Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32613-14)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Simeon N. Ferrer, Feliciano Co alias Leoncio Co “Bob,” and Nilo S. Tayag alias Romy Reyes alias “Taba,” G.R. No. L-32613-14, December 27, 1972, Supreme Court En Banc, Castro, J., writing for the Court.On March 5, 1970 a criminal complaint for violation of Section 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act (Republic Act No. 1700) was filed against respondent Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Tarlac. After a preliminary investigation on March 10, 1970 by Judge Jose C. de Guzman, a prima facie case was found and the provincial fiscal filed an information (Criminal Case No. 27) charging Co with being an officer/ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and alleging aggravating circumstances. Co moved to quash the information on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Act was a bill of attainder.
Separately, on May 25, 1970 a complaint was filed against Nilo S. Tayag and others in the same CFI; following preliminary investigation an amended information charged Tayag and co-accused with organizing/joining the Kabataang Makabayan and CPP in violation of RA 1700. Tayag moved to quash asserting that the statute was (1) a bill of attainder, (2) vague, (3) violative of the single-subject/title rule, and (4) denying equal protection.
The trial court, by resolution dated September 15, 1970, sustained the motions to quash: it declared RA 1700 void as a bill of attainder and for vagueness/overbreadth, and dismissed the informations against Co and Tayag. The Government appealed; the Supreme Court treated the appeal as a special civil action for certiorari and resolved the constitutional issues presented.
The Supreme Court En Banc (Castro, J., ponente) reviewed the Act and the trial court’s ruling and, on December 27, 1972, set aside the questioned resolution and remanded ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is Republic Act No. 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Act) a bill of attainder prohibited by the Constitution?
- Does the Act violate due process (vagueness, overbreadth, or ex post facto concerns)?
- Does the Act impermissibly abridge freedom of expression and freedom of association?
- Does the Act violate the constitutional single-...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)