PEOPLE V.
FERRER the Communist Party of the Philippines by being an instructor in the Mao
December 27, 1972| Castro, J. | Bill of Attainder
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: 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,"
SUMMARY: Defendants where charged with violation of the Anti-Subversion
Act for being members of subversive groups that have the goal of overthrowing
the government. They move to quash the information on the ground that the law
is a bill of attainder. RTC granted the motion. The Republic appealed the case
the Supreme Court. The Court held that it is not a bill of attainder. The mere fact
that the accused under this law needs to be tried in courts negates the allegation
that is a bill of attainder. Moreover, what being punished is not the group but the
conduct of the group—overthrowing the government. Aside from inflicting
punishment without a trial, it should also punish acts prior to the effectivity of
the law before it shall be declared void. In the case at bar, the intentional
continued membership of the group is what being punished and not prior acts. In
fact, the law provides that those who renounce membership after the effectivity
of the law shall be exempt from criminal liability.
(This is not a good law anymore because it was subsequently declared as bill of
attainder pursuant to its repealing law RA 7636 which was passed on
September 24, 1992)
DOCTRINE:
A law is void for being a bill of attainder if:
It is only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to easily
ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on
them without judicial trail does it become a bill of attainder.
It is not enough that the statute specify persons to groups in order that it may fall
within the ambit of the prohibition against bills of attainder. It must also be
applied retroactively and reach past conduct. In short it must also be an ex post
facto.
FACTS:
1. Feliciano Co was charged with violation of the section 4 of the anti-
Subversion Act. He was alleged to be an officer/ or high ranking leader of
Tse Tung University which is the training school of recruits of the New
People’s Army (the military arm of the said CPP).
2. Co moved to quash the information on the ground that Anti-Subversion Act
is a bill of attainder.
3. Meanwhile, Nilo Tayag and five others were likewise charged with
violation of the same law. They were alleged to be members of the
KABATAANG MAKABAYAN, a subversive organization. Jamin Bie alias
“Commander Melody”, on the other had, was alleged to be a member not
only of the CPP but also the NPA.
4. Tayag moved to quash the information 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 denies him the equal protection of the laws.
5. The RTC granted the motion and declared the law void for being a bill of
attainder. Hence, this appeal from the government.
6. The Anti-Subversion Act makes the intentional membership to subversive
organization such as the CPP with the goal to overthrow the government as
unlawful.
ISSUE:
1.WoN Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder and/or an ex post facto law
(NO)
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTED the petition.
RATIO:
1. The Court defined bill of attainder as a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a
judicial determination of guilt. The reason behind its ban is to uphold the
separation of powers among the branches of government. Historically, laws
were declared bill of attainder usually have the character of suppressing
unpopular causes and political minorities. This is the evil that the
prohibition wants to protect the people from the government.
2. In the case at bar, Anti-Subversion Act punishes the conduct of the
subversive groups and not the individuals. The law also used the term of
CPP for definition purposes and it is applicable not only to them but also to
like groups. Moreover, the law does not protect groups that are formed to
accomplish unlawful activities.
3. The fact that accused are needed to be tried in courts before conviction
negates the fact that the law is a bill of attainder. Because there is still the
need of judicial determination of guilt. Furthermore, what the law punishes
is the intentional and knowing membership with the goal of overthrowing
the government.
Page 1 of 2
 4. Assuming that the law punishes individuals, it is still not enough to declare
it as a bill of attainder. It is only when a statute applies either to named
individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as
to inflict punishment on them without judicial trail does it become a bill of
attainder.
5. Moreover, it is not enough that the statute specify persons to groups in order
that it may fall within the ambit of the prohibition against bills of attainder.
It must also be applied retroactively and reach past conduct. In short it must
also be an ex post facto.
6. In the case at bar, what the law punishes is the continued intentional
membership from the subversive group after the effectivity of the said law.
Furthermore, the law expressly provides that should members declare
renunciation through writing they shall be exempt from criminal liability.
7. The Court, acknowledging that this law might prejudiced freedom of
speech, set guidelines for the prosecution under the said law:
In the case of subversive organizations other than the 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
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.

Page 2 of 2