overthrow"of the overnment and overthrow may be achieved by peaceful means,misconceives the function of the phrase"knowingly, willfully and by overt acts" in section (.Section / is merely a legislative declaration: the definitionsof and the penalties prescribed for the different acts prescribedare stated in section ( which re


12/34

any department or agencythereof, for the five years neEt following hisconviction.... 46

*n sustaining the validity of this provision, the "Court said in Scales +s. 0nited States0 47

*t was settled in Dennis that advocacy with which we arehere concerned is

not constitutionally protected speech, and itwas further established that acombination to promote suchadvocacy, albeit under the aegis of whatpurports to be a politicalparty, is not such association as is protected by thefirstAmendment. ;e can discern no reason why membership, whenitconstitutes a purposeful form of complicity in a group engagingin this sameforbidden advocacy, should receive anygreater degree of protection from theguarantees of that Amendment.

oreover, as was held in another case, where the problemsof accommodating theeEigencies of self-preservationand the values of liberty are as compleE and intricate as inthesituation described in the legislative findings stated inthe 6.S. )ederal Subversive ActivitiesControl Act of $%#',the legislative 3udgment as to how that threat may best bemet

consistently with the safeguards of personal freedomsis not to be set aside merely becausethe 3udgment of 3udgeswould, in the first instance, have chosen other methods. 4 )or in truth,legislation, "whether it restrains freedom tohire or freedom to speak, is itself an effort atcompromisebetween the claims of the social order and individual freedom,and when thelegislative compromise in either case isbrought to the 3udicial test the court stands one stepremovedfrom the conflict and its resolution through law." 49

1. Te !ct and its Title

+he respondent +ayag invokes the constitutional commandthat "no bill which may beenacted into law shall embrace more than one sub3ect which shall be eEpressed in the title of the bill." 5

;hat is assailed as not germane to or embraced in thetitle of the Act is the last proviso ofsection ( which reads0

!nd pro+ided& finally , +hat one who conspires with anyother person tooverthrow the overnment of the =epublic ofthe Philippines, or thegovernment of any of its political subdivisionsby force, violence, deceit,subversion or illegal means,for the purpose of placing such overnment orpolitical subdivisionunder the control and domination of any lien power,shallbe punished by prision correccional to prision mayor with alltheaccessory penalties provided therefor in the same code.

*t is argued that the said proviso, in reality, punishes notonly membership in the Communist

Party of the Philippinesor similar associations, but as well "any conspiracyby two persons tooverthrow the national or any local governmentby illegal means, even if their intent is not toestablisha totalitarian regime, burt a democratic regime, evenif their purpose is not to placethe nation under an aliencommunist power, but under an alien democratic power likethe6nited States or ?ngland or alaysia or even an anti-communistpower like Spain, apan,+hailand or +aiwanor *ndonesia."

+he Act, in addition to its main title 8"An Act to !utlawthe Communist Party of the Philippinesand SimilarAssociations, Penaliing embership +herein, and for!ther Purposes"9, has a


13/34

short title. Section $ providesthat "+his Act shall be known as the Anti-Subversion Act."+ogether with the main title, the short title of the statuteune


14/34

Se&%r%'e O&"#"o#s

FERNNDO, J., dissenting0

*t is with regard that * find myself unable to 3oin therest of my brethren in the decisionreached upholding thevalidity of the Anti-Subversion Act. 1 *t is to be admittedthat the learnedand scholarly opinbion of ustice Castro hasthe impress of conscientious and painstaking scrutinyofthe constitutional issues raised. ;hat is more, the stressin the concluding portion thereof onbasic guidelines thatwill assure in the trial of those prosecuted under suchAct respect for theirconstitutional rights is to be commended.onetheless, my own reading of the decisionscited,interpreting the bill of attainder clause 2 coupled withthe fears, perhaps induced by a too-latitudinarian constructionof the guarantees of freedom of belief and eEpression 3 as well asfreedom of association 4 as to impermissible inroadsto which they may be eEposed, compels adifferentconclusion. 4ence this dissent.

$. +here is to be sure no thought on my part that thee


15/34

SupremeCourt decision were thus in the minds of the framers.+hey are Cummings v.issouri 6 and 2$ parte arland. 7 +hey speak une


16/34

Missouri , 3ust decided, ... wehave had occasion to consider at length the meaning of abill ofattainder and of an e$ post facto law in the clauseof the Constitution forbidding their passage bythe states,and it is unnecessary to repeat here what we there said.A like prohibition is containedin the Constitution againstenactments of this kind by Congress: and the argumentpresented inthat case against certain clauses of the Constitutionof issouri is e


17/34

Constitutionbills of attainder indicates that the properscope of the >ill of Attainder Clause, and itsrelevance tocontemporary problems, must ultimately be sought by attemptingto discern thereasons for its inclusion in theConstitution, and the evils it was desinged to eliminate.+he bestavailable evidence, the writings of the architectsof our constitutional system, indicates that the >illofAttainder Clause was inteded not as a narrow, technical8and therefore soon to be outmoded9prohibition, but ratheras an implementation of the separation of powers, ageneral safeguardagainst legislative eEercise of the 3udicialfunction, or more simply H trial by legislature." 16 +henafter referring to Cummings, arland, and ovett,Chief ustice ;arren continued0 "6nder the lineof cases3ust outlined, Sec. #'( of the abor anagement =eportingand 2isclosure Act plainlyconstitutes a bill of attainder. Congress undoubtedly possesses power under theCommerceClause to enact legislation designed to keepfrom positions affecting interstate commerce personswhomay use such positions to bring about political strikes. *n Sec. #'(, however, Congress haseEceeded the authoritygranted it by the Constitution. +he statute does not setforth a generallyapplicable rule decreeing that any personwho commits certain acts or possesses certaincharacteristics 8acts and characteristics whhich, in Congress7view, make them likely to initiatepolitical strikes9 shallnot hold union office, and leave to courts and 3uries the3ob of deciding whatpersons have committed the specifiedacts or possessed the specified characteristics. *nstead,itdesignates in no uncertain terms the personswho possess the fearec characteristics andtherefore cannothold union office without incurring criminal liability H members of the CommunistParty." 17

?ven Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control>oard, 1 where the provision of theSubversive ActivitiesControl Act of $%#' re


18/34

in yielding acceptance.*n Cummings, there was a criminal prosecution ofthe Catholic priestwho refused to take the loyalty oath.Again in >rown, there was an indictment of thelaborleader who, 3udging by his membership in the CommunistParty, did transgress thestatutory provision subse


19/34

not relack in theCommunist Party casediscussed above. ;hat is to be kept in view is that alegislativemeasure certainly less drastic in its treatment ofthe admittedly serious Communistproblem was found inthe opinion of this noted 3urist offensive to the )irstAmendment of the

American Constitution safeguardingfree speech. +hus0 "*f there is one thing certain aboutthe

)irst Amendment it is that this Amendment was designedto guarantee the freest interchangeof ideas aboutall public matters and that, of course, means the interchangeof all ideas,however such ideas may be viewed inother countries and whatever change in the eEistingstructureof government it may be hoped that these ideas willbring about. ow, when thiscountry is trying to spreadthe high ideals of democracy all over the world H ideals that arerevolutionary in many countries H seems to be aparticularly inappropriate time to stifle )irst

Amendmentfreedoms in this country. +he same arguments that areused to 3ustify theoutlawry of Communist ideas here couldbe used to 3ustify an outlawry of the ideas ofdemocracyin other countries." 26 )urther he stated0 "* believe with the)ramers of the )irst

Amendment that the internal securityof a nation like ours does not and cannot be made todependupon the use of force by overnment to make allthe beliefs and opinions of the people fit into acommonmold on any single sub3ect. Such enforced conformity ofthought would tend only todeprive our people of the boldspirit of adventure and progress which has brought thisation to itspresent greatness. +he creation of publicopinion by groups, organiations, societies, clubs, andpartieshas been and is a necessary part of our democraticsociety. Such groups, like the Sons ofiberty and theAmerican Corresponding Societies, played a large part increating sentiment in thiscountry that led the people ofthe Colonies to want a nation of their own. +he )ather oftheConstitution H ames adison H said, in speakingof the Sedition Act aimed at crushing theefferson Party,that had that law been in effect during the period beforethe =evolution, the 6nitedStates might well have continuedto be 7miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke.7*n my

3udgment, this country7s internal security can betterbe served by depending upon the affection ofthe peoplethan by attempting to instill them with fear and dreadof the power of overnment. +heCommunist Party hasnever been more than a small group in this country. Andits numbers hadbeen dwindling even before the overnmentbegan its campaign to destroy the Party by forceoflaw. +his was because a vast ma3ority of the Americanpeople were against the Party7s policiesand overwhelminglyre3ected its candidates year after year. +hat is the trueAmerican way of

securing this ation against dangerousideas. !f course that is not the way to protect theationagainst actions of violence and treason. +he )oundersdrew a distinction in our Constitutionwhich we would bewise to follow. +hey gave the overnment the fullest powerto prosecute overtactions in violation of valid lawsbut withheld any power to punish people for nothing morethanadvocacy of their views." 27

;ith the sentiments thus eEpressed uppermost in mymind and congenial to my way ofthinking, * cannot sharethe conclusion reached by my breathren as to the Anti-Subversion


20/34

Act successfully meeting the test of validity onfree speech and freedom of associationgrounds.

(. *t could be that this approach to the constitutional


21/34

freedom of association 4 as to impermissible inroadsto which they may be eEposed, compels adifferentconclusion. 4ence this dissent.

$. +here is to be sure no thought on my part that thee


22/34

the punishment be less than death, the actis termed a bill of pains and penalties. ;ithin themeaningof the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills ofpains and penalties. *n these casesthe legislative body, inaddition to its legitimate functions, eEercises the powersand office of 3udge:it assumes, in the language of theteEtbooks, 3udicial magistracy: it pronounces upon theguilt ofthe party, without any of the forms or safeguardsof trial: it determines the sufficiency of the proofsproduced,whether conformable to the rules of evidence orotherwise: and it fiEes the degree ofpunishment in accordancewith its own notions of the enormity of the offense. ... *f the clauses ofthe /d article of the Constitutionof issouri, to which we have referred, had in termsdeclared thatr. Cummings was guilty, or should be heldguilty, of having been in armed hostility to the6nitedStates, or of having entered that state to avoid beingenrolled or drafted into the militaryservice of the 6nitedStates, and, therefore, should be deprived of the right topreach as a priest ofthe Catholic church, or to teach inany institution of learning, there could be no


23/34

3obs bythe President with the advide and consent of the Senate.otwithstanding suchCongressional enactment, and thefailure of the President to reappoint the respondents,theagencies, kept all the respondents at work on their 3obs forvarying periods after ovember $#,$%(D, but their compensationwas discontinued after that date. =espondentsbrought this action inthe Court of Claims for the salariesto which they felt entitled. +he Ameican Supreme Courtstatedthat its inillof

Attainder or eE post aw shall be passed.7 *nCummings v. State of issouri, ... this Courtsaid, 7Abill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishmentwithout a 3udicial trial. *fthe punishment be lessthan death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties.;ithin themeaning of the Constitution, bills of attainderinclude bills of pains and penalties.7 ... !n thesameday the Cummings case was decided, the Court, in ?Eparte arland, also held invalidon the same grounds anAct of Congress which re


24/34

designates in no uncertain terms the personswho possess the fearec characteristics andtherefore cannothold union office without incurring criminal liability H members of the CommunistParty." 17

?ven Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control>oard, 1 where the provision of theSubversive ActivitiesControl Act of $%#' re


25/34

Congressional leaders andthe then President. *ts shadow fell slack in theCommunist Party casediscussed above. ;hat is to be kept in view is that a


26/34

legislativemeasure certainly less drastic in its treatment ofthe admittedly serious Communistproblem was found inthe opinion of this noted 3urist offensive to the )irstAmendment of the

American Constitution safeguardingfree speech. +hus0 "*f there is one thing certain aboutthe)irst Amendment it is that this Amendment was designedto guarantee the freest interchangeof ideas aboutall public matters and that, of course, means the interchangeof all ideas,however such ideas may be viewed inother countries and whatever change in the eEisting

structureof government it may be hoped that these ideas willbring about. ow, when thiscountry is trying to spreadthe high ideals of democracy all over the world H ideals that arerevolutionary in many countries H seems to be aparticularly inappropriate time to stifle )irst

Amendmentfreedoms in this country. +he same arguments that areused to 3ustify theoutlawry of Communist ideas here couldbe used to 3ustify an outlawry of the ideas ofdemocracyin other countries." 26 )urther he stated0 "* believe with the)ramers of the )irst

Amendment that the internal securityof a nation like ours does not and cannot be made todependupon the use of force by overnment to make allthe beliefs and opinions of the people fit into acommonmold on any single sub3ect. Such enforced conformity ofthought would tend only todeprive our people of the boldspirit of adventure and progress which has brought thisation to itspresent greatness. +he creation of publicopinion by groups, organiations, societies, clubs, andpartieshas been and is a necessary part of our democraticsociety. Such groups, like the Sons ofiberty and theAmerican Corresponding Societies, played a large part increating sentiment in this

country that led the people ofthe Colonies to want a nation of their own. +he )ather oftheConstitution H ames adison H said, in speakingof the Sedition Act aimed at crushing theefferson Party,that had that law been in effect during the period beforethe =evolution, the 6nitedStates might well have continuedto be 7miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke.7*n my

3udgment, this country7s internal security can betterbe served by depending upon the affection ofthe peoplethan by attempting to instill them with fear and dreadof the power of overnment. +heCommunist Party hasnever been more than a small group in this country. Andits numbers hadbeen dwindling even before the overnmentbegan its campaign to destroy the Party by forceoflaw. +his was because a vast ma3ority of the Americanpeople were against the Party7s policiesand overwhelminglyre3ected its candidates year after year. +hat is the trueAmerican way ofsecuring this ation against dangerousideas. !f course that is not the way to protect theationagainst actions of violence and treason. +he )oundersdrew a distinction in our Constitutionwhich we would bewise to follow. +hey gave the overnment the fullest powerto prosecute overt

actions in violation of valid lawsbut withheld any power to punish people for nothing morethanadvocacy of their views." 27

;ith the sentiments thus eEpressed uppermost in mymind and congenial to my way ofthinking, * cannot sharethe conclusion reached by my breathren as to the Anti-Subversion

Act successfully meeting the test of validity onfree speech and freedom of associationgrounds.

(. *t could be that this approach to the constitutional


27/34

propaganda of the deed. ;hat the communists promise,this government can fulfill. *t is up toit then to takeremedial measures to alleviate the condition of our countrymenwhose lives arein a condition of destitution andmisery. *t may not be able to change matters radically.Atleast, it should take earnest steps in that direction.;hat is important for those at the bottomof the economicpyramid is that they are not denied the opportunity for abetter life. *f they, orat least their children, cannot evenlook forward to that, then a constitutional regime is

nothingbut a mockery and a tragic illusion. Such a response,* am optimistic enough tobelieve, has the merit of thinning,if not completely eliminating, the embattled ranksandoutposts of ignorance, fanaticism and error. +hat forme would be more in accordance withthe basic propositionof our polity. +his is not therefore to preach a doctrine of ob3ectsurrender to the forces apparently bent on the adoption of a way of life so totally opposed tothe deeply felt traditions of our people. +his is, for me at least, an affirmation of the vitality ofthe democratic creed, with an eEpression of regret that it could not have been moreimpressively set forth in language worthy of the sub3ect.

*t is in the light of the views above eEpressed that * find myself unable to yield concurrence tothe ably-written opinion of ustice Castro for the Court sustaining the validity of the Anti-Subversion Act.

Foo'#o'es

$ =ep. Act. o. $&'', $/ aws L =es. $'/ 8$%#&9. +he teEt of the statute ishereunder reproduced in full0

"A AC+ +! !6+A; +4? C!6*S+ PA=+@ !) +4? P4**PP*?S A2 S**A= ASS!C*A+*!S P?A*M* ?>?=S4*P +4?=?*, A2 )!= !+4?= P6=P!S?S.

";4?=?AS, the Communist Party of the Philippines, although purportedly apolitical party, is in fact an organied conspiracy to overthrow theovernment of the =epublic of the Philippines not only by force and violencebut also by deceit, subversion and other illegal means, for the purpose ofestablishing in the Philippines a totalitarian regime sub3ect to aliendomination and control:

";4?=?AS, the continued eEistence and activities of the Communist Partyof the Philippines constitutes a clear, present and grave danger to thesecurity of the Philippines: and

";4?=?AS, in the face of the organied, systematic and persistentsubversion, national in scope but international in direction, posed by theCommunist Party of the Philippines and its activities, there is urgent need forspecial legislation to cope with this continuing menace to the freedom and

security of the country0 ow, therefore,

""e it enacted (y te Senate and 3ouse of Representati+es of te)ilippines in Congress assem(led 0

"Section $. +his Act shall be known as Anti-Subversion Act.


28/34

"Section /. +he Congress hereby declares the Communist Party of thePhilippines to be an organied conspiracy to overthrow the overnment ofthe =epublic of the Philippines for the purpose of establishing in thePhilippines a totalitarian regime and place the overnment under the controland domination of an alien power. +he said party and any other organiationhaving the same purpose and their successors are hereby declared illegal

and outlawed.

Section D. As used in this Act, the term 7Communist Party of the Philippines7shall me and and include the organiations now known as the CommunistParty of the Philippines and its military arm, the3uk(ong Mapagpalayang"ayan, formerly known as 46>AA4APS, and any successors of suchorganiations.

"Section (. After the approval of this Act, whoever knowingly, willfully and byovert acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a member of theCommunist Party of the Philippines and5or its successor or of any subversiveassociation as defined in section two hereof shall be punished by the penalty

of arresto mayor and shall be dis


29/34

"Section 1. Any person who knowingly furnishes false evidence in any actionbrought under this Act shall be punished by prision correccional .

"Section &. o person shall be convicted of any of the offenses penaliedherein with prision mayor to death unless on the testimony of at least twowitnesses to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open

court.

"Section J. ;ithin thirty days after the approval of this Act, any person who isa member of the Communist Party of the Philippines or of any suchassociation or conspiracy, who desires to renounce such membership maydo so in writing and under oath before a municipal or city mayor, a provincialgovernor, or a person authoried by law to administer oaths. Suchrenunciation shall eEempt such person or persons from the penal sanction ofthis Act, but the same shall in no way eEempt him from liability for criminalacts or for any violation of the eEisting laws of the =epublic of the Philippinescommitted before this Act takes effect.

"Section %. othing in this Act shall be interpreted as a restriction to freedomof thought, of assembly and of association for purposes not contrary to lawas guaranteed by the Constitution.

"Approved, une /', $%#&."

/ 2elegate ose P. aurel 8of the $%D( Constitutional Convention9 referred tothe Anglo-American origin of this right thus0

"o e$ post facto la' or (ill of attainder sall (e enacted . +his provision isfound in the American )ederal Constitution 8Art. $, Sec. %9 and is applicableto the States 8id . Sec. $'9. An e$ post facto law is a law which makes an act

punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. *tcreates or aggravates the crime or increases the punishment, or changes therules of evidence for the purpose of conviction. +he prohibition against thepassage of e$ post facto laws is an additional bulwark of personal security Hprotecting the citien from punishment by legislative act which has aretrospective operation.

"+he phrase e$ post facto has a technical meaning and refers to crimes andcriminal proceedings. *t is in this sense that it was used in ?ngland. *t was inthis sense that the convention of $&J& understood it. 8Calder v. >ull, supra:;atson v. ercer, J Pet. JJ, $$': Suterlee v. athewson, / Peters, DJ':ring v. issouri, $'& 6.S. //$.9 +his interpretation was upheld by ourSupreme Court 86.S. vs. Ang en o, 1 Phil. D&1.9.

"A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without 3udicialtrial. 8Cummings vs. 6nited States, ( ;all. /&&, $J . ed. D#1.9 *n ?ngland,the >ill of Attainder was an act of Parliament by which a man was tried,convicted and sentenced to death without a 3ury, without a hearing in court,without hearing the witnesses against him and without regard to the rules ofevidence. 4is blood was attained or corrupted, rendering him devoid of allheritable


30/34

than death, the act was known as a "bill of pains and penalties." >ills ofattainder, like e$ post facto laws, were favorite methods of Stuart oppression.!nce, the name of +homas efferson was included in a bill of attainderpresented to Parliament because of his reform activities.

"!ften, such bills were 7stimulated by ambition or personal resentment, and

vindictive malice.7 8Calder v. >ull, supra.9 A well known case illustrating theruthless manner in which a bill of attainder was resorted to was that of+homas ;entworth, chief adviser of Charles *. 4e was brought toimpeachment charged with attempting to subvert the liberties of ?ngland. 4edefended himself so ably that his enemies, fearing his acills of attainder were also passed in the Colonies 8orth, +heConstitution of the 6.S., its Sources and Applications, p. J#.9 +he prohibitionin the >ill of =ights, therefore, seeks to present acts of violence and in3usticebrought about the passage of such bills." 8D . aurel, Proceedings of theConstitutional Convention 11$-11D F$%11G9.

D Cummings vs. 6nited States, ( ;all. 8&$ 6.S.9 /&& 8$J1&9: accord , 2$ parte arland, ( ;all. 8&$ 6.S.9 DDD 8$J1&9. +his definition was adopted bythis Court in People vs. Carlos, &J Phil. #D#, #(( 8$%(&9 and in People vs.ontenegro, %$ Phil. JJD,JJ# 8$%#/9.

( 2e Beau vs. >raisted, D1D 6.S. $((, $1' 8$%1'9: 6nited States vs. ovett,D/J 6.S. D'D, 1$#, 8$%(19.

# Chief ustice ;arren referred to the >ill of Attainder Chause as animplementation of the separation of powers, "a general safeguard againstlegislative eEercise of 3udicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature."6nited States vs. >rown, DJ$ 6.S. (D& 8$%1(9.

1 "*t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules forthe government of society: the application of those rules to individuals insociety would seem to be the duty of other departments." )letcher vs. Peck, 1Cranch 8$' 6.S.9J&, $D1 8$J$'9.

& "+he legislative body in enacting bills of attainder eEercises the powers andoffice of 3udge, it pronounces upon the guilt of the party, without any of theforms or safeguards of trial...it fiEes the degree of punishment in accordancewith its own notions of the enormity of the offense." Cummings vs.issouri, supra note D.

J >ills of this sort, says r. ustice Story, have been most usually passed in

?ngland in times of rebellion or gross subserviency to the crown, or of violentpolitical eEcitements: periods, in which all nations are most liable 8as well asfree as the enslabe9 to forget their duties, and to trample upon the rights andliberties of others." Comm. sec. $D((, in re @oung Sing 4ee, D1 )ed. D(&,(('. 2uring the American revolution legislative punishments had beencontinued by state legislatures, when numerous bills of attainder wereenacted against the +orries. $C. Antieu, Modern Constitutional -a' , (/#.

% C. Antieu, supra note J at (/D.


31/34

$' +he Supreme Court of the 6nited States said in )leming vs. estor, D1D6.S. 1'D, 1$D-$( 8$%1'90

"*n determining whether legislation which bases a dis


32/34

/& Id . at -&&.

/J People vs. ?vangelista, #& Phil. D 8$%D/9: see also People vs.?vangelista, #& Phil., D&/ 8$%D/9: People vs. Capadocia, #& Phil. D1( 8$%D/9:People vs. ?vangelista, #& Phil. D#( 8$%D/9: People vs. )eleo, #& Phil. (#$8$%D/9: People vs. nabong, #& Phil. (## 8$%D/9.

/% People vs. ava, -(%&(-&J, ay $1, $%1%.

D' -DDJ1(, 2ec. $$, $%&$, (/ SC=A ((J.

D$ 6nited States vs. ovett, D/J 6.S. D'D, D$J 8$%(19.

D/ D($ 6.S. &$1 8$%#$9.

DD Communist Party vs. Subversive Activities Control >oard, D1& 6.S. $8$%1'9.

D( Sec. J.

D# ?. g., ovacs vs. Cooper, DD1 6.S. && 8$%(%9: Bera vs. Arca, -/#&/$,ay /1, $%1%, /J SC=A D#$.

D1 )reund, Re+ie' of Facts in Constitutional Cases, in Supreme Court andSupreme aw (&-(J 8Cahn ed. $%#(9.

D& /%$ 6.S. #'/, #D& 8$%D(9.

DJ -DD%1(, 2ec. $$, $%&$, ($ SC=A ((J.

D% Communist Party vs. S.A.C. >oard, D1& 6.S. %( 8$%1$9.

(' 2ennis vs. 6nited States, D($ 6.S. (%(, #'% 8$%#$9.

($ Id . at #'$.

(/ Shelton vs. +ucker, D1( 6.s. (&% 8$%1'9.

(D Scales vs. 6nited States, D1& 6.S. /'D 8$%1$9: see also oto vs. 6nitedStates, D1& 6.S. /%' 8$%1$9.

(( )rankfeld vs. 6nited States, $%J ). /d J&% 8(th Cir. $%#/9.

(# People vs. nabong, #& Phil. (##, (#J 8$%D/9.

(1 $J 6.S.C. sec. /DJ#. 8emphasis added9.

(& D1& 6.S. /'D 8$%1$9.


33/34

(J Communist Party vs. Subversive Activities Control >oard, D1& 6.S. $8$%1$9.

(% P. A. )reud, +he Supreme Court of the 6nited States 8$%1$9.

#' Const., art B*, Sec. /$ 8$9.

#$ overnment vs. 4ongkong L Shaihai >anking Corp., 11 Phil. (JD 8$%DJ9.

#/ indasan vs. Commission on ?lections, -/J'J%, !ct. /#, $%1&, /$ SC=A(%1.

)?=A2!, ., concurring0

$ =ep. Act o. $&'' 8$%#&9..

/ According to Art. ***, Sec. $, par. $$0 "o e$ post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted."

D According to Art. ***, Sec. $, par. J0 "o law shall be passed abridging thefreedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacebly toassemble and petition the overnment for redress of grievances."

( According to Art. ***, Sec. $ par. (0 "+he liberty of abode and of changing thesame within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired."

# )ootnote /, p. % of !pinion of the Court.

1 ( ;all. /&& 8$J1&9.

& ( ;all. DDD 8$J1&9.

J Cf. 6nited States v. A ovett, D/J 6S D'D 9$%(19.

% ( ;all. /&& 8$J1&9.

$' I(id , D/D, D/#.

$$ ( ;all. DDD 8$J1&9.

$/ I(id , D&&-D&J.

$D D/J 6S D'D.

$( I(id , D$#-D$1.

$# DJ$ 6S (D&.

$1 I(id , ((/.


34/34

$& I(id , ((%-(#'.

$J D1& 6S $ 8$%1$9.

$% I(id , J1-J&.

/' !pinion of the Court, p. $#.

/$ According to Art. ***, Sec. $, par. 10 "+he right to form associations orsocieties for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged." Paragraph Jof this section reads as follows0 "o law shall be passed abridging thefreedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacebly toassemble and petition the overnment for redress of grievances."

// efferson7s )irst *nstance Address, arch (, $J'$, in Padover, ed., +heComplete efferson, DJ# 8$%(D9.

/D 4ook, 4eresy, @es-Conspiracy, o. &$ 8$%#D9.

/( onale v. Commission on ?lections, /& SC=A JD#,J&$8$%1%9 citingShelton v. +ucker, D1( 6S (&% 8$%1'9 and AACP v. >utton, D&$ 6S ($#8$%1D9.

/# AACP vs. Alabama, D&& 6S /JJ 8$%1(9.

/1 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control >oard, D1& 6S $, $(J.

People v Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382

Documents

Transcript of People v Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382