People vs Ferrer Case Digest G.R. Nos. L-32613-14, 27 Decemer 1!72 F"C#
%$Feliciano Co and Nilo Tayag, together with five others, were charged with violation of R. A. No. 1700 or the Anti-S!version "aw which otlaws the Co##nist $arty of the $hili%%ines and other &s!versive associations,' and %nishes any %erson who &(nowingly, willflly and !y overt acts affiliates hi#self with, !eco#es or re#ains a #e#!er' of the $arty or of any other si#ilar &s!versive' organi)ation. *oth accsed #oved to +ash the infor#ations on the grond that the Anti-S!version "aw is a !ill of attainder. The trial cort agreed, and ths, dis#issed the infor#ations against the two accsed. &$$'(%
hether the Anti-S!version "aw %arta(es of the natre of a *ill of Attainder )(LD%
No. Article , section 1 11/ of the Constittion states that &No !ill of attainder or e %ort facto law shall !e enacted.' A !ill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts %nish#ent withot trial. ts essence is the s!stittion of a legislative for a dicial deter#ination of gilt. The constittional !an against !ills of attainder serves to i#%le#ent the %rinci%le of se%aration of %owers !y confining legislatres to rle-#a(ing and there!y forestalling legislative sr%ation of the dicial fnction. hen the Act is viewed in its actal o%eration, it will !e seen that it does not s%ecify the Co##nist $arty of the $hili%%ines or the #e#!ers thereof for the %r%ose of %nish#ent. hat it does is si#%ly to declare the $arty to !e an organi)ed cons%iracy for the overthrow of the 2overn#ent for the %r%oses of the %rohi!ition, stated in section 3, against #e#!ershi% in the otlawed organi)ation. The ter# &Co##nist $arty of the $hili%%ines' issed solely for definitional %r%oses. n fact, the Act a%%lies not only to the Co##nist $arty of the $hili%%ines !t also to &any other organi)ation having the sa#e %r%ose and their sccessors.' ts focs is not on individals !t on condct. ndeed, were the Anti-S!version Act a !ill of attainder, it wold !e totally nnecessary to charge Co##nists in cort, as the law alone, withot #ore, wold sffice to secre their %nish#ent. *t the ndenia!le fact is that their gilt still has to !e dicially esta!lished. The 2overn#ent has yet to %rove at the trial that the accsed oined the $arty (nowingly, willflly and !y overt acts, and that they oined the $arty, (nowing its s!versive character and with s%ecific intent to frther its !asic o!ective, i.e., to overthrow the eisting 2overn#ent !y force deceit, and other illegal #eans and %lace the contry nder the control and do#ination of a foreign %ower.
As to the clai# that nder the statte organi)ationl gilt is nonetheless i#%ted des%ite the re+ire#ent of %roof of (nowing #e#!ershi% in the $arty, sffice it to say that is %recisely the natre of cons%iracy, which has !een referred to as a &dragnet device' where!y all who %artici%ate in the cri#inal covenant are lia!le. The contention wold !e correct if the statte were constred as %nishing #ere #e#!ershi% devoid of any s%ecific intent to frther the nlawfl goals of the $arty. *t the statte s%ecifically re+ired that #e#!ershi% #st !e (nowing or active, with s%ecific intent to frther the illegal o!ectives of the $arty. That is what section 3 #eans when it re+ires that #e#!ershi%, to !e nlawfl, #st !e shown to have !een ac+ired &(nowingly, willflly and !y overt acts.' The ingredient of s%ecific intent to %rse the nlawfl goals of the $arty #st !e shown !y &overt acts.' This constittes an ele#ent of &#e#!ershi%' distinct fro# the ingredient of gilty (nowledge. The for#er re+ires %roof of direct %artici%ation in the organi)ation4s nlawfl activities, while the latter re+ires %roof of #ere adherence to the organi)ation4s illegal o!ectives (People v. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14, 27 December 1972, 48 SR! 382".
