People vs.

Ferrer (Crim1)

People vs. Ferrer (48 SCRA 382)

Facts:

On March 10, 1970, a prima facie case was filed against Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance in
Tarlac concerning the Anti-Subversion Act. He was accused of being an officer or a ranked leader of the
Communist Party of the Philippines, an outlawed and illegal organization aimed to overthrow the
government of the Philippines by means of force, violence, deceit, subversion or any other illegal means.
Co claimed that the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder. On May 25, 1970, Nilo Tayag and five
others were also charged in the same court with subversion. Tayag copied Co’s attack on the law. The
court ruled the statute void on the grounds that it is a bill of attainder and that it is vague overbroad.
Government appealed to the SC as a special civil action for certiorari.

Issues:

Relevant: WoN the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder

Irrelevant: WoN it is vague and overbroad

Irrelevant: WoN it denies the defendants the due process of the law

Held And Ratio:

Relevant: 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. (US v. Lovett 328 US 303 1946)

Irrelevant: 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.

Irrelevant: No. The freedom of expression and freedom of association is superseded by the right of the
state to self-preservation.

 
PEOPLE VS. FERRER [48 SCRA 382; NOS.L-32613-14; 27 DEC 1972] 
Monday, February 09, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic WritesLabels: Case Digests, Political Law 
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 thefollowing: 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 AggravatingCircumstances of Aid or Armed Men,
Craft, and Fraud. The trial court is of opinion that 1.) The Congressusurped the powers of
the judge 2.) Assumed judicial magistracy by pronouncing the guilt of the CPPwithout any
forms of safeguard of a judicial trial. 3.) It created a presumption of organizational guilt
bybeing members of the CPP regardless of voluntariness.The Anti Subversive Act of 1957
was approved 20June1957. It is an act to outlaw the CPP and similar associations
penalizing membership therein, and for other purposes. It defined the Communist
Partybeing although a political party is in fact an organized conspiracy to overthrow the
Government, not onlyby force and violence but also by deceit, subversion and other illegal
means. It declares that the CPP is aclear and present danger to the security of the
Philippines. Section 4 provided that affiliation with fullknowledge of the illegal acts of the
CPP is punishable. Section 5 states that due investigation by adesignated prosecutor by the
Secretary of Justice be made prior to filing of information in court. Section 6provides 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 CCPthrough writing under oath. Section 9 declares the constitutionality
of the statute and its valid exerciseunder freedom if thought, assembly and association.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not RA1700 is a bill of attainder/ ex post facto law.(2) Whether or Not
RA1700 violates freedom of expression.
Held:
The court holds the VALIDITY Of the Anti-Subversion Act of 1957. A bill of attainder is
solely a legislative act. It punishes without the benefit of the trial. It is the substitutionof
judicial determination to a legislative determination of guilt. In order for a statute be
measured as a billof attainder, the following requisites must be present: 1.) The statute
specifies persons, groups. 2.) thestatute is applied retroactively and reach past conduct. (A
bill of attainder relatively is also an ex postfacto law.)In the case at bar, the statute simply
declares the CPP as an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the Government for
purposes of example of SECTION 4 of the Act. The Act applies not only to the CPP
but also to other organizations having the same purpose and their successors. The Act’s
focus is on the
conduct not person.Membership to this organizations, to be UNLAWFUL, it must be shown
that membership was acquiredwith the intent to further the goals of the organization by
overt acts. This is the element of MEMBERSHIP
with KNOWLEDGE that is punishable. This is the required proof of a member’s direct
participation. Why is
membership punished. Membership renders aid and encouragement to the organization.
Membershipmakes himself party to its unlawful acts.Furthermore, the statute is
PROSPECTIVE in nature. Section 4 prohibits acts committed after approval of 

 
the act. The members of the subversive organizations before the passing of this Act is given
anopportunity to escape liability by renouncing membership in accordance with Section 8.
The statuteapplies the principle of mutatis mutandis or that the necessary changes having
been made.The declaration of that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to overthrow the
Philippine Governmentshould not be the basis of guilt. This declaration is only a basis of
Section 4 of the Act. The EXISTENCEOF 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 p
reamble, 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 consideringNATIONAL SECURITY and PRESERVATION of
DEMOCRACY.The court set basic guidelines to be observed in the prosecution under
RA1700. In addition to provingcircumstances/ evidences of subversion, the following
elements must also be established:1. Subversive Organizations besides the CPP, it must be
proven that the organization purpose is tooverthrow 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 case of CPP, the continued pursuance of its subversive
purpose. Membership is willfully andknowingly done by overt acts.The court did not make
any judgment on the crimes of the accused under the Act. The Supreme Court setaside the
resolution of the TRIAL COURT

People vs Ferrer
G.R. Nos. L-32613-14, December 27, 1972
CASTRO, J.:p

FACTS:

On March 5, 1970 a criminal complaint for violation of section 4 of the

Anti-Subversion Act was filed against the respondent Feliciano Co, as
he became an officer of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an
outlawed and illegal organization aimed to overthrow the government.

Co moved to quash on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill

of attainder.

Meanwhile, on May 25, 29170, another criminal complaint was filed

with before Nilo Tayag and fiver others with subversion, as they were
tagged as officers of the KABATAANG MAKABAYAN, a subversive
organization instigating and inciting the people to organize and unite
for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines.

Tayag also moved to quash the complaint on the grounds that (1) it is a
bill of attainder; (2) it is vague; (3) it embraces more than one subject
not expressed in the title thereof; and (4) it denied him the equal
protection of the laws.

ISSUE: Whether RA 1700 otherwise known as Anti-Subversion Act is

a bill of attainder.

RULING: No, the Supreme Court said 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.

In this case, 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 member thereof for the purpose of punishment. What it does is
simple to declare the party to be an organized conspiracy for the
overthrow of the Government for the purposes of the prohibition.

The term "Communist Part of the Philippines" issues solely for

definitional purposes. In fact the act applies not only to the
Communist Party of the Philippines but also to "any organisation
having the same purpose and their successors." Its focus is not on
individuals but on conduct.

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 Congressusurped 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 20June1957. 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 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 affiliationwith 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.

Issues: 
(1) Whether or not RA1700 is a bill of attainder/ ex post facto law.

(2) Whether or Not RA1700 violates freedom of expression.

Held: The court holds the VALIDITY Of the Anti-Subversion Act of 1957.

A bill of attainder is solely a legislative act. It punishes without the benefit of
the trial. It is the substitution of judicial determination to a legislative
determination of guilt. In order for a statute be measured as a bill of attainder,
the following requisites must be present: 1.) The statute specifies persons,
groups. 2.) the statute is applied retroactively and reach past conduct. (A bill of
attainder relatively is also an ex post facto law.) 

In the case at bar, the statute simply declares the CPP as an organized
conspiracy for the overthrow of the Government for purposes of exampleof
SECTION 4 of the Act. The Act applies not only to the CPP but also to other
organizations having the same purpose and their successors. The Act’s focus is
on the conduct not person. 
Membership to this organizations, to be UNLAWFUL, it must be shown
thatmembership was acquired with the intent to further the goals of the
organization by overt acts. This is the element of MEMBERSHIP with
KNOWLEDGE that is punishable. This is the required proof of a member’s direct
participation. Why is membership punished. Membership renders aid and
encouragement to the organization. Membership makes himself party to its
unlawful acts. 

Furthermore, the statute is PROSPECTIVE in nature. Section 4 prohibits acts

committed after approval of the act. The members of the subversive
organizations before the passing of this Act is given an opportunity to escape
liability by renouncing membership in accordance with Section 8. The
statute applies the principle of mutatis mutandis or that the necessary changes
having been made. 

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

Philippine Government should not be the basis of guilt. Thisdeclaration 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 theCongress were done. The court further stresses that
whatever interest in freedom of speech and association is excluded in the
prohibition ofmembership 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

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

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.