. Nos.

L-32613-14 December 27, 1972

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. SIMEON. FERRER (in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Tarlac, Branch I), FELICIANO CO alias LEONCIO CO alias "Bob," and NILO S. TAYAG alias Romy
Reyes alias "Taba

FACTS : Posed in issue in these two cases is the constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion
Act,1 which outlaws the Communist Party of the Philippines and other "subversive associations," and punishes
any person who "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a member"
of the Party or of any other similar "subversive" organization.

On March 5, 1970 a criminal complaint for violation of section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed against
the respondent Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac.

That on or about May 1969 to December 5, 1969, in the Municipality of Capas, Province of Tarlac, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, feloniously became an officer
and/or ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an outlawed and illegal organization aimed
to overthrow the Government of the Philippines by means of force, violence, deceit, subversion, or any other
illegal means for the purpose of establishing in the Philippines a totalitarian regime and placing the
government under the control and domination of an alien power, by being an instructor in the Mao Tse Tung
University, the training school of recruits of the New People's Army, the military arm of the said Communist
Party of the Philippines.

On July 21, 1970 Tayag moved to quash, impugning the validity of the statute on the grounds that (1) it is a bill
of attainder; (2) it is vague; (3) it embraces more than one subject not expressed in the title thereof; and (4) it
denied him the equal protection of the laws.

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
civil action for certiorari.

HELD:

II. Is the Act a Bill of Attainder?

Article III, section 1 (11) of the Constitution states that "No bill of attainder or ex port facto law shall be
enacted."2 A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial.3 Its essence is the
substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.4 The constitutional ban against bills of
attainder serves to implement the principle of separation of powers 5 by confining legislatures to
rule-making 6 and thereby forestalling legislative usurpation of the judicial function.7 History in perspective,
bills of attainder were employed to suppress unpopular causes and political minorities, 8 and it is against this
evil that the constitutional prohibition is directed. The singling out of a definite class, the imposition of a
burden on it, and a legislative intent, suffice to stigmatizea statute as a bill of attainder. 9
In the case at bar, the Anti-Subversion Act was condemned by the court a quo as a bill of attainder because it
"tars and feathers" the Communist Party of the Philippines as a "continuing menace to the freedom and
security of the country; its existence, a 'clear, present and grave danger to the security of the Philippines.'

III. The Act and the Requirements of Due Process

1. As already stated, the legislative declaration in section 2 of the Act that the Communist Party of the
Philippinesis an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of theGovernment is inteded not to provide the basis
for a legislativefinding of guilt of the members of the Party butrather to justify the proscription spelled out in
section 4. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are sofundamental that they are thought by
some to occupy a"preferred position" in the hierarchy of constitutional values. 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 Congressconducted careful investigations and then stated itsfindings in the preamble,
thus:

... [T]he Communist Party of the Philippines althoughpurportedly a political party, is in fact an organized
conspiracyto overthrow the Government of the Republic of the Philippinesnot only by force and violence but
also by deceit, subversionand other illegal means, for the purpose of establishing in thePhilippines a
totalitarian regime subject to alien dominationand control;

... [T]he continued existence and activities of the CommunistParty of the Philippines constitutes a clear,
present andgrave danger to the security of the Philippines;

... [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 urgent need for special
legislation to cope withthis continuing menace to the freedom and security of the country.

In truth, the constitutionality of the Act would be opento question if, instead of making these findings in
enactingthe statute, Congress omitted to do so.

IV. The Act and the Guaranty of Free Expression

As already pointed out, the Act 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
insubstantial as to beclearly and heavily outweighed by the overriding considerationsof national security and
the preservartion of democraticinstitutions in his country.

V. The Act and its Title

The respondent Tayag invokes the constitutional commandthat "no bill which may be enacted into law shall
embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill."

The title of a bill need not be a catalogue or an indexof its contents, and need not recite the details of the Act.
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 not to thwart the legislative intent. We holdthat the Anti-Subversion Act fully satisfies
these requirements.

VI. Conclusion and Guidelines

In conclusion, even as we uphold the validity of theAnti-Subversion Act, we cannot overemphasize the needfor
prudence and circumspection in its enforcement, operatingas it does in the sensitive area of freedom of
expressionand belief. Accordingly, we set the following basic guidelines to be observed in any prosecution
under 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) In the case of subversive organizations other thanthe Communist Party of the Philippines, (a) that
thepurpose of the organization is to overthrow the presentGovernment of the Philippines and to establish in
thiscountry a totalitarian regime under the domination of aforeign power; (b) that the accused joined such
organization;and (c) that he did so knowingly, willfully and byovert acts; and

(2) In the case of the Communist Party of the Philippines,(a) that the CPP continues to pursue the
objectiveswhich 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 joined theCPP; and (c) that he did so willfully, knowingly and byovert acts.

We refrain from making any pronouncement as to thecrime or remaining a member of the Communist Party
ofthe Philippines or of any other subversive association: weleave this matter to future determination

EXCERPT FROM THE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE FERNANDO :

It is with regard that I find myself unable to join therest of my brethren in the decision reached upholding
thevalidity of the Anti-Subversion Act. 1 It is to be admittedthat the learned and scholarly opinbion of Justice
Castro hasthe impress of conscientious and painstaking scrutiny ofthe constitutional issues raised. What is
more, the stressin the concluding portion thereof on basic guidelines thatwill assure in the trial of those
prosecuted under suchAct respect for their constitutional rights is to be commended.Nonetheless, my own
reading of the decisionscited, interpreting the bill of attainder clause2 coupled withthe fears, perhaps induced
by a too-latitudinarian constructionof the guarantees of freedom of belief and expression3 as well as freedom
of association 4 as to impermissible inroadsto which they may be exposed, compels a differentconclusion.
Hence this dissent.

1. There is to be sure no thought on my part that theequally pressing concern of state safety and security
shouldbe ignored. The political branches of the governmentwould lay themselves oepn to a justifiable
indictment fornegligence had they been remiss in their obligation tosafeguard the nation against its sworn
enemies… ……… I feel that there was an insufficientappreciation of the compulsion of the
constitutionalcommands against bills of attainder and abridgmentof free speech.
2. The starting point in any inquiry as to the significanceof the bill of attainder clause is the meaning
attachedto it by the Constitutional Convention of 1934 and by the people who adopted it. As was explained by
the then Delegate, later Justice, Jose P. Laurel in his address on November19, 1934 as Chairman of the
Committee on the Bill of Rights quoted in the opinion of the Court: "A billof attainder is a legislative act which
inflicts punishment without judicial trial. (Cummings v. United States, 4Wall. 277, 18 L ed 356). In England, the
Bill of Attainder was an act of Parliament by which a man was tried, convictedand sentenced to death without
a jury, without ahearing in court, without hearing the witnesses againsthim and without regard to the rules of
evidence.

3. This brings me to the question of the alleged repugnancyof the Anti-Subversion 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 Republic Act No. 1700,the threat that Communism, the Russian
brand then, didpose was a painful reality for Congressional leaders andthe then President. Its shadow fell
squarely across thelives of all. Subversion then could neither be denied notdisparaged. There was, in the
expert opinion of those conversantwith such mattes, a danger to out national existenceof no mean character.
Nonetheless, the remedies toward off such menace must not be repugnant to our Constitution.We are legally
precluded from acting in anyother way. The apprehension justly felt is no warrant forthrowing to the discard
fundamental guarantees. Vigilantwe had to be, but not at the expense of constitutional ideals.

Such an approach is reinforced by the well-settled constitutionalprinciple "that even though the governmental
purposesbe legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursuedby means that broadly stifle fundamental
personalliberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.For precision of regulation is the touchstone in
an areaso closely related to our most precious freedoms." 24 This is so for "a governmental purpose to control
or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may notbe achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadlyand thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." 25 It isindispensable then that "an
over breadth" in the applicabilityof the statute be avoided. If such be the case, then theline dividing the valid
from the constitutionally infirm hasbeen crossed. That for me is the conclusion to be drawnfrom the wording
of the Anti-Subversion Act.

. It is thus,in a realistic sense, a manifestation of the fear of freethought and the will to suppress it. For better,
of course,is the propaganda of the deed. What the communists 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, cannot evenlook forward to that, then a
constitutional regime is nothingbut a mockery and a tragic illusion. Such a response,I am optimistic enough to
believe, has the merit of thinning,if not completely eliminating, the embattled ranksand outposts of ignorance,
fanaticism and error. That forme would be more in accordance with the basic propositionof our polity. This is
not therefore to preach a doctrine of object surrender to the forces apparently bent 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, an affirmation of
the vitality of the democratic creed, with an expression of regret that it could not have been more
impressively set forth in language worthy of the subject.