QuestionsQuestions (EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 167)
The EO repeals PD 1835 and PD 1975, and also repeals or modifies related laws, issuances, rules, and regulations implementing those PDs to the extent of inconsistency. This removes the statutory/regulatory basis those PDs provided for anti-subversion rules they codified or amended.
Revival means a previously superseded/suspended law is reactivated and treated as effective again. By EO No. 167, RA 1700 is restored to operative force as if it had not been superseded by the earlier PDs, subject to any later amendments or relevant jurisprudence.
The EO traces how RA 1700 was superseded by PD 885, which was then amended by PD 1736, and later replaced/codified by PD 1835, later amended by PD 1975. This sequence is crucial to determine which law was controlling prior to EO 167 and why EO 167 reinstates RA 1700 after repealing the later PDs.
EO No. 167 cites the constitutional right to form associations. The EO’s stated purpose is to remove or reduce undue restrictions by repealing PD 1835 and 1975, while still addressing the perceived risk of subversive membership through revival of RA 1700.
EO No. 167 states that repealing the PDs would leave a gap where membership in subversive organizations (e.g., the CPP) might no longer be punishable under those instruments. To prevent this, EO 167 revives RA 1700 to ensure continued penal coverage.
The EO uses People v. Ferrer to support the characterization that the CPP is an illegal association working for overthrow of the government through armed struggle and establishing a communist form of government. This provides justification for keeping anti-subversion penalties despite constitutional concerns.
Yes. EO No. 167 expressly repeals or modifies laws inconsistent with the EO. Practically, any prior law or implementing rule that conflicts with the revival of RA 1700 or the repeal of PD 1835/1975 is displaced or adjusted to conform with EO 167.
Section 1 directly repeals PD 1835 and PD 1975. Section 3 directly revives RA 1700. Section 2 is broader: it repeals or modifies inconsistent laws and presidential issuances, orders, rules, and regulations implementing the repealed PDs, ensuring the legal system aligns with the changes.
It provides immediate enforceability upon issuance, without waiting for a later date or customary publication requirements (subject to general legal requirements on effectivity). Students should analyze how immediacy affects pending prosecutions or ongoing implementation.
The EO acknowledges constitutional limits and claims undue restriction by PD 1835 and 1975, but also insists on preventing a penal vacuum and relies on jurisprudence describing CPP as illegal. The tension is between protecting freedom of association and punishing membership/acts deemed subversive.
The EO explicitly worries about punishability of membership in subversive organizations and therefore implies that RA 1700 contains penal provisions targeting membership in the CPP and similar associations. Students should examine RA 1700’s elements and how “membership” is interpreted under Philippine criminal law and doctrine.
Because it shows what PD 1835 and PD 1975 accomplished before being repealed: codifying anti-subversion laws and increasing membership penalties. This history helps students understand why repeal could change sentencing ranges and which provisions might still exist through RA 1700 after revival.