Case Summary (G.R. No. L-32613-14)
Petitioner
People of the Philippines, represented by the Secretary of Justice and Provincial Fiscal
Respondents
Feliciano Co; Nilo S. Tayag; Hon. Simeon N. Ferrer (in his official capacity)
Key Dates
- March 5, 1970: Complaint filed against Co
- March 10, 1970: Preliminary investigation; information ordered
- May 25, 1970: Complaint filed against Tayag and co-accused
- July 21, 1970: Tayag’s motion to quash
- September 15, 1970: Trial court resolution voiding Anti-Subversion Act
- December 27, 1972: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
- Republic Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Act)
- 1935 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1, cl. 11 (prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws)
Procedural History
Both Co and Tayag were charged under Section 4 of RA 1700 for knowing, willful, overt membership in the CPP or similar “subversive” organizations. Each moved to quash, challenging the statute as a bill of attainder, vague, overbroad, multiplicitous in subject, and violative of equal protection. The trial court agreed, struck down the law, and dismissed the informations. The Government appealed via certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Constitutional Validity of the Anti-Subversion Act
Does RA 1700 violate the constitutional ban on bills of attainder, due-process safeguards (vagueness, overbreadth), free-expression and free-association guarantees, or the single-subject/title requirement?
Bill of Attainder Analysis
• A bill of attainder imposes legislative punishment without judicial trial, breaching separation of powers.
• RA 1700 does not name or single out individuals for punishment. It proscribes knowing, willful, overt membership in organizations whose illicit objective—overthrow of Government by force, violence, deceit, subversion or other illegal means—Congress found dangerous.
• Membership still requires judicial proof of knowing affiliation plus specific intent, distinguishing RA 1700 from statutes that barred communists by mere legislative fiat (e.g., U.S. Labor-Management Reporting & Disclosure Act § 504).
• The Act applies prospectively, offers written renunciation to those previously affiliated, and leaves room for judicial determination—further negating a legislative “guilt by enactment.”
Due Process: Vagueness and Overbreadth
• Legislative findings in RA 1700’s preamble constitute legislative facts supporting a rational relation to national security.
• Section 4’s requirement of “knowingly, willfully and by overt acts” targets conduct, not belief, and specifies subversive aims (force, violence, deceit, subversion).
• The statute’s definitions and penalties are sufficiently clear to guide enforcement and to prevent arbitrary application.
Free Expression and Association
• The law addresses conspiracies to overthrow Government by force or other illegal means—speech incidental to such conspiracies is not constitutionally protected.
• Analogous to the U.S. Smith Act’s membership provision, RA 1700 restricts only that associational conduct which furthers a dangerous unlawful objective.
• Given documented subversive threats, the incidental limitation on associational freedom is outweighed by the paramount interest in national security.
Single Subject and Title Requirement
• Main title (“to outlaw the Communist Party of the Philippines and similar associations, penalizing membership therein, and for other purposes”) together with the short title (“Anti-Subversion Act”) clea
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-32613-14)
Facts of the Case
- Republic Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Act) declared the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and similar associations illegal and penalized knowing membership or affiliation.
- On March 5, 1970, a complaint for violation of Section 4 of RA 1700 was filed against Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Tarlac.
- Preliminary investigation on March 10, 1970 by Judge Jose C. de Guzman found a prima facie case; information (Criminal Case No. 27) charged Co as officer/ranking leader of CPP and enumerated aggravating circumstances.
- On May 25, 1970, a separate complaint charged Nilo S. Tayag and five others with organizing/joining the Kabataang Makabayan and CPP, inciting armed uprising in Tarlac and San Pablo City; amended information set out meetings, recruitment, and two aggravating circumstances.
Procedural History
- Co moved to quash the information, alleging RA 1700 is a bill of attainder.
- Tayag likewise moved to quash on grounds of bill of attainder, vagueness, multiplicity of subjects, and denial of equal protection.
- On September 15, 1970, the trial court declared RA 1700 void as a bill of attainder and for vagueness/overbreadth; informations were dismissed.
- The Government appealed; the Supreme Court treated the appeal as a special civil action for certiorari to review the trial court’s resolution.
Issue Presented
- Is Republic Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Act) constitutional, or does it violate the Bill of Attainder Clause, Due Process requirements, Free Expression and Association guarantees, or the single-subject/title provision of the Constitution?
Constitutional Provisions Invoked
- Article III, Section 1(11): No bill of attainder or ex-post facto law shall be enacted.
- Article III, Section 1(4): Liberty of abode and of changing the same shall not be impaired.
- Article III, Section 1(6): The right to form associations or societies for lawful purposes shall not be abridged.
- Article III, Section 1(8): No law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech, press, assembly, or petition.
- Article VI, Section 21(1): No bill shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in its title.
Majority Holding
- The Anti-Subversion Act is constitutional.
- The trial court’s declaration of unconstitutionality is set aside.
- Both cases are remanded to the CFI of Tarlac for trial on the merits.
- Costs are taxed against the State (de oficio).
Bill of Attainder Analysis
- A bill of attainder inflicts punishment without judicial trial and usurps judicial power.
- RA 1700 does not single out CPP members for punishment; it proscribes conduct—knowing and willful a