G.R. No.

L-32613-14 December 27, 1972

People, petitioner vs. Ferrer, respondents

CASTRO, J.:

Article III, Section 1 (11) of the Constitution states that “No bill of attainder or ex port facto law shall be enacted.”

On March 10, 1970, a criminal complaint for violation of S4 of the Anti-subversion act (RA 1700) was filed against the
respondent Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac.

 It was a prima facie case against Co

 Feloniously accused for becoming an officer and/or ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an
outlawed and illegal organization aimed at overthrowing the state
 He is an instructor in the Mao Tse Tung University, the training school of recruits of the NPA

The following aggravating circumstances are present:

 That the crime has been committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities
 Committed by a band; and afford impunity
 With the aid of armed men

Co, retaliated saying that the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder

Meanwhile in May 25, 1970, 2 months after the complaint on Co, another criminal complaint was made on Nilo Tayag
and 5 others with Subversion.

 They are accused for being officers or ranking leaders of the KABATAANG MAKABAYAN, a subversive
organization defined in RA 1700
 Benjamin bie and Commander melody, joined and/or remained as members and became an officer not only of
the CPP but also the NPA
 On several occasions within the province of Tarlac, the accused conducted meetins wherein the said accused
delivered speeches and inciting the people to unite in arms to overthrow the state
 Organized a KM chapter in barrio Motrico, La Paz, Tarlac for promoting an armed revolution

Nilo Tayag also move to contend that the law is a bill of attainder, and that it embraces more than one subject not
expressed in the title thereof. And that it denied him equal protection of the laws.

1st ruling (the RTC)

Through its resolution declared the statute void on the grounds that it is a bill of attainder, and that it is vague and
overboard. Dismissing the case against the accused.

 The government appealed, and the court resolved to treat its appeal as a special civil action for certiorari.

A bill of attainder is a legislative act which gives punishment without trial. The constitutional ban of bills of attainder
serves to implement the separation of powers between the legislative and judiciary.

 The court says that the law usurped the powers of the judge, and assumed the “judicial magistracy by
pronouncing the guilt of the CCP without any forms or safeguard of judicial trial”
 The law made a presumption of organizational guilt

The court furthers that the anti-subversion law never specified that one is guilty for being a member, for the law targets
the organization and any other forms similar to it. Its focus is not on individuals but on conduct
The Government Appealed

The court says that when the Act is viewed in its actual operations, it will be seen that it does not specify the CPP or the
members thereof to be in line for punishment. It simply declared the Party to be an organization bent on overthrowing
the state. In fact the act does not specify exclusive the CPP but also mentioned any other organizations synonymous to
it.

The features of the act distinguishes it from to Section 504 of the US Federal Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (U.S. vs. Brown) it was held to be a bill of attainder and therefore unconstitutional.

 The statue specifies the Communist Party, and imposes penalties on its members

The court furthers that there was no need for the Anti-Subversion act, for the current laws alone would suffice in
charging communists rebels. However, the undeniable fact is that their guilt must still be judicially established.

If a bill is not a ex post facto law, then it cannot be a bill of attainder

 The anti subverstion act is not an ex post facto law because it states there in Section 4 that Only those who
knowingly, willfully, and by Overt acts affiliate themselves with, become or remain members of the CPP “ are
punished.

However, the Anti-Subversion Act never mentioned specifically that a mere membership to the party would constitute
punishment. Only when it is as such that it becomes a bill of attainder.