People Vs Ferrer

4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
TodayisTuesday,April12,2016
RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.Nos.L3261314December27,1972
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HON.SIMEON.FERRER(inhiscapacityasJudgeoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofTarlac,BranchI),
FELICIANOCOaliasLEONCIOCOalias"Bob,"andNILOS.TAYAGaliasRomyReyesalias"Taba,"
respondents.
SolicitorR.MutucforrespondentFelicianoCo.
JoseW.DioknoforrespondentNiloTayag.
CASTRO,J.:p
I.StatementoftheCase
PosedinissueinthesetwocasesistheconstitutionalityoftheAntiSubversion
Act,1 whichoutlawstheCommunistPartyofthePhilippinesandother"subversiveassociations,"andpunishesanyperson
who "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a member" of the Party or of any
othersimilar"subversive"organization.
OnMarch5,1970acriminalcomplaintforviolationofsection4oftheAntiSubversionActwasfiledagainstthe
respondent Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. On March 10 Judge Jose C. de Guzman
conducted a preliminary investigation and, finding a prima facie case against Co, directed the Government
prosecutorstofilethecorrespondinginformation.Thetwiceamendedinformation,docketedasCriminalCaseNo.
27,recites:
ThatonoraboutMay1969toDecember5,1969,intheMunicipalityofCapas,ProvinceofTarlac,
Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,feloniously
becameanofficerand/orrankingleaderoftheCommunistPartyofthePhilippines,anoutlawedand
illegal organization aimed to overthrow the Government of the Philippines by means of force,
violence, deceit, subversion, or any other illegal means for the purpose of establishing in the
Philippinesatotalitarianregimeandplacingthegovernmentunderthecontrolanddominationofan
alienpower,bybeinganinstructorintheMaoTseTungUniversity,thetrainingschoolofrecruitsof
theNewPeople'sArmy,themilitaryarmofthesaidCommunistPartyofthePhilippines.
Thatinthecommissionoftheaboveoffense,thefollowingaggravatingcircumstancesarepresent,to
wit:
(a)Thatthecrimehasbeencommittedincontemptoforwithinsulttopublicauthorities
(b)Thatthecrimewascommittedbyabandandaffordimpunity.
(c)Withtheaidofarmedmenorpersonswhoinsureoraffordimpunity.
ComovedtoquashonthegroundthattheAntiSubversionActisabillofattainder.
Meanwhile,onMay25,1970,anothercriminalcomplaintwasfiledwiththesamecourt,sharingtherespondent
Nilo Tayag and five others with subversion. After preliminary investigation was had, an information was filed,
which,asamended,reads:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/dec1972/gr_l_32613_14_1972.html
1/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
TheundersignedprovincialFiscalofTarlacandStateProsecutorsdulydesignatedbytheSecretary
of Justice to collaborate with the Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac, pursuant to the Order dated June 5,
aboveentitledcase,herebyaccuseNiloS.Tayag,aliasRomyReyesaliasTABA,ARTHURGARCIA,
RENATO (REY) CASIPE, ABELARDO GARCIA, MANUEL ALAVADO, BENJAMIN BIE alias
COMMANDERMELODYandseveralJOHNDOES,whoseidentitiesarestillunknown,forviolationof
REPUBLICACTNo.1700,otherwiseknownastheAntiSubversionLaw,committedasfollows:
ThatinoraboutMarch1969andforsometimepriortheretoandthereafter,intheProvinceofTarlac,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, and elsewhere in the Philippines, the abovenamed
accused knowingly, willfully and by overt acts organized, joined and/or remained as offices and/or
rankingleaders,oftheKABATAANGMAKABAYAN,asubversiveorganizationasdefinedinRepublic
Act No. 1700 that BENJAMIN BIE and COMMANDER MELODY, in addition thereto, knowingly,
willfullyandbyoveractsjoinedand/orremainedasamemberandbecameanofficerand/orranking
leader not only of the Communist Party of the Philippines but also of the New People'sArmy, the
military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines and that all the abovenamed accused, as
such officers and/or ranking leaders of the aforestated subversive organizations, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there knowingly, willfully and
feloniouslycommitsubversiveand/orseditiousacts,byinciting,instigatingandstirringthepeopleto
uniteandrisepubliclyandtumultuouslyandtakeuparmsagainstthegovernment,and/orengagein
rebellious conspiracies and riots to overthrow the government of the Republic of the Philippines by
force,violence,deceit,subversionand/orotherillegalmeansamongwhicharethefollowing:
1. On several occasions within the province of Tarlac, the accused conducted meetings and/or
seminars wherein the said accused delivered speeches instigating and inciting the people to unite,
rise in arms and overthrow the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, by force, violence,
deceit, subversion and/or other illegal means and toward this end, the said accused organized,
among others a chapter of the KABATAANG MAKABAYAN in barrio Motrico, La Paz, Tarlac for the
avowed purpose of undertaking or promoting an armed revolution, subversive and/or seditious
propaganda, conspiracies, and/or riots and/or other illegal means to discredit and overthrow the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and to established in the Philippines a Communist
regime.
2.TheaccusedNILOTAYAGaliasROMYREYESaliasTABA,togetherwithFRANCISCOPORTEM
alias KIKO Gonzales and others, pursued the above subversive and/or seditious activities in San
Pablo City by recruiting members for the New People'sArmy, and/or by instigating and inciting the
peopletoorganizeanduniteforthepurposeofoverthrowingtheGovernmentoftheRepublicofthe
Philippinesthrougharmedrevolution,deceit,subversionand/orotherillegalmeans,andestablishing
inthePhilippinesaCommunistGovernment.
That the following aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the offense: (a) aid of
armedmenorpersonstoinsureoraffordimpunityand(b)craft,fraud,ordisguisewasemployed.
OnJuly21,1970Tayagmovedtoquash,impugningthevalidityofthestatuteonthegroundsthat(1)itisabillof
attainder(2)itisvague(3)itembracesmorethanonesubjectnotexpressedinthetitlethereofand(4)itdenied
himtheequalprotectionofthelaws.
Resolving the constitutional issues raised, the trial court, in its resolution of September 15, 1970, declared the
statute void on the grounds that it is a bill of attainder and that it is vague and overboard, and dismissed the
informations against the two accused. The Government appealed. We resolved to treat its appeal as a special
civilactionforcertiorari.
II.IstheActaBillofAttainder?
ArticleIII,section1(11)oftheConstitutionstatesthat"Nobillofattainderorexportfactolawshallbeenacted."2
Abillofattainderisalegislativeactwhichinflictspunishmentwithouttrial. 3Itsessenceisthesubstitutionofalegislative
for a judicial determination of guilt.4 The constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle of
separationofpowers5byconfininglegislaturesto
rulemaking6andtherebyforestallinglegislativeusurpationofthejudicialfunction.7Historyinperspective,billsofattainder
were employed to suppress unpopular causes and political minorities, 8 and it is against this evil that the constitutional
prohibitionisdirected.Thesinglingoutofadefiniteclass,theimpositionofaburdenonit,andalegislativeintent,sufficeto
stigmatizeastatuteasabillofattainder.9
In the case at bar, theAntiSubversionAct was condemned by the court aquoas a bill of attainder because it
"tarsandfeathers"theCommunistPartyofthePhilippinesasa"continuingmenacetothefreedomandsecurity
ofthecountryitsexistence,a'clear,presentandgravedangertothesecurityofthePhilippines.'"Bymeansof
theAct, the trial court said, Congress usurped "the powers of the judge," and assumed "judicial magistracy by
2/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
pronouncingtheguiltoftheCCPwithoutanyoftheformsorsafeguardsofjudicialtrial."Finally,accordingtothe
trialcourt,"iftheonlyissue[tobedetermined]iswhetherornottheaccusedisaknowingandvoluntarymember,
thelawisstillabillofattainderbecauseithasexpresslycreatedapresumptionoforganizationalguiltwhichthe
accusedcanneverhopetooverthrow."
1.WhentheActisviewedinitsactualoperation,itwillbeseenthatitdoesnotspecifytheCommunistPartyofthe
Philippinesorthemembersthereofforthepurposeofpunishment.WhatitdoesissimplytodeclarethePartyto
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"
issuedsolelyfordefinitionalpurposes.InfacttheActappliesnotonlytotheCommunistPartyofthePhilippines
butalsoto"anyotherorganizationhavingthesamepurposeandtheirsuccessors."Itsfocusisnotonindividuals
butonconduct.10
This feature of theAct distinguishes it from section 504 of the U.S. Federal LaborManagement Reporting and
DisclosureActof1959 11 which, in U.S. vs. Brown, 12 was held to be a bill of attainder and therefore unconstitutional.
Section504providedinitspertinentpartsasfollows:
(a)NopersonwhoisorhasbeenamemberoftheCommunist
Party...shallserve
(1) as an officer, director, trustee, member of any executive board or similar governing body,
business agent, manager, organizer, or other employee (other than as an employee performing
exclusivelyclericalorcustodialduties)ofanylabororganization.
duringorforfiveyearsaftertheterminationofhismembershipintheCommunistParty....
(b)Anypersonwhowillfullyviolatesthissectionshallbefinednotmorethan$10,000orimprisoned
fornotmorethanoneyear,orboth.
ThisstatutespecifiedtheCommunistParty,andimposesdisabilityandpenaltiesonitsmembers.Membershipin
theParty,withoutmore,ipsofactodisqualifiesapersonfrombecominganofficeroramemberofthegoverning
bodyofanylabororganization.AstheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatespointedout:
Underthelineofcasesjustoutlined,sec.504oftheLaborManagementReportingandDisclosure
Act plainly constitutes a bill of attainder. Congress undoubtedly possesses power under the
CommerceClausetoenactlegislationdesignedtokeepfrompositionsaffectinginterstatecommerce
persons who may use of such positions to bring about political strikes. In section 504, however,
CongresshasexceededtheauthoritygranteditbytheConstitution.Thestatutedoesnotsetfortha
generally applicable rule decreeing that any person who commits certain acts or possesses certain
characteristics(actsandcharacteristicswhich,inCongress'view,makethemlikelytoinitiatepolitical
strikes)shallnotholdunionoffice,andleavestocourtsandjuriesthejobofdecidingwhatpersons
havecommittedthespecifiedactsorpossessedthespecifiedcharacteristics.Instead, it designates
innouncertaintermsthepersonswhopossessthefearedcharacteristicsandthereforecannothold
unionofficewithoutincurringcriminalliabilitymembersoftheCommunistParty.
Communist Party v. SubversiveActivities Control Board, 367 US 1, 6 L ed 2d 625, 81 S CT 1357,
lendasupporttoourconclusion.ThatcaseinvolvedanappealfromanorderbytheControlBoard
ordering the Communist Party to register as a "Communistaction organization," under the
Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat 987, 50 USC sec. 781 et seq. (1958 ed). The
definitionof"Communistactionorganization"whichtheBoardistoapplyissetforthinsec.3ofthe
Act:
[A]nyorganizationintheUnitedStates...which(i)issubstantiallydirected,dominated,orcontrolled
by the foreign government or foreign organization controlling the world Communist movement
referredtoinsection2ofthistitle,and(ii)operatesprimarilytoadvancetheobjectivesofsuchworld
Communistmovement...64Stat989,50USCsec.782(1958ed.)
AmajorityoftheCourtrejectedtheargumentthattheActwasabillofattainder,reasoningthatsec.
3 does not specify the persons or groups upon which the deprivations setforth in theAct are to be
imposed,butinsteadsetsforthageneraldefinition.AlthoughtheBoardhasdeterminedin1953that
theCommunistPartywasa"Communistactionorganization,"theCourtfoundthestatutorydefinition
nottobesonarrowastoinsurethatthePartywouldalwayscomewithinit:
InthisproceedingtheBoardhadfound,andtheCourtofAppealshassustaineditsconclusion,that
the Communist Party, by virtud of the activities in which it now engages, comes within the terms of
theAct.IfthePartyshouldatanytimechoosetoabandontheseactivities,afteritisonceregistered
pursuanttosec.7,theActprovidesadequatemeansofrelief.(367US,at87,6Led2dat683)
3/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
Indeed,weretheAntiSubversionActabillofattainder,itwouldbetotallyunnecessarytochargeCommunistsin
court, as the law alone, without more, would suffice to secure their punishment. But the undeniable fact is that
theirguiltstillhastobejudiciallyestablished.TheGovernmenthasyettoproveatthetrialthattheaccusedjoined
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,
andotherillegalmeansandplacethecountryunderthecontrolanddominationofaforeignpower.
Astotheclaimthatunderthestatuteorganizationlguiltisnonethelessimputeddespitetherequirementofproof
of knowing membership in the Party, suffice it to say that is precisely the nature of conspiracy, which has been
referredtoasa"dragneetdevice"wherebyallwhoparticipateinthecriminalcovenantareliable.Thecontention
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. 13 But the statute specifically required that membership must be knowing or
active,withspecificintenttofurthertheillegalobjectivesoftheParty.Thatiswhatsection4meanswhenitrequiresthat
membership, to be unlawful, must be shown to have been acquired "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts." 14 The
ingredientofspecificintenttopursuetheunlawfulgoalsofthePartymustbeshownby"overtacts." 15Thisconstitutesan
elementof"membership"distinctfromtheingredientofguiltyknowledge.Theformerrequiresproofofdirectparticipationin
theorganization'sunlawfulactivities,whilethelatterrequiresproofofmereadherencetotheorganization'sillegalobjectives.
2. Even assuming, however, that the Act specifies individuals and not activities, this feature is not enough to
render it a bill of attainder. A statute prohibiting partners or employees of securities underwriting firms from
servingasofficersoremployeesofnationalbanksonthebasisofalegislativefindingthatthepersonsmentioned
wouldbesubjecttothetemptationtocommitactsdeemedinimicaltothenationaleconomy,hasbeendeclared
nottobeabillofattainder. 16Similarly, a statute requiring every secret, oathbound society having a membership of at
leasttwentytoregister,andpunishinganypersonwhobecomesamemberofsuchsocietywhichfailstoregisterorremains
a member thereof, was declared valid even if in its operation it was shown to apply only to the members of the Ku Klux
Klan.17
In the Philippines the validity of section 23 (b) of the Industrial PeaceAct, 18 requiring labor unions to file with the
Department of Labor affidavits of union officers "to the effect that they are not members of the Communist Party and that
they are not members of any organization which teaches the overthrow of the Government by force or by any illegal or
unconstitutionalmethod,"wasupheldbythisCourt.19
Indeed,itisonlywhenastatuteapplieseithertonamedindividualsortoeasilyascertainablemembersofagroup
insuchawayastoinflictpunishmentonthemwithoutajudicialtrialdoesitbecomeabillofattainder.20Itisupon
thisgroundthatstatuteswhichdisqualifiedthosewhohadtakenpartintherebellionagainsttheGovernmentoftheUnited
StatesduringtheCivilWarfromholdingoffice, 21orfromexercisingtheirprofession, 22orwhichprohibitedthepaymentof
further compensation to individuals named in the Act on the basis of a finding that they had engages in subversive
activities,23orwhichmadeitacrimeforamemberoftheCommunistPartytoserveasanofficeroremployeeofalabor
union,24havebeeninvalidatedasbillsofattainder.
But when the judgment expressed in legislation is so universally acknowledged to be certain as to be "judicially
noticeable," the legislature may apply its own rules, and judicial hearing is not needed fairly to make such
determination.25
InNewYorkexrel.Bryantvs.Zimmerman,26theNewYorklegislaturepassedalawrequiringeverysecret,oathbound
society with a membership of at least twenty to register, and punishing any person who joined or remained a member of
suchasocietyfailingtoregister.WhilethestatutedidnotspecifytheKuKluxKlan,initsoperationthelawappliedtothe
KKKexclusively.InsustainingthestatuteagainsttheclaimthatitdiscriminatedagainsttheKuKluxKlanwhileexempting
other secret, oathbound organizations like masonic societies and the Knights of Columbus, the United States Supreme
CourtreliedoncommonknowledgeofthenatureandactivitiesoftheKuKluxKlan.TheCourtsaid:
Thecourtsbelowrecognizedtheprincipleshowninthecasesjustcitedandreachedtheconclusion
thattheclassificationwasjustifiedbyadifferencebetweenthetwoclassesofassociationsshownby
experience,andthatthedifferenceconsisted(a)inamanifesttendencyonthepartofoneclassto
makethesecrecysurroundingitspurposeandmembershipacloakforactsandconductinimicalto
personalrightsandpublicwelfare,and(b)intheabsenceofsuchatendencyonthepartoftheother
class. In pointing out this difference one of the courts said of the Ku Klux Klan, the principal
associationintheincludedclass:"Itisamatterofcommonknowledgethatthisorganizationfunctions
largely at night, its members disguised by hoods and gowns and doing things calculated to strike
terrorintothemindsofthepeople"andlatersaidoftheotherclass:"Theseorganizationsandtheir
purposesarewellknown,manyofthemhavingbeeninexistenceformanyyears.Manyofthemare
oathbound and secret. But we hear no complaint against them regarding violation of the peace or
interferingwiththerightsofothers."Anotherofthecourtssaid:"Itisamatterofcommonknowledge
thattheassociationororganizationofwhichtherelatorisconcededlyamemberexercisesactivities
tending to the prejudice and intimidation of sundry classes of our citizens. But the legislation is not
4/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
confined to this society" and later said of the other class: "Labor unions have a recognized lawful
purpose. The benevolent orders mentioned in the Benevolent Orders Law have already received
legislativescrutinyandhavebeengrantedspecialprivilegessothatthelegislaturemaywellconsider
thembeneficialratherthanharmfulagencies."Thethirdcourt,afterrecognizing"thepotentialitiesof
evil in secret societies," and observing that "the danger of certain organizations has been judicially
demonstrated," meaning in that state, said: "Benevolent orders, labor unions and college
fraternities have existed for many years, and, while not immune from hostile criticism, have on the
wholejustifiedtheirexistence."
Weassumethatthelegislaturehadbeforeitsuchinformationaswasreadilyavailableincludingthe
published report of a hearing, before a committee of the House of Representatives of the 57th
Congressrelatingtotheformation,purposesandactivitiesoftheKluKluxKlan.Ifsoitwasadvised
putting aside controverted evidence that the order was a revival of the Ku Klux Klan of an
earliertimewithadditionalfeaturesborrowedfromtheKnowNothingandtheA.P.A.ordersofother
periodsthatitsmembershipswaslimitedtonativeborn,gentile,protestantwhitesthatinpartofits
constitution and printed creed it proclaimed the widest freedom for all and full adherence to the
Constitution of the United States in another exacted of its member an oath to shield and preserve
"whitesupremacy"andinstillanotherdeclaredanypersonactivelyopposingitsprinciplestobe"a
dangerous ingredient in the body politic of our country and an enemy to the weal of our national
commonwealth" that it was conducting a crusade against Catholics, Jews, and Negroes, and
stimulatinghurtfulreligiousandraceprejudicesthatitwasstrivingforpoliticalpowerandassuminga
sort of guardianship over the administration of local, state and national affairs and that at times it
wastakingintoitsownhandsthepunishmentofwhatsomeofitsmembersconceivedtobecrimes.
27
InthePhilippinesthecharacteroftheCommunistPartyhasbeentheobjectofcontinuingscrutinybythisCourt.In
1932wefoundtheCommunistPartyofthePhilippinestobeanillegalassociation. 28 In 1969 we again found that
the objective of the Party was the "overthrow of the Philippine Government by armed struggle and to establish in the
PhilippinesacommunistformofgovernmentsimilartothatofSovietRussiaandRedChina." 29Morerecently,inLansang
vs. Garcia, 30 we noted the growth of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the organization of Communist fronts
among youth organizations such as the Kabataang Makabayan (KM) and the emergence of the New People'sArmy.After
meticulouslyreviewingtheevidence,wesaid:"Weentertain,therefore,nodoubtsabouttheexistenceofasizeablegroupof
men who have publicly risen in arms to overthrow the government and have thus been and still are engaged in rebellion
againsttheGovernmentofthePhilippines.
3. Nor is it enough that the statute specify persons or groups in order that it may fall within the ambit of the
prohibitionagainstbillsofattainder.Itisalsonecessarythatitmustapplyretroactivelyandreachpastconduct.
This requirement follows from the nature of a bill of attainder as a legislative adjudication of guilt. As Justice
Frankfurter observed, "frequently a bill of attainder was ... doubly objectionable because of its ex post facto
features.Thisisthehistoricexplanationforunitingthetwomischiefsinone
clause'NoBillofAttainderorexpostfactolawshallbepassed.'...Therefore,if[astatute]isabillofattainderit
is also an ex post facto law. But if it is not an ex post facto law, the reasons that establish that it is not are
persuasivethatitcannotbeabillofattainder."31
ThusinGardnervs.BoardofPublicWorks,32theU.S.SupremeCourtupheldthevalidityoftheCharteroftheCityof
LosAngeleswhichprovided:
...[N]opersonshallholdorretainorbeeligibleforanypublicofficeoremploymentintheserviceof
the City of LosAngeles, in any office or department thereof, either elective or appointive, who has
withinfive(5)yearspriortotheeffectivedateofthissectionadvised,advocated,ortaught,orwho
may,afterthissectionbecomeseffective,becomeamemberoforaffiliatedwithanygroup,society,
association, organization or party which advises, advocates or teaches or has within said period of
five(5)yearsadvised,advocated,ortaughttheoverthrowbyforceorviolenceoftheGovernmentof
theUnitedStatesofAmericaoroftheStateofCalifornia.
Inupholdingthestatute,theCourtstressedtheprospectiveapplicationoftheActtothepetitionertherein,thus:
...Immaterialhereisanyopinionwemighthaveastothecharterprovisioninsofarasitpurportedto
applyrestrospectivelyforafiveyearperiodtoitseffectivedate.WeassumethatundertheFederal
Constitution the CharterAmendment is valid to the extent that it bars from the city's public service
personswho,subsequentlytoitsadoptionin1941,advise,advocate,orreachtheviolentoverthrow
oftheGovernmentorwhoareorbecomeaffiliatedwithanygroupdoingso.Theprovisionsoperating
thus prospectively were a reasonable regulation to protect the municipal service by establishing an
employmentqualificationofloyaltytotheStateandtheUnitedStates.
... Unlike the provisions of the charter and ordinance under which petitioners were removed, the
5/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
statute in the Lovett case did not declare general and prospectively operative standards of
qualification and eligibility for public employment. Rather, by its terms it prohibited any further
payment of compensationto named individuals or employees. Under these circumstances, viewed
against the legislative background, the statutewas held to have imposed penalties without judicial
trial.
Indeed, if one objection to the bill of attainder is thatCongress thereby assumed judicial magistracy, them it
mustbedemonstratedthatthestatuteclaimedtobeabillofattainderreachespastconductandthatthepenalties
it imposesare inescapable. As the U.S. Supreme Court observedwith respect to the U.S. Federal Subversive
ActivitiesControlActof1950:
Nor is the statute made an act of "outlawry" or of attainderby the fact that the conduct which it
regulatesisdescribedwithsuchparticularitythat,inprobability,feworganizationswillcomewithinthe
statutory terms. Legislatures may act tocurb behaviour which they regard as harmful to the public
welfare,whetherthatconductisfoundtobeengagedinbymanypersonsorbyone.Solongasthe
incidenceoflegislationissuchthatthepersonswhoengageintheregulatedconduct,betheymanyor
few,canescaperegulationmerelybyalteringthecourseoftheirownpresentactivities,therecanbe
nocomplaintofanattainder.33
Thisstatement,mutatismutandis,maybesaidoftheAntiSubversionAct.Section4thereofexpresslystatesthat
the prohibition therein applies only to acts committed"After the approval of this Act." Only those who
"knowingly,willfullyandbyovertactsaffiliatethemselveswith,becomeorremainmembersoftheCommunistParty
ofthePhilippinesand/oritssuccessorsorofanysubversiveassociation"afterJune20,1957,arepunished.Those
whowere members of the Party or of any other subversive associationat the time of the enactment of the law,
weregiven the opportunity of purging themselves of liability byrenouncing in writing and under oath their
membershipintheParty.Thelawexpresslyprovidesthatsuchrenunciationshalloperatetoexemptsuchpersons
frompenalliability.34ThepenaltiesprescribedbytheActarethereforenotinescapable.
III.TheActandtheRequirementsofDueProcess
1. As already stated, the legislative declaration in section 2 of the Act that the Communist Party of the
PhilippinesisanorganizedconspiracyfortheoverthrowoftheGovernmentisintedednottoprovidethebasisfora
legislativefindingofguiltofthemembersofthePartybutrathertojustifytheproscriptionspelledoutinsection4.
Freedomofexpressionandfreedomofassociationaresofundamentalthattheyarethoughtbysometooccupy
a"preferredposition"inthehierarchyofconstitutionalvalues. 35 Accordingly, any limitation on their exercise mustbe
justified by the existence of a substantive evil. This isthe reason why before enacting the statute in question
Congressconductedcarefulinvestigationsandthenstateditsfindingsinthepreamble,thus:
... [T]he Communist Party of the Philippines althoughpurportedly a political party, is in fact an
organizedconspiracytooverthrowtheGovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesnotonlybyforce
andviolencebutalsobydeceit,subversionandotherillegalmeans,forthepurposeofestablishingin
thePhilippinesatotalitarianregimesubjecttoaliendominationandcontrol
... [T]he continued existence and activities of the CommunistParty of the Philippines constitutes a
clear,presentandgravedangertothesecurityofthePhilippines
... [I]n the face of the organized, systematice and persistentsubversion, national in scope but
international in direction,posed by the Communist Party of the Philippines and its activities,there is
urgentneedforspeciallegislationtocopewiththiscontinuingmenacetothefreedomandsecurityof
thecountry.
In truth, the constitutionality of the Act would be opento question if, instead of making these findings in
enactingthestatute,Congressomittedtodoso.
InsayingthatbymeansoftheActCongresshasassumedjudicialmagistracy,thetrialcourdfailedtotakeproper
account of the distinction between legislative fact and adjudicative fact. Professor Paul Freund elucidatesthe
crucialdistinction,thus:
...Alawforbiddingthesaleofbeveragescontainingmorethan3.2percentofalcoholwouldraisea
question of legislativefact, i.e., whether this standard has a reasonable relationto public health,
morals,andtheenforcementproblem.Alawforbiddingthesaleofintoxicatingbeverages(assuming
itisnotsovagueastorequiresupplementationbyrulemaking)wouldraiseaquestionofadjudicative
fact,i.e.,whetherthisorthatbeverageisintoxicatingwithinthemeaningofthestatuteandthelimits
ongovernmentalactionimposedbytheConstitution.Ofcoursewhatwemeanbyfactineachcaseis
itselfan ultimate conclusion founded on underlying facts and oncriteria of judgment for weighing
them.
6/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
Aconventionalformulationisthatlegislativefactsthosefactswhicharerelevanttothelegislative
judgment will not be canvassed save to determine whether there is a rationalbasis for believing
that they exist, while adjudicativefacts those which tie the legislative enactment to the litigant
aretobedemonstratedandfoundaccordingtotheordinarystandardsprevailingforjudicialtrials.36
ThetestformulatedinNebbiavs.newYork,37andadopted by this Court in Lansang vs. Garcia, 38 is that 'if laws are
seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the
requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial determination to that effect renders a court functus officio." The
recitaloflegislativefindingsimplementsthistest.
With respect to a similar statement of legislative findingsin the U.S. Federal SubversiveActivities ControlActof
1950 (that "Communistaction organizations" are controlledby the foreign government controlling the
worldCommunistmovementandthattheyoperateprimarilyto"advancetheobjectivesofsuchworldCommunist
movement"),theU.S.SupremeCourtsaid:
Itisnotforthecourtstoreexaminethevalidityoftheselegislativefindingsandrejectthem....Theyare
theproductofextensiveinvestigationbyCommittesofCongressovermorethanadecadeandahalf.
Cf. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S.502, 516, 530. We certainly cannot dismiss them as
unfoundedirrational imaginings. ... And if we accept them, as we mustas a not unentertainable
appraisal by Congress of the threatwhich Communist organizations pose not only to existing
governmentin the United States, but to the United States as asovereign, independent Nation. ...we
mustrecognizethatthepowerofCongresstoregulateCommunistorganizationsofthisnatureis
extensive.39
Thisstatement,mutatismutandis,maybesaidofthelegislativefindingsarticulatedintheAntiSubversionAct.
That the Government has a right to protect itself againstsubversion is a proposition too plain to require
elaboration.Selfpreservation is the "ultimate value" of society. It surpasses and transcendes every other value,
"forif a society cannot protect its very structure from armedinternal attack, ...no subordinate value can be
protected"40AsChiefJusticeVinsonsoaptlysaidinDennisvs.UnitedStates:41
Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argumentthat there is a 'right' to rebellion against
dictatorial governmentsis without force where the existing structure of government provides for
peaceful and orderly change. We rejectany principle of governmental helplessness in the face of
preparationfor revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion,must lead to anarchy. No
one could conceive that it isnot within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended tooverthrow
thegovernmentbyforceandviolence.
2. By carefully delimiting the reach of the Act to conduct (as explicitly described in sectin 4 thereof),
Congressreaffirmed its respect for the rule that "even throughthe governmental purpose be legitimate and
substantial,thatpurposecannotbepursuedbymeansthatbroadlystiflefundamentalpersonallibertieswhenthe
end can be more narrowly achieved." 42 The requirement of knowing membership,as distinguished from nominal
membership,hasbeenheldasasufficientbasisforpenalizingmembershipinasubversiveorganization. 43For,ashasbeen
stated:
Membership in an organization renders aid and encouragement to the organization and when
membership is acceptedor retained with knowledge that the organization is engaged inan unlawful
purpose, the one accepting or retaining membershipwith such knowledge makes himself a party to
theunlawfulenterpriseinwhichitisengaged.44
3.TheargumentthattheActisunconstitutionallyoverbroadbecausesection2merelyspeaksof"overthrow"ofthe
Government and overthrow may be achieved by peaceful means, misconceives the function of the
phrase"knowingly, willfully and by overt acts" in section 4. Section 2 is merely a legislative declaration the
definitionsof and the penalties prescribed for the different acts prescribedare stated in section 4 which requires
thatmembershipintheCommunistPartyofthePhilippines,tobeunlawful,mustbeacquired"knowingly,willfully
andbyovertacts."Indeed,thefirst"whereas"clausemakesclearthattheoverthrowcontemplatedis"overthrow
not only by forceand violence but also be deceit, subversion and other illegalmeans." The absence of this
qualificatioinsection2appearstobeduemoretoanoversightratherthantodeliberateomission.
Moreover, the word "overthrow' sufficiently connotesthe use of violent and other illegal means. Only in a
metaphoricalsensemayonespeakofpeacefuloverthrowofgovernments,andcertainlythelawdoesnotspeakin
metaphors.In the case of the AntiSubversion Act, the use ofthe word "overthrow" in a metaphorical sense is
hardlyconsistentwiththeclearlydelineatedobjectiveofthe"overthrow,"namely,"establishinginthePhilippinesa
totalitarianregime and place [sic] the Government under thecontrol and domination of an alien power." What
thisCourt once said in a prosecution for sedition is appropos: "The language used by the appellant clearly
importedanoverthrowoftheGovernmentbyviolence,anditshouldbeinterpretedintheplainandobvioussense
7/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
in which it wasevidently intended to be understood. The word 'overthrow'could not have been intended as
referringtoanordinarychangebytheexerciseoftheelectivefranchise.Theuseofthewhip[whichtheaccused
exhorted his audience to useagainst the Constabulary], an instrument designed toleave marks on the sides of
adversaries,isinconsistentwiththemildinterpretationwhichtheappellantwouldhaveusimputetothelanguage."
45
IV.TheActandtheGuarantyofFreeExpression
As already pointed out, theAct is aimed against conspiracies to overthrow the Government by force, violence
orother illegal means. Whatever interest in freedom of speechand freedom of association is infringed by the
prohibitionagainst knowing membership in the Communist Party ofthe Philippines, is so indirect and so
insubstantialastobeclearlyandheavilyoutweighedbytheoverridingconsiderationsofnationalsecurityandthe
preservartionofdemocraticinstitutionsinhiscountry.
The membership clause of the U.S. Federal SmithActis similar in many respects to the membership provision
oftheAntiSubversionAct.Theformerprovides:
Whoeverorganizesorhelpsorattemptstoorganizeanysociety,group,orassemblyofpersonswho
teach, advocate, orencourage the overthrow or destruction of any such governmentby force or
violence or becomes or is a member of, or affiliatedwith, any such society, group or assembly of
persons,knowingthepurposethereof
Shallbefinednotmorethan$20,000orimprisonednotmorethantwentyyears,orboth,andshallbe
ineligibleforemplymentbytheUnitedStatesoranydepartmentoragencythereof,forthefiveyears
nextfollowinghisconviction....46
Insustainingthevalidityofthisprovision,the"CourtsaidinScalesvs.UnitedStates:47
It was settled in Dennis that advocacy with which we arehere concerned is not constitutionally
protectedspeech,anditwasfurtherestablishedthatacombinationtopromotesuchadvocacy,albeit
undertheaegisofwhatpurportstobeapoliticalparty,isnotsuchassociationasisprotectedbythe
firstAmendment.Wecandiscernnoreasonwhymembership,whenitconstitutesapurposefulformof
complicityinagroupengaginginthissameforbiddenadvocacy,shouldreceiveanygreaterdegreeof
protectionfromtheguaranteesofthatAmendment.
Moreover, as was held in another case, where the problemsof accommodating the exigencies of self
preservationand the values of liberty are as complex and intricate as inthe situation described in the legislative
findingsstatedintheU.S.FederalSubversiveActivitiesControlActof1950,thelegislativejudgmentastohowthat
threat may best bemet consistently with the safeguards of personal freedomsis not to be set aside merely
becausethejudgmentofjudgeswould,inthefirstinstance,havechosenothermethods. 48For in truth, legislation,
"whether it restrains freedom tohire or freedom to speak, is itself an effort at compromisebetween the claims of the social
order and individual freedom,and when the legislative compromise in either case isbrought to the judicial test the court
standsonestepremovedfromtheconflictanditsresolutionthroughlaw."49
V.TheActanditsTitle
The respondent Tayag invokes the constitutional commandthat "no bill which may be enacted into law shall
embracemorethanonesubjectwhichshallbeexpressedinthetitleofthebill."50
WhatisassailedasnotgermanetoorembracedinthetitleoftheActisthelastprovisoofsection4whichreads:
Andprovided,finally,ThatonewhoconspireswithanyotherpersontooverthrowtheGovernmentof
theRepublicofthePhilippines,orthegovernmentofanyofitspoliticalsubdivisionsbyforce,violence,
deceit, subversion or illegal means,for the purpose of placing such Government or political
subdivisionunder the control and domination of any lien power, shallbe punished by prision
correccionaltoprisionmayorwithalltheaccessorypenaltiesprovidedthereforinthesamecode.
It 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 to overthrow the national or any
local governmentby illegal means, even if their intent is not to establisha totalitarian regime, burt a democratic
regime, evenif their purpose is not to place the nation under an aliencommunist power, but under an alien
democratic power likethe United States or England or Malaysia or even an anticommunistpower like Spain,
Japan,ThailandorTaiwanorIndonesia."
The Act, in addition to its main title ("An Act to Outlawthe Communist Party of the Philippines and
SimilarAssociations, Penalizing Membership Therein, and forOther Purposes"), has a short title. Section 1
providesthat"ThisActshallbeknownasthe
8/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
AntiSubversion Act."Together with the main title, the short title of the statuteunequivocally indicates that the
subject matter is subversionin general which has for its fundamental purpose the substitutionof a foreign
totalitarianregimeinplaceoftheexistingGovernmentandnotmerelysubversionbyCommunistconspiracies..
Thetitleofabillneednotbeacatalogueoranindexofitscontents,andneednotrecitethedetailsoftheAct.51 It
is a valid title if it indicates in broad but clear termsthe nature, scope, and consequences of the proposed lawand its
operation. 52 A narrow or technical construction isto be avoided, and the statute will be read fairly and reasonablyin order
nottothwartthelegislativeintent.WeholdthattheAntiSubversionActfullysatisfiestheserequirements.
VI.ConclusionandGuidelines
In conclusion, even as we uphold the validity of theAntiSubversionAct, we cannot overemphasize the needfor
prudence and circumspection in its enforcement, operatingas it does in the sensitive area of freedom of
expressionandbelief.Accordingly,wesetthefollowing basicguidelinestobeobservedinanyprosecutionunder
the Act.The Government, in addition to proving such circumstancesas may affect liability, must establish the
following elementsof the crime of joining the Communist Party of the Philippinesor any other subversive
association:
(1)InthecaseofsubversiveorganizationsotherthantheCommunistPartyofthePhilippines,(a)thatthepurpose
of the organization is to overthrow the presentGovernment of the Philippines and to establish in thiscountry a
totalitarianregimeunderthedominationofaforeignpower(b)thattheaccusedjoinedsuchorganizationand(c)
thathedidsoknowingly,willfullyandbyovertactsand
(2)InthecaseoftheCommunistPartyofthePhilippines,(a)thattheCPPcontinuestopursuetheobjectiveswhich
led Congress in 1957 to declare it to be an organizedconspiracy for the overthrow of the Government by
illegalmeans for the purpose of placing the country under thecontrol of a foreign power (b) that the accused
joinedtheCPPand(c)thathedidsowillfully,knowinglyandbyovertacts.
WerefrainfrommakinganypronouncementastothecrimeorremainingamemberoftheCommunistPartyofthe
Philippinesorofanyothersubversiveassociation:weleavethismattertofuturedetermination.
ACCORDINGLY, the questioned resolution of September15, 1970 is set aside, and these two cases are
herebyremandedtothecourtaquofortrialonthemerits.Costsdeoficio.
Makalintal,Zaldivar,Teehankee,BarredoandEsguerra,JJ.,concur.
Concepcion,C.J.,concursintheresult.
MakasiarandAntonio,JJ.,tooknopart.
SeparateOpinions
FERNANDO,J.,dissenting:
It is with regard that I find myself unable to join therest of my brethren in the decision reached upholding
thevalidity of theAntiSubversionAct. 1 It is to be admittedthat the learned and scholarly opinbion of Justice Castro
hastheimpressofconscientiousandpainstakingscrutinyoftheconstitutionalissuesraised.Whatismore,thestressinthe
concludingportionthereofonbasicguidelinesthatwillassureinthetrialofthoseprosecutedundersuchActrespectfortheir
constitutionalrightsistobecommended.Nonetheless,myownreadingofthedecisionscited,interpretingthebillofattainder
clause2 coupled withthe fears, perhaps induced by a toolatitudinarian constructionof the guarantees of freedom of belief
andexpression3aswellasfreedomofassociation 4astoimpermissibleinroadstowhichtheymaybeexposed,compelsa
differentconclusion.Hencethisdissent.
1. There is to be sure no thought on my part that theequally pressing concern of state safety and security
shouldbeignored.Thepoliticalbranchesofthegovernmentwouldlaythemselvesoepntoajustifiableindictment
fornegligence had they been remiss in their obligation tosafeguard the nation against its sworn enemies. In a
simplerera, where the overthrow of the government wasusually through the rising up in arms, with weapons
farless sophisticated than those now in existence, there wasno constitutional issue of the magnitude that now
confrontsus. Force has to be met with force. It was as clearcutas that. Advances in science as well as more
9/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
subtlemethods of inducing disloyalty and weakening the senseof allegiance have introduced complexities in
copingwithsuchproblems.Theremustbethen,andIamthefirsttorecognizeit,agreaterunderstandingforthe
governmentalrespondetosituationsofthatcharacter.ItisinthatlightthatthevalidityoftheAntiSubversionAct
isto be appraised. From ny standpoint, and I am not presumptuousenough to claim that it is the only
perspectiveor that is the most realistic, I feel that there was an insufficientappreciation of the compulsion of the
constitutionalcommands against bills of attainder and abridgmentof free speech. I am comforted by the thought
thatevenhadmyviewprevailed,allthatitwouldmeanisthatanewlegislation,moreincomformitytomywayof
thinkingtowhatisordainedbythefundamentallaw,wouldhavetobeenacted.Novalidfearneedbeentertained
thenthat a setback would be occasioned to legitilate state effortsto stem the tide of subversive activities, in
whateverformmanifested.
2.Thestartingpointinanyinquiryastothesignificanceofthebillofattainderclauseisthemeaningattachedtoit
by the Constitutional Convention of 1934 and by the people who adopted it. As was explained by the then
Delegate,laterJustice,JoseP.LaurelinhisaddressonNovember19,1934asChairmanoftheCommitteeonthe
Bill of Rights quoted in the opinion of the Court: "A billof attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
withoutjudicialtrial.(Cummingsv.UnitedStates,4Wall.277,18Led356).InEngland,theBillofAttainderwasan
actofParliamentbywhichamanwastried,convictedandsentencedtodeathwithoutajury,withoutahearingin
court, without hearing the witnesses againsthim and without regard to the rules of evidence. His bloodwas
attainted or corrupted, rendering him devoid of allheritable quality of acquiring and disposing property
bydescent.(Exparte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L ed. 366) If the penalty imposed was less than death, the act
wasknown as a 'bill of pains and penalties.' Bills of attainder, like ex post facto laws, were favorite methods of
Stuartoppression.Once,thenameofThomasJeffersonwasincludedinabillofattainderpresentedtoParliament
becauseofhisreformactivities."5TwoAmericanSupremeCourtdecisionwerethusinthemindsoftheframers.Theyare
Cummingsv.Missouri6andExparteGarland.7Theyspeakunequivocally.Legislativeacts,nomatterwhattheirform,that
applyeithertonamedindividualsoreasilyascertainablemembersofagroupinsuchawayastoinflictonthempunishment
amounting to a deprivation ofany right, civil or political, without judicial trial are billsof attainder prohibited by the
Constitution.8
Cummingsv.Missouri 9wasacriminalprosecutionofaCatholicpriestforrefusingtotaketheloyaltyoathrequiredbythe
state Constitution of Missouri of 1865. Undersuch a provision, lawyers, doctors, ministers, and otherprofessionals must
disavowthattheyhadever,"byactorword,"manifesteda"desire"forthesuccessofthenation'senemiesorasympathy"
withtherebelsoftheAmericanCivilWar.Iftheysworefalsely,theywereguiltyofperjury.Iftheyengagedintheirprofessions
without theoath, they were criminally liable. The United States Supreme Court condemned the provision as a bill of
attainder,identified as any legislative act inflicting punishment withoutjudicial trial. The deprivation of any right, civil
orpolitical, previously enjoyed, amounted to a punishment.Why such a conclusion was unavoidable was explained inthe
opinion of Justice Field thus: "A bill of attainder isa legislative act, which inflicts punishment without a judicialtrial. If the
punishmentbelessthandeath,theactistermedabillofpainsandpenalties.WithinthemeaningoftheConstitution,billsof
attainder include bills ofpains and penalties. In these cases the legislative body, inaddition to its legitimate functions,
exercises the powersand office of judge it assumes, in the language of thetextbooks, judicial magistracy it pronounces
upon theguilt of the party, without any of the forms or safeguardsof trial it determines the sufficiency of the proofs
produced,whetherconformabletotherulesofevidenceorotherwiseanditfixesthedegreeofpunishmentinaccordancewith
itsownnotionsoftheenormityoftheoffense....Iftheclausesofthe2darticleoftheConstitutionofMissouri,towhichwe
havereferred,hadintermsdeclaredthatMr.Cummingswasguilty,orshouldbeheldguilty,ofhavingbeeninarmedhostility
to the UnitedStates, or of having entered that state to avoid beingenrolled or drafted into the military service of the
UnitedStates, and, therefore, should be deprived of the right topreach as a priest of the Catholic church, or to teach inany
institutionoflearning,therecouldbenoquestionthattheclauseswouldconstituteabillofattainderwithinthemeaningofthe
FederalConstitution.Iftheseclauses,insteadofmentioninghisname,haddeclaredthatallpriestsandclergymenwithinthe
stateofMissouriwereguiltyoftheseacts,orshouldbeheldguiltyofthem,andhencebesubjectedtothelikedeprivation,
theclausewouldbeequallyopentoobjection.Andfurther,ittheseclauseshaddeclaredthatallsuchpriestsandclergymen
shouldbe so held guilty, and be thus deprived, provided they didnot, by a day designated, do certain specified acts,
theywould be no less within the inhibition of the Federal Constitution.In all these cases there would be the
legislativeenactment creating the deprivation, without any of theordinary forms and guards provided for the security ofthe
citizenintheadministrationofjusticebytheestablishedtribunales."10
On the very same day that the ruling in Cummings washanded down, Ex parte Garland 11 was also decided.
ThatwasamotionforleavetopractriceasanattorneybeforetheAmericanSupremeCourt.PetitionerGarlandwasadmitted
to such bar at the December term of 1860. Underthe previous rules of such Court, all that was necessarywas that the
applicant have three years practice in the statecourts to which he belonged. In March 1865, the rule waschanged by the
addition of a clause requiring that an oathbe taken under the Congressional acts of 1862 and 1865to the effect that such
candidateforadmissiontothebarhadnevervoluntarilybornearmsagainsttheUnitedStates.PetitionerGarlandcouldnotin
consciencesubscribetosuchanoath,buthewasabletoshowapresidentialpardonextendedonJuly15,1865.Withsuch
actof clemency, he moved that he be allowed to continue inpractice contending that the test oath requirement
wasunconstitutionalasabillofattainderandthatatanyrate,hewaspardoned.ThesamerulingwasannouncedbytheCourt
againthroughJusticeField.Thus:"Intheexclusionwhichthestatuteadjudges,itimposesapunishmentforsomeoftheacts
specifiedwhichwerenotpunishableatthetimetheywerecommittedlandforotheroftheactsitaddsanewpunishmentto
thatbeforeprescribed,anditisthusbroughtwithinthefurtherinhibitionoftheConsitutionagainstthepassageofanex post
factolaw.InthecaseofCummingsv.Missouri,justdecided,...wehavehadoccasiontoconsideratlengththemeaningof
10/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
abillofattainderandofanexpostfactolawintheclauseoftheConstitutionforbiddingtheirpassagebythestates,anditis
unnecessarytorepeatherewhatwetheresaid.AlikeprohibitioniscontainedintheConstitutionagainstenactmentsofthis
kindbyCongressandtheargumentpresentedinthatcaseagainstcertainclausesoftheConstitutionofMissouriisequally
applicabletotheactofCongressunderconsiderationinthiscase."12
TherewasareiterationoftheCummingsandGarlanddoctrineinUnitedStatesv.Lovett,13decidedin1946.Thereit
was shown that in 1943 the respondents, Lovett,Watson, and Dodd, were and had been for several yearsworking for the
government.The government agencies,which had lawfully employed them, were fully satisfiedwith the quality of their work
and wished to keep thememployed on their jobs. Over their protest, Congress providedin Section 304 of the Urgent
DeficiencyAppropriationActof1943,bywayofanamendmentattachedtotheHouseBill,thatafterNovember15,1943,no
salary orcompensation should be paid respondent out of any moneythen or thereafter appropriated except for services as
jurorsormembersofthearmedforces,unlesstheywerepriortoNovember15,1943,againappointedtojobsbythePresident
withtheadvideandconsentoftheSenate.NotwithstandingsuchCongressionalenactment,andthefailureofthePresidentto
reappointtherespondents,theagencies,keptalltherespondentsatworkontheirjobsforvaryingperiodsafterNovember15,
1943,buttheircompensationwasdiscontinuedafterthatdate.RespondentsbroughtthisactionintheCourtofClaimsforthe
salariestowhichtheyfeltentitled.TheAmeicanSupremeCourtstatedthatitsinquirywasthusconfinedtowhethertheaction
inthelightofproperconstructionoftheActpresentedajustificiablecontroversy,and,ifso,whetherSection304isabillof
attainderinsofarastherespondentswereconcerned.
After holding that there was a juditiciable, view theAmerican Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice
Blackcategorically affirmed: "We hold that Section 304 fallsprecisely within the category of Congressional
actionswhich the Constitution barred by providing that 'No Billof Attainder or ex post Law shall be passed.'
InCummings v. State of Missouri, ... this Court said, 'Abill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishmentwithout a judicial trial. If the punishment be lessthan death, the act is termed a bill of pains and
penalties.Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainderinclude bills of pains and penalties.' ... On the
samedaytheCummingscasewasdecided,theCourt,inExparteGarland,alsoheldinvalidonthesamegrounds
anAct of Congress which required attorneys practicing beforethis Court to take a similar oath. Neither of
thesecases has ever been overruled. They stand for the propositionthat legislative acts, no matter what their
form,that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainablemembers of a group in such a way as to
inflictpunishment on them without a judicial trial are billsof attainder prohibited by the Constitution.Adherenceto
thisprinciplerequiresinvalidationofSection304.Wedoadheretoit."14
UnitedStatesv.Brown15a1965decisionwasthefirstcasetoreviewaconvictionundertheLaborManagementReporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959, making it a crimefor a member of the Communist Party to serve as anofficer ir, except in
clerical or custodial positions, anemployee of a labor union. Respondent Brown, a longshoremanon the San Francisco
docks, and an open andavowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a centurywas elected to the Executive Board of
Local10oftheInternationalLongshoremen'sandWarehousemen'sUnionforconsecutiveoneyeartermsin1959,1960,and
1961.On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a onecountindictment returned in a district court of California
withservicing as a member of an executive board of a labororganization while a member of the Communist Party, inwillful
violation of the above provision. The question ofits validity under the bill of attainder clause was thusproperly raised for
adjudication.Whileconvictedinthelowercourt,theCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitreversed.Itwassustainedbythe
AmericanSupremeCourt.AsnotedintheopinionbyChiefJusticeWarren,"thewidevariationinform,purposeandeffectof
anteConstitutionbills of attainder indicates that the properscope of the Bill of Attainder Clause, and its relevance
tocontemporaryproblems,mustultimatelybesoughtbyattemptingtodiscernthereasonsforitsinclusionintheConstitution,
and the evils it was desinged to eliminate.The best available evidence, the writings of the architectsof our constitutional
system,indicatesthattheBillofAttainderClausewasintedednotasanarrow,technical(andthereforesoontobeoutmoded)
prohibition, but ratheras an implementation of the separation of powers, ageneral safeguard against legislative exercise of
the judicialfunction, or more simply trial by legislature." 16 Then after referring to Cummings, Garland, and Lovett,Chief
Justice Warren continued: "Under the line of casesjust outlined, Sec. 504 of the Labor Management Reportingand
DisclosureActplainlyconstitutesabillofattainder.CongressundoubtedlypossessespowerundertheCommerceClauseto
enactlegislationdesignedtokeepfrompositionsaffectinginterstatecommercepersonswhomayusesuchpositionstobring
aboutpoliticalstrikes.InSec.504,however,CongresshasexceededtheauthoritygranteditbytheConstitution.Thestatute
does not setforth a generally applicable rule decreeing that any personwho commits certain acts or possesses certain
characteristics(actsandcharacteristicswhhich,inCongress'view,makethemlikelytoinitiatepoliticalstrikes)shallnothold
unionoffice,andleavetocourtsandjuriesthejobofdecidingwhatpersonshavecommittedthespecifiedactsorpossessed
thespecifiedcharacteristics.Instead,itdesignatesinnouncertaintermsthepersonswhopossessthefeareccharacteristics
andthereforecannotholdunionofficewithoutincurringcriminalliabilitymembersoftheCommunistParty."17
Even Communist Party v. Subversive Activities ControlBoard, 18 where the provision of the Subversive
ActivitiesControl Act of 1950 requiring the Communist Party ofthe United States to register was sustained, the opinionof
JusticeFrankfurterfortheCourt,speakingforafivemanmajority,didindicateadherencetotheCummingsprinciple.Hadthe
American Communist Party been outlawed,the outcome certainly would have been different.Thus: "TheAct is not a bill of
attainder. It attaches notto specified organizations but to described activities inwhich an organization may or may not
engage. The singlingout of an individual for legislatively prescribed punishmentconstitutes an attainder whether the
individualis called by name or described in terms of conduct which,because it is past conduct, operates only as a
designationofparticularpersons....TheSubversiveActivitiesControlActisnotofthatking.Itrequirestheregistrationonly
oforganizationswhich,afterthedateoftheAct,arefoundtobeunderthedirection,domination,orcontrolofcertainforeign
powers and to operate primarily toadvance certain objectives. This finding must be madeafter full administrative hearing,
11/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
subjecttojudicialreviewwhichopenstherecordforthereviewingcourt'sdeterminationwhethertheadministrativefindingsas
tofact are supported by the preponderance of the evidence.Present activity constitutes an operative element to whichthe
statuteattacheslegalconsequences,notmerelyapointofreferencefortheascertainmentofparticularlypersonsineluctably
designatedbythelegislature."19
Theteachingoftheabovecases,whichIfindhighlypersuasiveconsideringwhatappearedtobeinthemindsof
the framers of the 1934 Constitutional Conventionyields for me the conclusion that theAntiSubversionAct falls
within the ban of the bill of attainder clause. Itshould be noted that three subsequent cases upholding
theCummingsandGarlanddoctrinewerelikewisecitedintheopinionoftheCourt.Theinterpretationaccordedto
themby my brethren is, of course, different but I am unable togo along with them especially in the light of the
categoricallanguage appearing in Lovett.This is not to lose sightof the qualification that for them could deprive
such aholding of its explicit character as shown by this excerptfrom the opinion of the Court: "Indeed, were the
AntiSubversionAct a bill of attainder it would be totally unnecessaryto charge communists in court, as the law
alone,withoutmore,wouldsufficetosecuretheirconvictionandpunishment.Butthefactisthattheirguiltstillhas
to bejudicially estblished. The Government has yet to proveat the trial that the accused joined the Party
knowingly,willfully and by overt acts, and that they joined the Partyknowing its subversive character and with
specificintenttofurtheritsobjective,i.e., to overthrow the existing Governmentby force, deceit, and other illegal
meansandplaceitunderthecontrolanddominationofaforeignpower.20Whilenotimplausible,Ifinddifficultyin
yieldingacceptance.InCummings,therewasacriminalprosecutionoftheCatholicpriestwhorefusedtotakethe
loyalty oath.Again in Brown, there was an indictment of the laborleader who, judging by his membership in the
CommunistParty,didtransgressthestatutoryprovisionsubsequentlyfoundoffensivetothebillattainderclause.If
theconstructionIwouldplaceontheoffrepeatedpronouncementoftheAmericanSupremeCourtiscorrect,then
themerefactthatacriminalcasewouldhavetobeinstitutedwouldnotsavethestatute.Itdoesseemcleartome
that fromthe very title of theAntiSubversionAct, "to outlaw the Communist Party of the Philippines and similar
associations,"nottomentionotherspecificprovisions,thetaintofinvalidityisquitemarked.Hence,myinabilityto
concurin the judgment reached as the statute not suffering fromany fatal infirmity in view of the Constitutional
prohibitionagainstbillsofattainder.
3. This brings me to the question of the alleged repugnancyof the AntiSubversion Act to the intellectual
libertysafeguarded by the Constitution in terms of the free speechand free assocition guarantees. 21 It is to be
admitted thatat the time of the enactment of RepublicAct No. 1700,the threat that Communism, the Russian brand then,
didposewasapainfulrealityforCongressionalleadersandthethenPresident.Itsshadowfellsquarelyacrossthelivesofall.
Subversion then could neither be denied notdisparaged. There was, in the expert opinion of those conversantwith such
mattes,adangertooutnationalexistenceofnomeancharacter.Nonetheless,theremediestowardoffsuchmenacemust
notberepugnanttoourConstitution.Wearelegallyprecludedfromactinginanyotherway.Theapprehensionjustlyfeltisno
warrant forthrowing to the discard fundamental guarantees. Vigilantwe had to be, but not at the expense of constitutional
ideals.
Oneofthem,certainlyhighlyprizedoftheutmostsignificance,istherighttodissent.Onecandiffer,evenobject
one can express dissatisfaction with things as theyare.There are timew when one not only can but must.Such
dissentcantaketheformofthemostcriticalandthemostdisparagingremarks.Theymaygiveoffensetothosein
authority, to those who wield powe and influence.Nevertheless, they are entitled to constitutional
protection.Insofar as the content of such dissent is concerned, thelimits are hardly discernible. It cannot be
confinedtotrivialmattersortosuchasaredevoidoftoomuchsignificance.Itcanreachtheheartofthings.Such
dissentmay, for those not so adventurous in the realm of ideas,possess a subversive tinge. Even those who
opposeademocraticformofgovernmentcannotbesilenced.Thisistrueespeciallyincentersoflearningwhere
scholars competentin their line may, as a result of their studies, assert thata future is bleak for the system of
governmentnowfavoredbyWesterndemocracies.Theremaybedoubtsentertainedbysomeastothelawfulness
of their exercisingthis right to dissent to the point of advocary of such adrastic change.Any citizen may do so
without fear thatthereby he incurs the risk of a penal sanction. That ismerely to affirm the truth of this ringing
declaration fromJefferson: "If there be any among us who would wish todissolve this union or to change its
republican form, letthem stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety withwhich error of opinion may be
toleratedwherereasonisleftfreetocombatit."22Aswassowellputbythephilosopher,SidneyHook:"Withoutholding
the right to theexpression of heresy at any time and place to be absolute for even the right to nonheretical speech
cannot beabsolute it still seems wise to tolerate the expression evenof Communist, fascist and other heresies, lest in
outlawingthem we include other kings of heresies, and deprive ourselvesof the opportunity to acquite possibly sounder
ideasthanourown."23
The line is to be drawn, however, where the wordsamount to an incitement to commit the crime of seditionor
rebellion. The state has been reached, to follow theformulation of Cardozo, where thought merges into
action.ThusisloyaltyshowntothefreedomofspeechorpressordainedbytheConstitution.Itdoesnotbarthe
expressionofviewsaffectingtheverylifeofthestate,evenifopposedtoitsfundamentalpresuppositions.Itallows,
ifit does not require as a matter of fact, that unorthodoxideas be freely ventilated and fully heard. Dissent is
notdisloyalty.
Such an approach is reinforced by the wellsettled constitutionalprinciple "that even though the governmental
12/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
purposesbe legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursuedby means that broadly stifle fundamental
personallibertieswhentheendcanbemorenarrowlyachieved.Forprecisionofregulationisthetouchstoneinan
areasocloselyrelatedtoourmostpreciousfreedoms." 24Thisissofor"agovernmentalpurposetocontrolorprevent
activitiesconstitutionallysubjecttostateregulationmaynotbeachievedbymeanswhichsweepunnecessarilybroadlyand
thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." 25 It isindispensable then that "an over breadth" in the applicabilityof the
statutebeavoided.Ifsuchbethecase,thenthelinedividingthevalidfromtheconstitutionallyinfirmhasbeencrossed.That
formeistheconclusiontobedrawnfromthewordingoftheAntiSubversionAct.
There is to my mind support for the stand I take inthe dissent of Justice Black in the Communist Party
casediscussedabove.Whatistobekeptinviewisthatalegislativemeasurecertainlylessdrasticinitstreatment
ofthe admittedly serious Communist problem was found inthe opinion of this noted jurist offensive to the
FirstAmendment of the American Constitution safeguardingfree speech. Thus: "If there is one thing certain
aboutthe FirstAmendment it is that thisAmendment was designedto guarantee the freest interchange of ideas
aboutall public matters and that, of course, means the interchangeof all ideas, however such ideas may be
viewedinothercountriesandwhateverchangeintheexistingstructureofgovernmentitmaybehopedthatthese
ideaswillbringabout.Now,whenthiscountryistryingtospreadthehighidealsofdemocracyallovertheworld
ideals that are revolutionary in many countries seems to be aparticularly inappropriate time to stifle First
Amendmentfreedoms in this country. The same arguments that areused to justify the outlawry of Communist
ideasherecouldbeusedtojustifyanoutlawryoftheideasofdemocracyinothercountries."26Furtherhestated:"I
believewiththeFramersoftheFirstAmendmentthattheinternalsecurityofanationlikeoursdoesnotandcannotbemade
todependupontheuseofforcebyGovernmenttomakeallthebeliefsandopinionsofthepeoplefitintoacommonmoldon
anysinglesubject.Suchenforcedconformityofthoughtwouldtendonlytodepriveourpeopleoftheboldspiritofadventure
andprogresswhichhasbroughtthisNationtoitspresentgreatness.Thecreationofpublicopinionbygroups,organizations,
societies, clubs, and partieshas been and is a necessary part of our democraticsociety. Such groups, like the Sons of
LibertyandtheAmericanCorrespondingSocieties,playedalargepartincreatingsentimentinthiscountrythatledthepeople
ofthe Colonies to want a nation of their own. The Father ofthe Constitution James Madison said, in speakingof the
SeditionAct aimed at crushing the Jefferson Party,that had that law been in effect during the period beforethe Revolution,
the United States might well have continuedto be 'miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke.'In my judgment, this
country's internal security can betterbe served by depending upon the affection of the peoplethan by attempting to instill
themwithfearanddreadofthepowerofGovernment.TheCommunistPartyhasneverbeenmorethanasmallgroupinthis
country.AnditsnumbershadbeendwindlingevenbeforetheGovernmentbeganitscampaigntodestroythePartybyforce
oflaw. This was because a vast majority of the Americanpeople were against the Party's policies and
overwhelminglyrejected its candidates year after year. That is the trueAmerican way of securing this Nation against
dangerousideas. Of course that is not the way to protect the Nationagainst actions of violence and treason. The
Foundersdrew a distinction in our Constitution which we would bewise to follow. They gave the Government the fullest
powerto prosecute overt actions in violation of valid lawsbut withheld any power to punish people for nothing morethan
advocacyoftheirviews."27
Withthesentimentsthusexpresseduppermostinmymindandcongenialtomywayofthinking,Icannotsharethe
conclusionreachedbymybreathrenastotheAntiSubversionActsuccessfullymeetingthetestofvalidityonfree
speechandfreedomofassociationgrounds.
4. It could be that this approach to the constitutionalquestions involved arises from an appraisal of the
challengedstatute which for me is susceptible of an interpretationthat it does represent a defeatist attitude on
thepart of those of us, who are devotees at the shrine of aliberaldemocratic state. That certainly could not
havebeenthethoughtofitsframersnonetheless,suchanassumptionisnotdevoidofplausibilityforwhyresort
tothis extreme measure susceptible as it is to what apparentlyare not unfounded attacks on constitutional
grounds?Isthisnottoignorewhatpreviouslywasacceptedasanobvioustruth,namelythatthelightofliberalism
sendsitsshaftsinmanydirections?Itcanilluminate,anditcanwintheheartsandmindsofmen.Itifdifficultforme
toaccepttheviewthenthataresorttooutlawryisindispensable,thatsuppressionistheonlyanswertowhatisan
admitted evil. There could have been a greater exposureof the undesirability of the communist creed,
itscontradictions and arbitrarines, its lack of fealty to reason,its inculcation of disloyalty, and its subservience
tocentralized dictation that brooks no opposition. It is thus,in a realistic sense, a manifestation of the fear of
freethoughtandthewilltosuppressit.Forbetter,ofcourse,isthepropagandaofthedeed.Whatthecommunists
promise,this government can fulfill. It is up to it then to takeremedial measures to alleviate the condition of our
countrymenwhose lives are in a condition of destitution andmisery. It may not be able to change matters
radically.At least, it should take earnest steps in that direction.What is important for those at the bottom of the
economicpyramid is that they are not denied the opportunity for abetter life. If they, or at least their children,
cannotevenlookforwardtothat,thenaconstitutionalregimeisnothingbutamockeryandatragicillusion.Sucha
response,Iamoptimisticenoughtobelieve,hasthemeritofthinning,ifnotcompletelyeliminating,theembattled
ranksand outposts of ignorance, fanaticism and error. That forme would be more in accordance with the basic
propositionofourpolity.Thisisnotthereforetopreachadoctrineofobjectsurrendertotheforcesapparentlybent
on the adoption of a way of life so totally opposed to the deeply felt traditions of our people.This is, for me at
least,anaffirmationofthevitalityofthedemocraticcreed,withanexpressionofregretthatitcouldnothavebeen
moreimpressivelysetforthinlanguageworthyofthesubject.
It is in the light of the views above expressed that I find myself unable to yield concurrence to the ablywritten
13/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
opinionofJusticeCastrofortheCourtsustainingthevalidityoftheAntiSubversionAct.
SeparateOpinions
FERNANDO,J.,dissenting:
ItiswithregardthatIfindmyselfunabletojointherestofmybrethreninthedecisionreachedupholding
thevalidityoftheAntiSubversionAct.1ItistobeadmittedthatthelearnedandscholarlyopinbionofJusticeCastro
hastheimpressofconscientiousandpainstakingscrutinyoftheconstitutionalissuesraised.Whatismore,thestressinthe
concludingportionthereofonbasicguidelinesthatwillassureinthetrialofthoseprosecutedundersuchActrespectfortheir
constitutionalrightsistobecommended.Nonetheless,myownreadingofthedecisionscited,interpretingthebillofattainder
clause2coupledwiththefears,perhapsinducedbyatoolatitudinarianconstructionoftheguaranteesoffreedomofbelief
andexpression3aswellasfreedomofassociation4astoimpermissibleinroadstowhichtheymaybeexposed,compelsa
differentconclusion.Hencethisdissent.
1.Thereistobesurenothoughtonmypartthattheequallypressingconcernofstatesafetyandsecurity
shouldbeignored.Thepoliticalbranchesofthegovernmentwouldlaythemselvesoepntoajustifiableindictment
fornegligencehadtheybeenremissintheirobligationtosafeguardthenationagainstitsswornenemies.Ina
simplerera,wheretheoverthrowofthegovernmentwasusuallythroughtherisingupinarms,withweapons
farlesssophisticatedthanthosenowinexistence,therewasnoconstitutionalissueofthemagnitudethatnow
confrontsus.Forcehastobemetwithforce.Itwasasclearcutasthat.Advancesinscienceaswellasmore
subtlemethodsofinducingdisloyaltyandweakeningthesenseofallegiancehaveintroducedcomplexitiesin
copingwithsuchproblems.Theremustbethen,andIamthefirsttorecognizeit,agreaterunderstandingforthe
governmentalrespondetosituationsofthatcharacter.ItisinthatlightthatthevalidityoftheAntiSubversionAct
istobeappraised.Fromnystandpoint,andIamnotpresumptuousenoughtoclaimthatitistheonly
perspectiveorthatisthemostrealistic,Ifeelthattherewasaninsufficientappreciationofthecompulsionofthe
constitutionalcommandsagainstbillsofattainderandabridgmentoffreespeech.Iamcomfortedbythethought
thatevenhadmyviewprevailed,allthatitwouldmeanisthatanewlegislation,moreincomformitytomywayof
thinkingtowhatisordainedbythefundamentallaw,wouldhavetobeenacted.Novalidfearneedbeentertained
thenthatasetbackwouldbeoccasionedtolegitilatestateeffortstostemthetideofsubversiveactivities,in
whateverformmanifested.
2.Thestartingpointinanyinquiryastothesignificanceofthebillofattainderclauseisthemeaningattachedtoit
bytheConstitutionalConventionof1934andbythepeoplewhoadoptedit.Aswasexplainedbythethen
Delegate,laterJustice,JoseP.LaurelinhisaddressonNovember19,1934asChairmanoftheCommitteeonthe
BillofRightsquotedintheopinionoftheCourt:"Abillofattainderisalegislativeactwhichinflictspunishment
withoutjudicialtrial.(Cummingsv.UnitedStates,4Wall.277,18Led356).InEngland,theBillofAttainderwasan
actofParliamentbywhichamanwastried,convictedandsentencedtodeathwithoutajury,withoutahearingin
court,withouthearingthewitnessesagainsthimandwithoutregardtotherulesofevidence.Hisbloodwas
attaintedorcorrupted,renderinghimdevoidofallheritablequalityofacquiringanddisposingproperty
bydescent.(ExparteGarland,4Wall.333,18Led.366)Ifthepenaltyimposedwaslessthandeath,theact
wasknownasa'billofpainsandpenalties.'Billsofattainder,likeexpostfactolaws,werefavoritemethodsof
Stuartoppression.Once,thenameofThomasJeffersonwasincludedinabillofattainderpresentedtoParliament
becauseofhisreformactivities."5TwoAmericanSupremeCourtdecisionwerethusinthemindsoftheframers.Theyare
Cummingsv.Missouri6andExparteGarland.7Theyspeakunequivocally.Legislativeacts,nomatterwhattheirform,that
applyeithertonamedindividualsoreasilyascertainablemembersofagroupinsuchawayastoinflictonthempunishment
amountingtoadeprivationofanyright,civilorpolitical,withoutjudicialtrialarebillsofattainderprohibitedbythe
Constitution.8
Cummingsv.Missouri9wasacriminalprosecutionofaCatholicpriestforrefusingtotaketheloyaltyoathrequiredbythe
stateConstitutionofMissouriof1865.Undersuchaprovision,lawyers,doctors,ministers,andotherprofessionalsmust
disavowthattheyhadever,"byactorword,"manifesteda"desire"forthesuccessofthenation'senemiesorasympathy"
withtherebelsoftheAmericanCivilWar.Iftheysworefalsely,theywereguiltyofperjury.Iftheyengagedintheirprofessions
withouttheoath,theywerecriminallyliable.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcondemnedtheprovisionasabillof
attainder,identifiedasanylegislativeactinflictingpunishmentwithoutjudicialtrial.Thedeprivationofanyright,civil
orpolitical,previouslyenjoyed,amountedtoapunishment.Whysuchaconclusionwasunavoidablewasexplainedinthe
opinionofJusticeFieldthus:"Abillofattainderisalegislativeact,whichinflictspunishmentwithoutajudicialtrial.Ifthe
punishmentbelessthandeath,theactistermedabillofpainsandpenalties.WithinthemeaningoftheConstitution,billsof
attainderincludebillsofpainsandpenalties.Inthesecasesthelegislativebody,inadditiontoitslegitimatefunctions,
exercisesthepowersandofficeofjudgeitassumes,inthelanguageofthetextbooks,judicialmagistracyitpronounces
upontheguiltoftheparty,withoutanyoftheformsorsafeguardsoftrialitdeterminesthesufficiencyoftheproofs
produced,whetherconformabletotherulesofevidenceorotherwiseanditfixesthedegreeofpunishmentinaccordancewith
itsownnotionsoftheenormityoftheoffense....Iftheclausesofthe2darticleoftheConstitutionofMissouri,towhichwe
14/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
havereferred,hadintermsdeclaredthatMr.Cummingswasguilty,orshouldbeheldguilty,ofhavingbeeninarmedhostility
totheUnitedStates,orofhavingenteredthatstatetoavoidbeingenrolledordraftedintothemilitaryserviceofthe
UnitedStates,and,therefore,shouldbedeprivedoftherighttopreachasapriestoftheCatholicchurch,ortoteachinany
institutionoflearning,therecouldbenoquestionthattheclauseswouldconstituteabillofattainderwithinthemeaningofthe
FederalConstitution.Iftheseclauses,insteadofmentioninghisname,haddeclaredthatallpriestsandclergymenwithinthe
stateofMissouriwereguiltyoftheseacts,orshouldbeheldguiltyofthem,andhencebesubjectedtothelikedeprivation,
theclausewouldbeequallyopentoobjection.Andfurther,ittheseclauseshaddeclaredthatallsuchpriestsandclergymen
shouldbesoheldguilty,andbethusdeprived,providedtheydidnot,byadaydesignated,docertainspecifiedacts,
theywouldbenolesswithintheinhibitionoftheFederalConstitution.Inallthesecasestherewouldbethe
legislativeenactmentcreatingthedeprivation,withoutanyoftheordinaryformsandguardsprovidedforthesecurityofthe
citizenintheadministrationofjusticebytheestablishedtribunales."10
OntheverysamedaythattherulinginCummingswashandeddown,ExparteGarland11wasalsodecided.
ThatwasamotionforleavetopractriceasanattorneybeforetheAmericanSupremeCourt.PetitionerGarlandwasadmitted
tosuchbarattheDecembertermof1860.UnderthepreviousrulesofsuchCourt,allthatwasnecessarywasthatthe
applicanthavethreeyearspracticeinthestatecourtstowhichhebelonged.InMarch1865,therulewaschangedbythe
additionofaclauserequiringthatanoathbetakenundertheCongressionalactsof1862and1865totheeffectthatsuch
candidateforadmissiontothebarhadnevervoluntarilybornearmsagainsttheUnitedStates.PetitionerGarlandcouldnotin
consciencesubscribetosuchanoath,buthewasabletoshowapresidentialpardonextendedonJuly15,1865.Withsuch
actofclemency,hemovedthathebeallowedtocontinueinpracticecontendingthatthetestoathrequirement
wasunconstitutionalasabillofattainderandthatatanyrate,hewaspardoned.ThesamerulingwasannouncedbytheCourt
againthroughJusticeField.Thus:"Intheexclusionwhichthestatuteadjudges,itimposesapunishmentforsomeoftheacts
specifiedwhichwerenotpunishableatthetimetheywerecommittedlandforotheroftheactsitaddsanewpunishmentto
thatbeforeprescribed,anditisthusbroughtwithinthefurtherinhibitionoftheConsitutionagainstthepassageofanexpost
factolaw.InthecaseofCummingsv.Missouri,justdecided,...wehavehadoccasiontoconsideratlengththemeaningof
abillofattainderandofanexpostfactolawintheclauseoftheConstitutionforbiddingtheirpassagebythestates,anditis
unnecessarytorepeatherewhatwetheresaid.AlikeprohibitioniscontainedintheConstitutionagainstenactmentsofthis
kindbyCongressandtheargumentpresentedinthatcaseagainstcertainclausesoftheConstitutionofMissouriisequally
applicabletotheactofCongressunderconsiderationinthiscase."12
TherewasareiterationoftheCummingsandGarlanddoctrineinUnitedStatesv.Lovett,13decidedin1946.Thereit
wasshownthatin1943therespondents,Lovett,Watson,andDodd,wereandhadbeenforseveralyearsworkingforthe
government.Thegovernmentagencies,whichhadlawfullyemployedthem,werefullysatisfiedwiththequalityoftheirwork
andwishedtokeepthememployedontheirjobs.Overtheirprotest,CongressprovidedinSection304oftheUrgent
DeficiencyAppropriationActof1943,bywayofanamendmentattachedtotheHouseBill,thatafterNovember15,1943,no
salaryorcompensationshouldbepaidrespondentoutofanymoneythenorthereafterappropriatedexceptforservicesas
jurorsormembersofthearmedforces,unlesstheywerepriortoNovember15,1943,againappointedtojobsbythePresident
withtheadvideandconsentoftheSenate.NotwithstandingsuchCongressionalenactment,andthefailureofthePresidentto
reappointtherespondents,theagencies,keptalltherespondentsatworkontheirjobsforvaryingperiodsafterNovember15,
1943,buttheircompensationwasdiscontinuedafterthatdate.RespondentsbroughtthisactionintheCourtofClaimsforthe
salariestowhichtheyfeltentitled.TheAmeicanSupremeCourtstatedthatitsinquirywasthusconfinedtowhethertheaction
inthelightofproperconstructionoftheActpresentedajustificiablecontroversy,and,ifso,whetherSection304isabillof
attainderinsofarastherespondentswereconcerned.
Afterholdingthattherewasajuditiciable,viewtheAmericanSupremeCourtinanopinionbyJustice
Blackcategoricallyaffirmed:"WeholdthatSection304fallspreciselywithinthecategoryofCongressional
actionswhichtheConstitutionbarredbyprovidingthat'NoBillofAttainderorexpostLawshallbepassed.'
InCummingsv.StateofMissouri,...thisCourtsaid,'Abillofattainderisalegislativeactwhichinflicts
punishmentwithoutajudicialtrial.Ifthepunishmentbelessthandeath,theactistermedabillofpainsand
penalties.WithinthemeaningoftheConstitution,billsofattainderincludebillsofpainsandpenalties.'...Onthe
samedaytheCummingscasewasdecided,theCourt,inExparteGarland,alsoheldinvalidonthesamegrounds
anActofCongresswhichrequiredattorneyspracticingbeforethisCourttotakeasimilaroath.Neitherof
thesecaseshaseverbeenoverruled.Theystandforthepropositionthatlegislativeacts,nomatterwhattheir
form,thatapplyeithertonamedindividualsortoeasilyascertainablemembersofagroupinsuchawayasto
inflictpunishmentonthemwithoutajudicialtrialarebillsofattainderprohibitedbytheConstitution.Adherenceto
thisprinciplerequiresinvalidationofSection304.Wedoadheretoit."14
UnitedStatesv.Brown15a1965decisionwasthefirstcasetoreviewaconvictionundertheLaborManagementReporting
andDisclosureActof1959,makingitacrimeforamemberoftheCommunistPartytoserveasanofficerir,exceptin
clericalorcustodialpositions,anemployeeofalaborunion.RespondentBrown,alongshoremanontheSanFrancisco
docks,andanopenandavowedCommunist,formorethanaquarterofacenturywaselectedtotheExecutiveBoardof
Local10oftheInternationalLongshoremen'sandWarehousemen'sUnionforconsecutiveoneyeartermsin1959,1960,and
1961.OnMay24,1961,respondentwaschargedinaonecountindictmentreturnedinadistrictcourtofCalifornia
withservicingasamemberofanexecutiveboardofalabororganizationwhileamemberoftheCommunistParty,inwillful
violationoftheaboveprovision.Thequestionofitsvalidityunderthebillofattainderclausewasthusproperlyraisedfor
adjudication.Whileconvictedinthelowercourt,theCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitreversed.Itwassustainedbythe
AmericanSupremeCourt.AsnotedintheopinionbyChiefJusticeWarren,"thewidevariationinform,purposeandeffectof
anteConstitutionbillsofattainderindicatesthattheproperscopeoftheBillofAttainderClause,anditsrelevance
15/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
tocontemporaryproblems,mustultimatelybesoughtbyattemptingtodiscernthereasonsforitsinclusionintheConstitution,
andtheevilsitwasdesingedtoeliminate.Thebestavailableevidence,thewritingsofthearchitectsofourconstitutional
system,indicatesthattheBillofAttainderClausewasintedednotasanarrow,technical(andthereforesoontobeoutmoded)
prohibition,butratherasanimplementationoftheseparationofpowers,ageneralsafeguardagainstlegislativeexerciseof
thejudicialfunction,ormoresimplytrialbylegislature."16ThenafterreferringtoCummings,Garland,andLovett,Chief
JusticeWarrencontinued:"Underthelineofcasesjustoutlined,Sec.504oftheLaborManagementReportingand
DisclosureActplainlyconstitutesabillofattainder.CongressundoubtedlypossessespowerundertheCommerceClauseto
enactlegislationdesignedtokeepfrompositionsaffectinginterstatecommercepersonswhomayusesuchpositionstobring
aboutpoliticalstrikes.InSec.504,however,CongresshasexceededtheauthoritygranteditbytheConstitution.Thestatute
doesnotsetforthagenerallyapplicableruledecreeingthatanypersonwhocommitscertainactsorpossessescertain
characteristics(actsandcharacteristicswhhich,inCongress'view,makethemlikelytoinitiatepoliticalstrikes)shallnothold
unionoffice,andleavetocourtsandjuriesthejobofdecidingwhatpersonshavecommittedthespecifiedactsorpossessed
thespecifiedcharacteristics.Instead,itdesignatesinnouncertaintermsthepersonswhopossessthefeareccharacteristics
andthereforecannotholdunionofficewithoutincurringcriminalliabilitymembersoftheCommunistParty."17
EvenCommunistPartyv.SubversiveActivitiesControlBoard,18wheretheprovisionoftheSubversive
ActivitiesControlActof1950requiringtheCommunistPartyoftheUnitedStatestoregisterwassustained,theopinionof
JusticeFrankfurterfortheCourt,speakingforafivemanmajority,didindicateadherencetotheCummingsprinciple.Hadthe
AmericanCommunistPartybeenoutlawed,theoutcomecertainlywouldhavebeendifferent.Thus:"TheActisnotabillof
attainder.Itattachesnottospecifiedorganizationsbuttodescribedactivitiesinwhichanorganizationmayormaynot
engage.Thesinglingoutofanindividualforlegislativelyprescribedpunishmentconstitutesanattainderwhetherthe
individualiscalledbynameordescribedintermsofconductwhich,becauseitispastconduct,operatesonlyasa
designationofparticularpersons....TheSubversiveActivitiesControlActisnotofthatking.Itrequirestheregistrationonly
oforganizationswhich,afterthedateoftheAct,arefoundtobeunderthedirection,domination,orcontrolofcertainforeign
powersandtooperateprimarilytoadvancecertainobjectives.Thisfindingmustbemadeafterfulladministrativehearing,
subjecttojudicialreviewwhichopenstherecordforthereviewingcourt'sdeterminationwhethertheadministrativefindingsas
tofactaresupportedbythepreponderanceoftheevidence.Presentactivityconstitutesanoperativeelementtowhichthe
statuteattacheslegalconsequences,notmerelyapointofreferencefortheascertainmentofparticularlypersonsineluctably
designatedbythelegislature."19
Theteachingoftheabovecases,whichIfindhighlypersuasiveconsideringwhatappearedtobeinthemindsof
theframersofthe1934ConstitutionalConventionyieldsformetheconclusionthattheAntiSubversionActfalls
withinthebanofthebillofattainderclause.Itshouldbenotedthatthreesubsequentcasesupholding
theCummingsandGarlanddoctrinewerelikewisecitedintheopinionoftheCourt.Theinterpretationaccordedto
thembymybrethrenis,ofcourse,differentbutIamunabletogoalongwiththemespeciallyinthelightofthe
categoricallanguageappearinginLovett.Thisisnottolosesightofthequalificationthatforthemcoulddeprive
suchaholdingofitsexplicitcharacterasshownbythisexcerptfromtheopinionoftheCourt:"Indeed,werethe
AntiSubversionActabillofattainderitwouldbetotallyunnecessarytochargecommunistsincourt,asthelaw
alone,withoutmore,wouldsufficetosecuretheirconvictionandpunishment.Butthefactisthattheirguiltstillhas
tobejudiciallyestblished.TheGovernmenthasyettoproveatthetrialthattheaccusedjoinedtheParty
knowingly,willfullyandbyovertacts,andthattheyjoinedthePartyknowingitssubversivecharacterandwith
specificintenttofurtheritsobjective,i.e.,tooverthrowtheexistingGovernmentbyforce,deceit,andotherillegal
meansandplaceitunderthecontrolanddominationofaforeignpower.20Whilenotimplausible,Ifinddifficultyin
yieldingacceptance.InCummings,therewasacriminalprosecutionoftheCatholicpriestwhorefusedtotakethe
loyaltyoath.AgaininBrown,therewasanindictmentofthelaborleaderwho,judgingbyhismembershipinthe
CommunistParty,didtransgressthestatutoryprovisionsubsequentlyfoundoffensivetothebillattainderclause.If
theconstructionIwouldplaceontheoffrepeatedpronouncementoftheAmericanSupremeCourtiscorrect,then
themerefactthatacriminalcasewouldhavetobeinstitutedwouldnotsavethestatute.Itdoesseemcleartome
thatfromtheverytitleoftheAntiSubversionAct,"tooutlawtheCommunistPartyofthePhilippinesandsimilar
associations,"nottomentionotherspecificprovisions,thetaintofinvalidityisquitemarked.Hence,myinabilityto
concurinthejudgmentreachedasthestatutenotsufferingfromanyfatalinfirmityinviewoftheConstitutional
prohibitionagainstbillsofattainder.
3.ThisbringsmetothequestionoftheallegedrepugnancyoftheAntiSubversionActtotheintellectual
libertysafeguardedbytheConstitutionintermsofthefreespeechandfreeassocitionguarantees.21Itistobe
admittedthatatthetimeoftheenactmentofRepublicActNo.1700,thethreatthatCommunism,theRussianbrandthen,
didposewasapainfulrealityforCongressionalleadersandthethenPresident.Itsshadowfellsquarelyacrossthelivesofall.
Subversionthencouldneitherbedeniednotdisparaged.Therewas,intheexpertopinionofthoseconversantwithsuch
mattes,adangertooutnationalexistenceofnomeancharacter.Nonetheless,theremediestowardoffsuchmenacemust
notberepugnanttoourConstitution.Wearelegallyprecludedfromactinginanyotherway.Theapprehensionjustlyfeltisno
warrantforthrowingtothediscardfundamentalguarantees.Vigilantwehadtobe,butnotattheexpenseofconstitutional
ideals.
Oneofthem,certainlyhighlyprizedoftheutmostsignificance,istherighttodissent.Onecandiffer,evenobject
onecanexpressdissatisfactionwiththingsastheyare.Therearetimewwhenonenotonlycanbutmust.Such
dissentcantaketheformofthemostcriticalandthemostdisparagingremarks.Theymaygiveoffensetothosein
authority,tothosewhowieldpoweandinfluence.Nevertheless,theyareentitledtoconstitutional
16/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
protection.Insofarasthecontentofsuchdissentisconcerned,thelimitsarehardlydiscernible.Itcannotbe
confinedtotrivialmattersortosuchasaredevoidoftoomuchsignificance.Itcanreachtheheartofthings.Such
dissentmay,forthosenotsoadventurousintherealmofideas,possessasubversivetinge.Eventhosewho
opposeademocraticformofgovernmentcannotbesilenced.Thisistrueespeciallyincentersoflearningwhere
scholarscompetentintheirlinemay,asaresultoftheirstudies,assertthatafutureisbleakforthesystemof
governmentnowfavoredbyWesterndemocracies.Theremaybedoubtsentertainedbysomeastothelawfulness
oftheirexercisingthisrighttodissenttothepointofadvocaryofsuchadrasticchange.Anycitizenmaydoso
withoutfearthattherebyheincurstheriskofapenalsanction.Thatismerelytoaffirmthetruthofthisringing
declarationfromJefferson:"Iftherebeanyamonguswhowouldwishtodissolvethisunionortochangeits
republicanform,letthemstandundisturbedasmonumentsofthesafetywithwhicherrorofopinionmaybe
toleratedwherereasonisleftfreetocombatit."22Aswassowellputbythephilosopher,SidneyHook:"Withoutholding
therighttotheexpressionofheresyatanytimeandplacetobeabsoluteforeventherighttononhereticalspeech
cannotbeabsoluteitstillseemswisetotoleratetheexpressionevenofCommunist,fascistandotherheresies,lestin
outlawingthemweincludeotherkingsofheresies,anddepriveourselvesoftheopportunitytoacquitepossiblysounder
ideasthanourown."23
Thelineistobedrawn,however,wherethewordsamounttoanincitementtocommitthecrimeofseditionor
rebellion.Thestatehasbeenreached,tofollowtheformulationofCardozo,wherethoughtmergesinto
action.ThusisloyaltyshowntothefreedomofspeechorpressordainedbytheConstitution.Itdoesnotbarthe
expressionofviewsaffectingtheverylifeofthestate,evenifopposedtoitsfundamentalpresuppositions.Itallows,
ifitdoesnotrequireasamatteroffact,thatunorthodoxideasbefreelyventilatedandfullyheard.Dissentis
notdisloyalty.
Suchanapproachisreinforcedbythewellsettledconstitutionalprinciple"thateventhoughthegovernmental
purposesbelegitimateandsubstantial,theycannotbepursuedbymeansthatbroadlystiflefundamental
personallibertieswhentheendcanbemorenarrowlyachieved.Forprecisionofregulationisthetouchstoneinan
areasocloselyrelatedtoourmostpreciousfreedoms."24Thisissofor"agovernmentalpurposetocontrolorprevent
activitiesconstitutionallysubjecttostateregulationmaynotbeachievedbymeanswhichsweepunnecessarilybroadlyand
therebyinvadetheareaofprotectedfreedoms."25Itisindispensablethenthat"anoverbreadth"intheapplicabilityofthe
statutebeavoided.Ifsuchbethecase,thenthelinedividingthevalidfromtheconstitutionallyinfirmhasbeencrossed.That
formeistheconclusiontobedrawnfromthewordingoftheAntiSubversionAct.
ThereistomymindsupportforthestandItakeinthedissentofJusticeBlackintheCommunistParty
casediscussedabove.Whatistobekeptinviewisthatalegislativemeasurecertainlylessdrasticinitstreatment
oftheadmittedlyseriousCommunistproblemwasfoundintheopinionofthisnotedjuristoffensivetothe
FirstAmendmentoftheAmericanConstitutionsafeguardingfreespeech.Thus:"Ifthereisonethingcertain
abouttheFirstAmendmentitisthatthisAmendmentwasdesignedtoguaranteethefreestinterchangeofideas
aboutallpublicmattersandthat,ofcourse,meanstheinterchangeofallideas,howeversuchideasmaybe
viewedinothercountriesandwhateverchangeintheexistingstructureofgovernmentitmaybehopedthatthese
ideaswillbringabout.Now,whenthiscountryistryingtospreadthehighidealsofdemocracyallovertheworld
idealsthatarerevolutionaryinmanycountriesseemstobeaparticularlyinappropriatetimetostifleFirst
Amendmentfreedomsinthiscountry.ThesameargumentsthatareusedtojustifytheoutlawryofCommunist
ideasherecouldbeusedtojustifyanoutlawryoftheideasofdemocracyinothercountries."26Furtherhestated:"I
believewiththeFramersoftheFirstAmendmentthattheinternalsecurityofanationlikeoursdoesnotandcannotbemade
todependupontheuseofforcebyGovernmenttomakeallthebeliefsandopinionsofthepeoplefitintoacommonmoldon
anysinglesubject.Suchenforcedconformityofthoughtwouldtendonlytodepriveourpeopleoftheboldspiritofadventure
andprogresswhichhasbroughtthisNationtoitspresentgreatness.Thecreationofpublicopinionbygroups,organizations,
societies,clubs,andpartieshasbeenandisanecessarypartofourdemocraticsociety.Suchgroups,liketheSonsof
LibertyandtheAmericanCorrespondingSocieties,playedalargepartincreatingsentimentinthiscountrythatledthepeople
oftheColoniestowantanationoftheirown.TheFatheroftheConstitutionJamesMadisonsaid,inspeakingofthe
SeditionActaimedatcrushingtheJeffersonParty,thathadthatlawbeenineffectduringtheperiodbeforetheRevolution,
theUnitedStatesmightwellhavecontinuedtobe'miserablecolonies,groaningunderaforeignyoke.'Inmyjudgment,this
country'sinternalsecuritycanbetterbeservedbydependingupontheaffectionofthepeoplethanbyattemptingtoinstill
themwithfearanddreadofthepowerofGovernment.TheCommunistPartyhasneverbeenmorethanasmallgroupinthis
country.AnditsnumbershadbeendwindlingevenbeforetheGovernmentbeganitscampaigntodestroythePartybyforce
oflaw.ThiswasbecauseavastmajorityoftheAmericanpeoplewereagainsttheParty'spoliciesand
overwhelminglyrejecteditscandidatesyearafteryear.ThatisthetrueAmericanwayofsecuringthisNationagainst
dangerousideas.OfcoursethatisnotthewaytoprotecttheNationagainstactionsofviolenceandtreason.The
FoundersdrewadistinctioninourConstitutionwhichwewouldbewisetofollow.TheygavetheGovernmentthefullest
powertoprosecuteovertactionsinviolationofvalidlawsbutwithheldanypowertopunishpeoplefornothingmorethan
advocacyoftheirviews."27
Withthesentimentsthusexpresseduppermostinmymindandcongenialtomywayofthinking,Icannotsharethe
conclusionreachedbymybreathrenastotheAntiSubversionActsuccessfullymeetingthetestofvalidityonfree
speechandfreedomofassociationgrounds.
4.Itcouldbethatthisapproachtotheconstitutionalquestionsinvolvedarisesfromanappraisalofthe
17/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
challengedstatutewhichformeissusceptibleofaninterpretationthatitdoesrepresentadefeatistattitudeon
thepartofthoseofus,whoaredevoteesattheshrineofaliberaldemocraticstate.Thatcertainlycouldnot
havebeenthethoughtofitsframersnonetheless,suchanassumptionisnotdevoidofplausibilityforwhyresort
tothisextrememeasuresusceptibleasitistowhatapparentlyarenotunfoundedattacksonconstitutional
grounds?Isthisnottoignorewhatpreviouslywasacceptedasanobvioustruth,namelythatthelightofliberalism
sendsitsshaftsinmanydirections?Itcanilluminate,anditcanwintheheartsandmindsofmen.Itifdifficultforme
toaccepttheviewthenthataresorttooutlawryisindispensable,thatsuppressionistheonlyanswertowhatisan
admittedevil.Therecouldhavebeenagreaterexposureoftheundesirabilityofthecommunistcreed,
itscontradictionsandarbitrarines,itslackoffealtytoreason,itsinculcationofdisloyalty,anditssubservience
tocentralizeddictationthatbrooksnoopposition.Itisthus,inarealisticsense,amanifestationofthefearof
freethoughtandthewilltosuppressit.Forbetter,ofcourse,isthepropagandaofthedeed.Whatthecommunists
promise,thisgovernmentcanfulfill.Itisuptoitthentotakeremedialmeasurestoalleviatetheconditionofour
countrymenwhoselivesareinaconditionofdestitutionandmisery.Itmaynotbeabletochangematters
radically.Atleast,itshouldtakeearneststepsinthatdirection.Whatisimportantforthoseatthebottomofthe
economicpyramidisthattheyarenotdeniedtheopportunityforabetterlife.Ifthey,oratleasttheirchildren,
cannotevenlookforwardtothat,thenaconstitutionalregimeisnothingbutamockeryandatragicillusion.Sucha
response,Iamoptimisticenoughtobelieve,hasthemeritofthinning,ifnotcompletelyeliminating,theembattled
ranksandoutpostsofignorance,fanaticismanderror.Thatformewouldbemoreinaccordancewiththebasic
propositionofourpolity.Thisisnotthereforetopreachadoctrineofobjectsurrendertotheforcesapparentlybent
ontheadoptionofawayoflifesototallyopposedtothedeeplyfelttraditionsofourpeople.Thisis,formeat
least,anaffirmationofthevitalityofthedemocraticcreed,withanexpressionofregretthatitcouldnothavebeen
moreimpressivelysetforthinlanguageworthyofthesubject.
ItisinthelightoftheviewsaboveexpressedthatIfindmyselfunabletoyieldconcurrencetotheablywritten
opinionofJusticeCastrofortheCourtsustainingthevalidityoftheAntiSubversionAct.
Footnotes
1Rep.Act.No.1700,12Laws&Res.102(1957).Thetextofthestatuteishereunderreproducedin
full:
"ANACTTOOUTLAWTHECOMMUNISTPARTYOFTHEPHILIPPINESANDSIMILAR
ASSOCIATIONSPENALIZINGMEMBERSHIPTHEREIN,ANDFOROTHERPURPOSES.
"WHEREAS,theCommunistPartyofthePhilippines,althoughpurportedlyapoliticalparty,isinfact
anorganizedconspiracytooverthrowtheGovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesnotonlyby
forceandviolencebutalsobydeceit,subversionandotherillegalmeans,forthepurposeof
establishinginthePhilippinesatotalitarianregimesubjecttoaliendominationandcontrol
"WHEREAS,thecontinuedexistenceandactivitiesoftheCommunistPartyofthePhilippines
constitutesaclear,presentandgravedangertothesecurityofthePhilippinesand
"WHEREAS,inthefaceoftheorganized,systematicandpersistentsubversion,nationalinscopebut
internationalindirection,posedbytheCommunistPartyofthePhilippinesanditsactivities,thereis
urgentneedforspeciallegislationtocopewiththiscontinuingmenacetothefreedomandsecurityof
thecountry:Now,therefore,
"BeitenactedbytheSenateandHouseofRepresentativesofthePhilippinesinCongress
assembled:
"Section1.ThisActshallbeknownasAntiSubversionAct.
"Section2.TheCongressherebydeclarestheCommunistPartyofthePhilippinestobeanorganized
conspiracytooverthrowtheGovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesforthepurposeof
establishinginthePhilippinesatotalitarianregimeandplacetheGovernmentunderthecontroland
dominationofanalienpower.Thesaidpartyandanyotherorganizationhavingthesamepurpose
andtheirsuccessorsareherebydeclaredillegalandoutlawed.
Section3.AsusedinthisAct,theterm'CommunistPartyofthePhilippines'shallmeandandinclude
theorganizationsnowknownastheCommunistPartyofthePhilippinesanditsmilitaryarm,the
HukbongMapagpalayangBayan,formerlyknownasHUKBALAHAPS,andanysuccessorsofsuch
organizations.
"Section4.AftertheapprovalofthisAct,whoeverknowingly,willfullyandbyovertactsaffiliates
himselfwith,becomesorremainsamemberoftheCommunistPartyofthePhilippinesand/orits
successororofanysubversiveassociationasdefinedinsectiontwohereofshallbepunishedbythe
penaltyofarrestomayorandshallbedisqualifiedpermanentlyfromholdinganypublicoffice,
18/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
appointiveandelective,andfromexercisingtherighttovoteincaseofasecondconviction,the
principalpenaltyshallbeprisioncorreccional,andinallsubsequentconvictionsthepenaltyofprision
mayorshallbeimposedandanyalienconvictedunderthisActshallbedeportedimmediatelyafter
heshallhaveservedthesentenceimposeduponhim:Provided,Thatifsuchmemberisanofficeror
arankingleaderoftheCommunistPartyofthePhilippinesorofanysubversiveassociationas
definedinsectiontwohereof,orifsuchmembertakesuparmsagainsttheGovernmentheshallbe
punishedbyprisionmayortodealwithalltheaccessorypenaltiesprovidedthereforintheRevised
PenalCode:Andprovided,finally,Thatonewhoconspireswithanyotherpersontooverthrowthe
GovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesorthegovernmentofanyofitspoliticalsubdivisionsby
force,violence,deceit,subversionorotherillegalmeans,forthepurposeofplacingsuch
Governmentorpoliticalsubdivisionunderthecontrolanddominationofanyalienpower,shallbe
punishedbyprisioncorreccionaltoprisionmayorwithalltheaccessorypenaltiesprovidedthereforin
thesameCode.
"Section5.NoprosecutionunderthisActshallbemadeunlessthecityorprovincialfiscal,orany
specialattorneyorprosecutordulydesignatedbytheSecretaryofJusticeasthecasemaybe,finds
afterdueinvestigationofthefacts,thataprimafaciecaseforviolationofthisActexistsagainstthe
accused,andthereafterpresentsaninformationincourtagainstthesaidaccusedindueform,and
certifiesunderoaththathehasconductedaproperpreliminaryinvestigationthereof,withnotice,
wheneveritispossibletogivethesame,tothepartyconcerned,whoshallhavetherighttobe
representedbycounsel,totestify,tohavecompulsoryprocessforobtainingwitnessinhisfavor,and
tocrossexaminewitnessesagainsthim:Provided,Thatthepreliminaryinvestigationofanyoffense
definedandpenalizedhereinbyprisionmayortodeathshallbeconductedbythepropertyCourtof
FirstInstance.
"Section6.AnypersonwhoknowinglyfurnishesfalseevidenceinanyactionbroughtunderthisAct
shallbepunishedbyprisioncorreccional.
"Section7.Nopersonshallbeconvictedofanyoftheoffensespenalizedhereinwithprisionmayorto
deathunlessonthetestimonyofatleasttwowitnessestothesameovertactoronconfessionofthe
accusedinopencourt.
"Section8.WithinthirtydaysaftertheapprovalofthisAct,anypersonwhoisamemberofthe
CommunistPartyofthePhilippinesorofanysuchassociationorconspiracy,whodesiresto
renouncesuchmembershipmaydosoinwritingandunderoathbeforeamunicipalorcitymayor,a
provincialgovernor,orapersonauthorizedbylawtoadministeroaths.Suchrenunciationshall
exemptsuchpersonorpersonsfromthepenalsanctionofthisAct,butthesameshallinnoway
exempthimfromliabilityforcriminalactsorforanyviolationoftheexistinglawsoftheRepublicof
thePhilippinescommittedbeforethisActtakeseffect.
"Section9.NothinginthisActshallbeinterpretedasarestrictiontofreedomofthought,ofassembly
andofassociationforpurposesnotcontrarytolawasguaranteedbytheConstitution.
"Approved,June20,1957."
2DelegateJoseP.Laurel(ofthe1934ConstitutionalConvention)referredtotheAngloAmerican
originofthisrightthus:
"Noexpostfactolaworbillofattaindershallbeenacted.ThisprovisionisfoundintheAmerican
FederalConstitution(Art.1,Sec.9)andisapplicabletotheStates(id.Sec.10).Anexpostfactolaw
isalawwhichmakesanactpunishableinamannerinwhichitwasnotpunishablewhencommitted.
Itcreatesoraggravatesthecrimeorincreasesthepunishment,orchangestherulesofevidencefor
thepurposeofconviction.Theprohibitionagainstthepassageofexpostfactolawsisanadditional
bulwarkofpersonalsecurityprotectingthecitizenfrompunishmentbylegislativeactwhichhasa
retrospectiveoperation.
"Thephraseexpostfactohasatechnicalmeaningandreferstocrimesandcriminalproceedings.It
isinthissensethatitwasusedinEngland.Itwasinthissensethattheconventionof1787
understoodit.(Calderv.Bull,supraWatsonv.Mercer,8Pet.88,110Suterleev.Mathewson,2
Peters,380Kringv.Missouri,107U.S.221.)ThisinterpretationwasupheldbyourSupremeCourt
(U.S.vs.AngKenKo,6Phil.376.).
"Abillofattainderisalegislativeactwhichinflictspunishmentwithoutjudicialtrial.(Cummingsvs.
UnitedStates,4Wall.277,18L.ed.356.)InEngland,theBillofAttainderwasanactofParliament
bywhichamanwastried,convictedandsentencedtodeathwithoutajury,withoutahearingin
court,withouthearingthewitnessesagainsthimandwithoutregardtotherulesofevidence.His
bloodwasattainedorcorrupted,renderinghimdevoidofallheritablequalityofacquiringand
19/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
disposingpropertybydescent.(ExparteGarland,4Wall.333,18L.ed366.)Ifthepenaltyimposed
waslessthandeath,theactwasknownasa"billofpainsandpenalties."Billsofattainder,likeex
postfactolaws,werefavoritemethodsofStuartoppression.Once,thenameofThomasJefferson
wasincludedinabillofattainderpresentedtoParliamentbecauseofhisreformactivities.
"Often,suchbillswere'stimulatedbyambitionorpersonalresentment,andvindictivemalice.'(Calder
v.Bull,supra.)Awellknowncaseillustratingtheruthlessmannerinwhichabillofattainderwas
resortedtowasthatofThomasWentworth,chiefadviserofCharlesI.Hewasbroughtto
impeachmentchargedwithattemptingtosubvertthelibertiesofEngland.Hedefendedhimselfso
ablythathisenemies,fearinghisacquittal,withdrewtheimpeachmentandabillofattainderwas
passedinstead.Wentworthwasbeheaded.BillsofattainderwerealsopassedintheColonies(North,
TheConstitutionoftheU.S.,itsSourcesandApplications,p.85.)TheprohibitionintheBillofRights,
therefore,seekstopresentactsofviolenceandinjusticebroughtaboutthepassageofsuchbills."(3
J.Laurel,ProceedingsoftheConstitutionalConvention661663[1966]).
3Cummingsvs.UnitedStates,4Wall.(71U.S.)277(1867)accord,ExparteGarland,4Wall.(71
U.S.)333(1867).ThisdefinitionwasadoptedbythisCourtinPeoplevs.Carlos,78Phil.535,544
(1947)andinPeoplevs.Montenegro,91Phil.883,885(1952).
4DeVeauvs.Braisted,363U.S.144,160(1960)UnitedStatesvs.Lovett,328U.S.303,615,
(1946).
5ChiefJusticeWarrenreferredtotheBillofAttainderChauseasanimplementationofthe
separationofpowers,"ageneralsafeguardagainstlegislativeexerciseofjudicialfunction,ormore
simply,trialbylegislature."UnitedStatesvs.Brown,381U.S.437(1964).
6"Itisthepeculiarprovinceofthelegislaturetoprescribegeneralrulesforthegovernmentof
societytheapplicationofthoserulestoindividualsinsocietywouldseemtobethedutyofother
departments."Fletchervs.Peck,6Cranch(10U.S.)87,136(1810).
7"Thelegislativebodyinenactingbillsofattainderexercisesthepowersandofficeofjudge,it
pronouncesupontheguiltoftheparty,withoutanyoftheformsorsafeguardsoftrial...itfixesthe
degreeofpunishmentinaccordancewithitsownnotionsoftheenormityoftheoffense."Cummings
vs.Missouri,supranote3.
8Billsofthissort,saysMr.JusticeStory,havebeenmostusuallypassedinEnglandintimesof
rebellionorgrosssubserviencytothecrown,orofviolentpoliticalexcitementsperiods,inwhichall
nationsaremostliable(aswellasfreeastheenslabe)toforgettheirduties,andtotrampleuponthe
rightsandlibertiesofothers."Comm.sec.1344,inreYoungSingHee,36Fed.347,440.Duringthe
Americanrevolutionlegislativepunishmentshadbeencontinuedbystatelegislatures,when
numerousbillsofattainderwereenactedagainsttheTorries.1C.Antieu,ModernConstitutionalLaw,
425.
9C.Antieu,supranote8at423.
10TheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatessaidinFlemingvs.Nestor,363U.S.603,61314(1960):
"Indeterminingwhetherlegislationwhichbasesadisqualificationonthehappeningofacertainpast
eventimposesapunishment,theCourthassoughttodiscerntheobjectsonwhichtheenactmentin
questionwasfocused.Wherethesourceoflegislativeconcerncanbethoughttobetheactivityor
statusfromwhichtheindividualisbarred,thedisqualificationisnotpunishmenteventhoughitmay
bearharshlyupononeaffected."
1173Stat.536,29U.S.C.sec.504(1958ed.Supp.IV).
12381U.S.437(1965)(54vote).
13Keyishianvs.BoardofRegents,385U.S.589(1967)Elfbrandtvs.Russell,384U.S.11(1966).
14Cf.Scalesvs.UnitedStates,367U.S.203(1961)Notovs.UnitedStates,367U.S.290(1961).
15DuringtheSenatedeliberationsonthebill,SenatorCearemarked:"Ihaveinsertedthewords
'overtacts'becausewearepunishingmembershipintheCommunistParty.Iwouldlikethat
membershiptobeprovedbyovertacts,bypositiveacts,becauseitmayhappenthatone'sname
mayappearinthelistofmembers."SenateCong.Rec.May22,1957,p.1900.
16BoardofGovernorsofFederalReserveSystemvs.Agnew,329U.S.441.
20/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
17NewYorkexrel.Bryantvs.Zimmerman,278U.S.63(1928).
18RepealedbyRep.Act4241.
19PhilippineAss'nofFreeLaborUnionsvs.SecretaryofLabor,Feb.27,1969,27SCRA40.
20UnitedStatesvs.Lovett,328U.S.303(1946).
21Cummingsvs.Missouri,4Wall.(71U.S.)277(1867).
22ExparteGarland,4Wall.(71U.S.)333(1867).
23UnitedStatesvs.Lovett,328U.S.303(1946).
24UnitedStatesvs.Brown,381U.S.437(1965).
25TheBoundsofLegislativeSpecification:ASuggestedApproachtotheBillofAttainderClause,72
YaleL.J.330,35154(1962).
26278U.S.63(1928).
27Id.at7577.
28Peoplevs.Evangelista,57Phil.375(1932)seealsoPeoplevs.Evangelista,57Phil.,372(1932)
Peoplevs.Capadocia,57Phil.364(1932)Peoplevs.Evangelista,57Phil.354(1932)Peoplevs.
Feleo,57Phil.451(1932)Peoplevs.nabong,57Phil.455(1932).
29Peoplevs.Lava,L497478,May16,1969.
30L33864,Dec.11,1971,42SCRA448.
31UnitedStatesvs.Lovett,328U.S.303,318(1946).
32341U.S.716(1951).
33CommunistPartyvs.SubversiveActivitiesControlBoard,367U.S.1(1960).
34Sec.8.
35E.g.,Kovacsvs.Cooper,336U.S.77(1949)Veravs.Arca,L25721,May26,1969,28SCRA
351.
36Freund,ReviewofFactsinConstitutionalCases,inSupremeCourtandSupremeLaw4748
(Cahned.1954).
37291U.S.502,537(1934).
38L33964,Dec.11,1971,41SCRA448.
39CommunistPartyvs.S.A.C.Board,367U.S.94(1961).
40Dennisvs.UnitedStates,341U.S.494,509(1951).
41Id.at501.
42Sheltonvs.Tucker,364U.s.479(1960).
43Scalesvs.UnitedStates,367U.S.203(1961)seealsoNotovs.UnitedStates,367U.S.290
(1961).
44Frankfeldvs.UnitedStates,198F.2d879(4thCir.1952).
45Peoplevs.nabong,57Phil.455,458(1932).
4618U.S.C.sec.2385.(emphasisadded).
47367U.S.203(1961).
48CommunistPartyvs.SubversiveActivitiesControlBoard,367U.S.1(1961).
21/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
49P.A.Freud,TheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates75(1961).
50Const.,artVI,Sec.21(1).
51Governmentvs.Hongkong&ShaihaiBankingCorp.,66Phil.483(1938).
52Lindasanvs.CommissiononElections,L28089,Oct.25,1967,21SCRA496.
FERNANDO,J.,concurring:
1Rep.ActNo.1700(1957)..
2AccordingtoArt.III,Sec.1,par.11:"Noexpostfactolaworbillofattaindershallbeenacted."
3AccordingtoArt.III,Sec.1,par.8:"Nolawshallbepassedabridgingthefreedomofspeech,orof
thepress,ortherightofthepeoplepeaceblytoassembleandpetitiontheGovernmentforredressof
grievances."
4AccordingtoArt.III,Sec.1par.4:"Thelibertyofabodeandofchangingthesamewithinthelimits
prescribedbylawshallnotbeimpaired."
5Footnote2,p.9ofOpinionoftheCourt.
64Wall.277(1867).
74Wall.333(1867).
8Cf.UnitedStatesv.ALovett,328US303)1946).
94Wall.277(1867).
10Ibid,323,325.
114Wall.333(1867).
12Ibid,377378.
13328US303.
14Ibid,315316.
15381US437.
16Ibid,442.
17Ibid,449450.
18367US1(1961).
19Ibid,8687.
20OpinionoftheCourt,p.15.
21AccordingtoArt.III,Sec.1,par.6:"Therighttoformassociationsorsocietiesforpurposesnot
contrarytolawshallnotbeabridged."Paragraph8ofthissectionreadsasfollows:"Nolawshallbe
passedabridgingthefreedomofspeech,orofthepress,ortherightofthepeoplepeaceblyto
assembleandpetitiontheGovernmentforredressofgrievances."
22Jefferson'sFirstInstanceAddress,March4,1801,inPadover,ed.,TheCompleteJefferson,385
(1943).
23Hook,Heresy,YesConspiracy,No.71(1953).
24Gonzalezv.CommissiononElections,27SCRA835,871(1969)citingSheltonv.Tucker,364US
479(1960)andNAACPv.Button,371US415(1963).
25NAACPvs.Alabama,377US288(1964).
26CommunistPartyv.SubversiveActivitiesControlBoard,367US1,148.
22/23
4/12/2016
G.R.No.L3261314
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation
23/23

People Vs Ferrer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Ferrer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/12/2016

You might also like