G.R. Nos.

L-32613-14 December 27, 1972

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. SIEON. FERRER !"# $"s c%&%c"'( %s )*+,e o- '$e .o*r' o- F"rs' I#s'%#ce o-
T%r/%c, 0r%#c$ I1, FELI.I2NO .O %/"%s LEON.IO .O %/"%s 30ob,3 %#+ NILO S. T242G
%/"%s Rom( Re(es %/"%s 3T%b%,3respondents.
Solicitor R. Mutuc for respondent Feliciano Co.
Jose W. Diokno for respondent Nilo Tayag.

.2STRO, J.:p
I. Statement of te Case
Posed in issue in these two cases is the constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion
Act,
1
which outlaws the Communist Party of the Philippines and other "subversive
associations," and punishes any person who "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliates
himself with, becomes or remains a member" of the Party or of any other similar
"subversive" organiation.
!n "arch #, $%&' a criminal complaint for violation of section ( of the Anti-Subversion Act
was filed against the respondent )eliciano Co in the Court of )irst *nstance of +arlac. !n
"arch $' ,udge ,ose C. de -uman conducted a preliminary investigation and, finding
a prima facie case against Co, directed the -overnment prosecutors to file the
corresponding information. +he twice-amended information, docketed as Criminal Case .o.
/&, recites0
+hat on or about "ay $%1% to 2ecember #, $%1%, in the "unicipality of
Capas, Province of +arlac, Philippines, and within the 3urisdiction of this
4onorable Court, the abovenamed accused, feloniously became an officer
and5or ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an outlawed
and illegal organiation aimed to overthrow the -overnment of the Philippines
by means of force, violence, deceit, subversion, or any other illegal means for
the purpose of establishing in the Philippines a totalitarian regime and placing
the government under the control and domination of an alien power, by being
an instructor in the "ao +se +ung 6niversity, the training school of recruits of
the .ew People7s Army, the military arm of the said Communist Party of the
Philippines.
+hat in the commission of the above offense, the following aggravating
circumstances are present, to wit0
8a9 +hat the crime has been committed in contempt of or with insult to public
authorities:
8b9 +hat the crime was committed by a band: and afford impunity.
8c9 ;ith the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
Co moved to <uash on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder.
"eanwhile, on "ay /#, $%&', another criminal complaint was filed with the same court,
sharing the respondent .ilo +ayag and five others with subversion. After preliminary
investigation was had, an information was filed, which, as amended, reads0
+he undersigned provincial )iscal of +arlac and State Prosecutors duly
designated by the Secretary of ,ustice to collaborate with the Provincial
)iscal of +arlac, pursuant to the !rder dated ,une #, above entitled case,
hereby accuse .ilo S. +ayag, alias =omy =eyes alias +A>A, A=+46=
-A=C*A, =?.A+! 8=?@9 CAS*P?, A>?AA=2! -A=C*A, "A.6?A
AAABA2!, >?.,A"*. >*? alias C!""A.2?= "?A!2@ and several ,!4.
2!?S, whose identities are still unknown, for violation of =?P6>A*C AC+ .o.
$&'', otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Aaw, committed as follows0
+hat in or about "arch $%1% and for sometime prior thereto and thereafter, in
the Province of +arlac, within the 3urisdiction of this 4onorable Court, and
elsewhere in the Philippines, the above-named accused knowingly, willfully
and by overt acts organied, 3oined and5or remained as offices and5or ranking
leaders, of the CA>A+AA.- "ACA>A@A., a subversive organiation as
defined in =epublic Act .o. $&'': that >?.,A"*. >*? and C!""A.2?=
"?A!2@, in addition thereto, knowingly, willfully and by over acts 3oined
and5or remained as a member and became an officer and5or ranking leader
not only of the Communist Party of the Philippines but also of the .ew
People7s Army, the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines:
and that all the above-named accused, as such officers and5or ranking
leaders of the aforestated subversive organiations, conspiring, confederating
and mutually helping one another, did then and there knowingly, willfully and
feloniously commit subversive and5or seditious acts, by inciting, instigating
and stirring the people to unite and rise publicly and tumultuously and take up
arms against the government, and5or engage in rebellious conspiracies and
riots to overthrow the government of the =epublic of the Philippines by force,
violence, deceit, subversion and5or other illegal means among which are the
following0
$. !n several occasions within the province of +arlac, the accused conducted
meetings and5or seminars wherein the said accused delivered speeches
instigating and inciting the people to unite, rise in arms and overthrow the
-overnment of the =epublic of the Philippines, by force, violence, deceit,
subversion and5or other illegal means: and toward this end, the said accused
organied, among others a chapter of the CA>A+AA.- "ACA>A@A. in
barrio "otrico, Aa Pa, +arlac for the avowed purpose of undertaking or
promoting an armed revolution, subversive and5or seditious propaganda,
conspiracies, and5or riots and5or other illegal means to discredit and
overthrow the -overnment of the =epublic of the Philippines and to
established in the Philippines a Communist regime.
/. +he accused .*A! +A@A- alias =!"@ =?@?S alias +A>A, together with
)=A.C*SC! P!=+?" alias C*C! -onales and others, pursued the above
subversive and5or seditious activities in San Pablo City by recruiting members
for the .ew People7s Army, and5or by instigating and inciting the people to
organie and unite for the purpose of overthrowing the -overnment of the
=epublic of the Philippines through armed revolution, deceit, subversion
and5or other illegal means, and establishing in the Philippines a Communist
-overnment.
+hat the following aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the
offense0 8a9 aid of armed men or persons to insure or afford impunity: and 8b9
craft, fraud, or disguise was employed.
!n ,uly /$, $%&' +ayag moved to <uash, impugning the validity of the statute on the
grounds that 8$9 it is a bill of attainder: 8/9 it is vague: 8D9 it embraces more than one sub3ect
not eEpressed in the title thereof: and 8(9 it denied him the e<ual protection of the laws.
=esolving the constitutional issues raised, the trial court, in its resolution of September $#,
$%&', declared the statute void on the grounds that it is a bill of attainder and that it is vague
and overboard, and dismissed the informations against the two accused. +he -overnment
appealed. ;e resolved to treat its appeal as a special civil action for certiorari.
II. Is te !ct a "ill of !ttainder#
Article ***, section $ 8$$9 of the Constitution states that ".o bill of attainder or e$ port
facto law shall be enacted."
2
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without trial.
3
*ts essence is the substitution of a legislative for a 3udicial determination of
guilt.
4
+he constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle of
separation of powers
5
by confining legislatures to
rule-making
6
and thereby forestalling legislative usurpation of the 3udicial function.
7
4istory
in perspective, bills of attainder were employed to suppress unpopular causes and political
minorities,
6
and it is against this evil that the constitutional prohibition is directed. +he
singling out of a definite class, the imposition of a burden on it, and a legislative intent,
suffice to stigmatiea statute as a bill of attainder.
9
*n the case at bar, the Anti-Subversion Act was condemned by the court a %uo as a bill of
attainder because it "tars and feathers" the Communist Party of the Philippines as a
"continuing menace to the freedom and security of the country: its eEistence, a 7clear,
present and grave danger to the security of the Philippines.7" >y means of the Act, the trial
court said, Congress usurped "the powers of the 3udge," and assumed "3udicial magistracy
by pronouncing the guilt of the CCP without any of the forms or safeguards of 3udicial trial."
)inally, according to the trial court, "if the only issue Fto be determinedG is whether or not the
accused is a knowing and voluntary member, the law is still a bill of attainder because it has
eEpressly created a presumption of organiational guilt which the accused can never hope
to overthrow."
$. ;hen the Act is viewed in its actual operation, it will be seen that it does not specify the
Communist Party of the Philippines or the members thereof for the purpose of punishment.
;hat it does is simply to declare the Party to be an organied conspiracy for the overthrow
of the -overnment for the purposes of the prohibition, stated in section (, against
membership in the outlawed organiation. +he term "Communist Party of the Philippines"
issued solely for definitional purposes. *n fact the Act applies not only to the Communist
Party of the Philippines but also to "any other organiation having the same purpose and
their successors." *ts focus is not on individuals but on conduct.
17
+his feature of the Act distinguishes it from section #'( of the 6.S. )ederal Aabor-
"anagement =eporting and 2isclosure Act of $%#%
11
which, in 6.S. vs. >rown,
12
was held
to be a bill of attainder and therefore unconstitutional. Section #'( provided in its pertinent
parts as follows0
8a9 .o person who is or has been a member of the Communist
Party ... shall serve H
8$9 as an officer, director, trustee, member of any eEecutive board or similar
governing body, business agent, manager, organier, or other employee
8other than as an employee performing eEclusively clerical or custodial duties9
of any labor organiation.
during or for five years after the termination of his membership in the
Communist Party....
8b9 Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than
I$',''' or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
+his statute specified the Communist Party, and imposes disability and penalties on its
members. "embership in the Party, without more, ipso facto dis<ualifies a person from
becoming an officer or a member of the governing body of any labor organiation. As the
Supreme Court of the 6nited States pointed out0
6nder the line of cases 3ust outlined, sec. #'( of the Aabor "anagement
=eporting and 2isclosure Act plainly constitutes a bill of attainder. Congress
undoubtedly possesses power under the Commerce Clause to enact
legislation designed to keep from positions affecting interstate commerce
persons who may use of such positions to bring about political strikes. *n
section #'(, however, Congress has eEceeded the authority granted it by the
Constitution. +he statute does not set forth a generally applicable rule
decreeing that any person who commits certain acts or possesses certain
characteristics 8acts and characteristics which, in Congress7 view, make them
likely to initiate political strikes9 shall not hold union office, and leaves to
courts and 3uries the 3ob of deciding what persons have committed the
specified acts or possessed the specified characteristics. Instead& it
designates in no uncertain terms te persons 'o possess te feared
caracteristics and therefore cannot hold union office without incurring
criminal liability H mem(ers of te Communist )arty.
Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control >oard, D1& 6S $, 1 A ed /d
1/#, J$ S C+ $D#&, lend a support to our conclusion. +hat case involved an
appeal from an order by the Control >oard ordering the Communist Party to
register as a "Communist-action organiation," under the Subversive
Activities Control Act of $%#', 1( Stat %J&, #' 6SC sec. &J$ et se%. 8$%#J
ed9. +he definition of "Communist-action organiation" which the >oard is to
apply is set forth in sec. D of the Act0
FAGny organiation in the 6nited States ... which 8i9is substantially directed,
dominated, or controlled by the foreign government or foreign organiation
controlling the world Communist movement referred to in section / of this
title, and8ii9 operates primarily to advance the ob3ectives of such world
Communist movement... 1( Stat %J%, #' 6SC sec. &J/ 8$%#J ed.9
A ma3ority of the Court re3ected the argument that the Act was a bill of
attainder, reasoning that sec. D does not specify the persons or groups upon
which the deprivations setforth in the Act are to be imposed, but instead sets
forth a general definition. Although the >oard has determined in $%#D that the
Communist Party was a "Communist-action organiation," the Court found
the statutory definition not to be so narrow as to insure that the Party would
always come within it0
*n this proceeding the >oard had found, and the Court of Appeals has
sustained its conclusion, that the Communist Party, by virtud of the activities
in which it now engages, comes within the terms of the Act. *f the Party
should at anytime choose to abandon these activities, after it is once
registered pursuant to sec. &, the Act provides ade<uate means of relief. 8D1&
6S, at J&, 1 A ed /d at 1JD9
*ndeed, were the Anti-Subversion Act a bill of attainder, it would be totally unnecessary to
charge Communists in court, as the law alone, without more, would suffice to secure their
punishment. >ut the undeniable fact is that their guilt still has to be 3udicially established.
+he -overnment has yet to prove at the trial that the accused 3oined the Party knowingly,
willfully and by overt acts, and that they 3oined the Party, knowing its subversive character
and with specific intent to further its basic ob3ective, i.e., to overthrow the eEisting
-overnment by force deceit, and other illegal means and place the country under the
control and domination of a foreign power.
As to the claim that under the statute organiationl guilt is nonetheless imputed despite the
re<uirement of proof of knowing membership in the Party, suffice it to say that is precisely
the nature of conspiracy, which has been referred to as a "dragneet device" whereby all
who participate in the criminal covenant are liable. +he contention would be correct if the
statute were construed as punishing mere membership devoid of any specific intent to
further the unlawful goals of the Party.
13
>ut the statute specifically re<uired that
membership must be kno'ing or active, with specific intent to further the illegal ob3ectives of
the Party. +hat is what section ( means when it re<uires that membership, to be unlawful,
must be shown to have been ac<uired "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts."
14
+he
ingredient of specific intent to pursue the unlawful goals of the Party must be shown by
"overt acts."
15
+his constitutes an element of "membership" distinct from the ingredient of
guilty knowledge. +he former re<uires proof of direct participation in the organiation7s
unlawful activities, while the latter re<uires proof of mere adherence to the organiation7s
illegal ob3ectives.
/. ?ven assuming, however, that the Act specifies individuals and not activities, this feature
is not enough to render it a bill of attainder. A statute prohibiting partners or employees of
securities underwriting firms from serving as officers or employees of national banks on the
basis of a legislative finding that the persons mentioned would be sub3ect to the temptation
to commit acts deemed inimical to the national economy, has been declared not to be a bill
of attainder.
16
Similarly, a statute re<uiring every secret, oath-bound society having a
membership of at least twenty to register, and punishing any person who becomes a
member of such society which fails to register or remains a member thereof, was declared
valid even if in its operation it was shown to apply only to the members of the Cu CluE
Clan.
17
*n the Philippines the validity of section /D 8b9 of the *ndustrial Peace Act,
16
re<uiring labor
unions to file with the 2epartment of Aabor affidavits of union officers "to the effect that they
are not members of the Communist Party and that they are not members of any
organiation which teaches the overthrow of the -overnment by force or by any illegal or
unconstitutional method," was upheld by this Court.
19
*ndeed, 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 a
3udicial trial does it become a bill of attainder.
27
*t is upon this ground that statutes which
dis<ualified those who had taken part in the rebellion against the -overnment of the 6nited
States during the Civil ;ar from holding office,
21
or from eEercising their profession,
22
or
which prohibited the payment of further compensation to individuals named in the Act on the
basis of a finding that they had engages in subversive activities,
23
or which made it a crime
for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or employee of a labor
union,
24
have been invalidated as bills of attainder.
>ut when the 3udgment eEpressed in legislation is so universally acknowledged to be certain
as to be "3udicially noticeable," the legislature may apply its own rules, and 3udicial hearing
is not needed fairly to make such determination.
25
*n Ne' *ork e$ rel. "ryant +s. ,immerman,
26
the .ew @ork legislature passed a law
re<uiring every secret, oath-bound society with a membership of at least twenty to register,
and punishing any person who 3oined or remained a member of such a society failing to
register. ;hile the statute did not specify the Cu CluE Clan, in its operation the law applied
to the CCC eEclusively. *n sustaining the statute against the claim that it discriminated
against the Cu CluE Clan while eEempting other secret, oath-bound organiations like
masonic societies and the Cnights of Columbus, the 6nited States Supreme Court relied on
common knowledge of the nature and activities of the Cu CluE Clan. +he Court said0
+he courts below recognied the principle shown in the cases 3ust cited and
reached the conclusion that the classification was 3ustified by a difference
between the two classes of associations shown by eEperience, and that the
difference consisted 8a9 in a manifest tendency on the part of one class to
make the secrecy surrounding its purpose and membership a cloak for acts
and conduct inimical to personal rights and public welfare, and 8b9 in the
absence of such a tendency on the part of the other class. *n pointing out this
difference one of the courts said of the Cu CluE Clan, the principal association
in the included class0 "*t is a matter of common knowledge that this
organiation functions largely at night, its members disguised by hoods and
gowns and doing things calculated to strike terror into the minds of the
people:" and later said of the other class0 "+hese organiations and their
purposes are well known, many of them having been in eEistence for many
years. "any of them are oath-bound and secret. >ut we hear no complaint
against them regarding violation of the peace or interfering with the rights of
others." Another of the courts said0 "*t is a matter of common knowledge that
the association or organiation of which the relator is concededly a member
eEercises activities tending to the pre3udice and intimidation of sundry classes
of our citiens. >ut the legislation is not confined to this society:" and later
said of the other class0 "Aabor unions have a recognied lawful purpose. +he
benevolent orders mentioned in the >enevolent !rders Aaw have already
received legislative scrutiny and have been granted special privileges so that
the legislature may well consider them beneficial rather than harmful
agencies." +he third court, after recogniing "the potentialities of evil in secret
societies," and observing that "the danger of certain organiations has been
3udicially demonstrated," H meaning in that state, H said0 ">enevolent
orders, labor unions and college fraternities have eEisted for many years,
and, while not immune from hostile criticism, have on the whole 3ustified their
eEistence."
;e assume that the legislature had before it such information as was readily available
including the published report of a hearing, before a committee of the 4ouse of
=epresentatives of the #&th Congress relating to the formation, purposes and activities of
the Clu CluE Clan. *f so it was advised H putting aside controverted evidence H that the
order was a revival of the Cu CluE Clan of an earlier time with additional features
borrowed from the Cnow .othing and the A. P. A. orders of other periods: that its
memberships was limited to native-born, gentile, protestant whites: that in part of its
constitution and printed creed it proclaimed the widest freedom for all and full adherence
to the Constitution of the 6nited States: in another eEacted of its member an oath to
shield and preserve "white supremacy:" and in still another declared any person actively
opposing its principles to be "a dangerous ingredient in the body politic of our country and
an enemy to the weal of our national commonwealth:" that it was conducting a crusade
against Catholics, ,ews, and .egroes, and stimulating hurtful religious and race
pre3udices: that it was striving for political power and assuming a sort of guardianship
over the administration of local, state and national affairs: and that at times it was taking
into its own hands the punishment of what some of its members conceived to be
crimes.
27
*n the Philippines the character of the Communist Party has been the ob3ect of continuing
scrutiny by this Court. *n $%D/ we found the Communist Party of the Philippines to be an
illegal association.
26
*n $%1% we again found that the ob3ective of the Party was the
"overthrow of the Philippine -overnment by armed struggle and to establish in the
Philippines a communist form of government similar to that of Soviet =ussia and =ed
China."
29
"ore recently, in -ansang +s. .arcia,
37
we noted the growth of the Communist
Party of the Philippines and the organiation of Communist fronts among youth
organiations such as the Cabataang "akabayan 8C"9 and the emergence of the .ew
People7s Army. After meticulously reviewing the evidence, we said0 ";e entertain, therefore,
no doubts about the eEistence of a sieable group of men who have publicly risen in arms to
overthrow the government and have thus been and still are engaged in rebellion against the
-overnment of the Philippines.
D. .or is it enough that the statute specify persons or groups in order that it may fall within
the ambit of the prohibition against bills of attainder. *t is also necessary that it must apply
retroactively and reach past conduct. +his re<uirement follows from the nature of a bill of
attainder as a legislative ad3udication of guilt. As ,ustice )rankfurter observed, "fre<uently a
bill of attainder was ... doubly ob3ectionable because of its e$ post factofeatures. +his is the
historic eEplanation for uniting the two mischiefs in one
clause H 7.o >ill of Attainder or e$ post facto law shall be passed.7 ... +herefore, if Fa
statuteG is a bill of attainder it is also an e$ post facto law. >ut if it is not an e$ post facto law,
the reasons that establish that it is not are persuasive that it cannot be a bill of attainder."
31
+hus in .ardner +s. "oard of )u(lic Works,
32
the 6.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of
the Charter of the City of Aos Angeles which provided0
... F.Go person shall hold or retain or be eligible for any public office or
employment in the service of the City of Aos Angeles, in any office or
department thereof, either elective or appointive, who has within five 8#9 years
prior to the effective date of this section advised, advocated, or taught, or who
may, after this section becomes effective, become a member of or affiliated
with any group, society, association, organiation or party which advises,
advocates or teaches or has within said period of five 8#9 years advised,
advocated, or taught the overthrow by force or violence of the -overnment of
the 6nited States of America or of the State of California.
*n upholding the statute, the Court stressed the prospective application of the Act to the
petitioner therein, thus0
... *mmaterial here is any opinion we might have as to the charter provision
insofar as it purported to apply restrospectively for a five-year period to its
effective date. ;e assume that under the )ederal Constitution the Charter
Amendment is valid to the eEtent that it bars from the city7s public service
persons who, subse<uently to its adoption in $%($, advise, advocate, or
reach the violent overthrow of the -overnment or who are or become
affiliated with any group doing so. +he provisions operating thus prospectively
were a reasonable regulation to protect the municipal service by establishing
an employment <ualification of loyalty to the State and the 6nited States.
... 6nlike the provisions of the charter and ordinance under which petitioners
were removed, the statute in the Aovett case did not declare general and
prospectively operative standards of <ualification and eligibility for public
employment. =ather, by its terms it prohibited any further payment of
compensationto named individuals or employees. 6nder these
circumstances, viewed against the legislative background, the statutewas
held to have imposed penalties without 3udicial trial.
*ndeed, if one ob3ection to the bill of attainder is thatCongress thereby assumed 3udicial
magistracy, them it mustbe demonstrated that the statute claimed to be a bill of
attainderreaches past conduct and that the penalties it imposesare inescapable. As the 6.S.
Supreme Court observedwith respect to the 6.S. )ederal Subversive Activities ControlAct of
$%#'0
.or is the statute made an act of "outlawry" or of attainderby the fact that the conduct
which it regulates is describedwith such particularity that, in probability, few
organiationswill come within the statutory terms. Aegislatures may act tocurb behaviour
which they regard as harmful to the public welfare,whether that conduct is found to be
engaged in by manypersons or by one. So long as the incidence of legislation issuch that
the persons who engage in the regulated conduct, bethey many or few, can escape
regulation merely by altering thecourse of their own present activities, there can be no
complaintof an attainder.
33
+his statement, mutatis mutandis, may be said of theAnti-Subversion Act. Section ( thereof
eEpressly statesthat the 5or its successors or of any subversive association"after ,une /',
$%#&, are punishedprohibition therein applies only to acts committed"After the approval of
this Act." !nly those who "knowingly,willfully and by overt acts affiliate themselves
with,become or remain members of the Communist Party of thePhilippines and. +hose
whowere members of the Party or of any other subversive associationat the time of the
enactment of the law, weregiven the opportunity of purging themselves of liability
byrenouncing in writing and under oath their membershipin the Party. +he law eEpressly
provides that such renunciationshall operate to eEempt such persons from
penalliability.
34
+he penalties prescribed by the Act are thereforenot inescapable.
III. Te !ct and te Re%uirements of Due )rocess
$. As already stated, the legislative declaration in section / of the Act that the Communist
Party of the Philippinesis an organied conspiracy for the overthrow of the-overnment is
inteded not to provide the basis for a legislativefinding of guilt of the members of the Party
butrather to 3ustify the proscription spelled out in section (. )reedom of eEpression and
freedom of association are sofundamental that they are thought by some to occupy
a"preferred position" in the hierarchy of constitutional values.
35
Accordingly, any limitation
on their eEercise mustbe 3ustified by the eEistence of a substantive evil. +his isthe reason
why before enacting the statute in <uestion Congressconducted careful investigations and
then stated itsfindings in the preamble, thus0
... F+Ghe Communist Party of the Philippines althoughpurportedly a political
party, is in fact an organied conspiracyto overthrow the -overnment of the
=epublic of the Philippinesnot only by force and violence but also by deceit,
subversionand other illegal means, for the purpose of establishing in
thePhilippines a totalitarian regime sub3ect to alien dominationand control:
... F+Ghe continued eEistence and activities of the CommunistParty of the
Philippines constitutes a clear, present andgrave danger to the security of the
Philippines:
... F*Gn the face of the organied, systematice and persistentsubversion,
national in scope but international in direction,posed by the Communist Party
of the Philippines and its activities,there is urgent need for special legislation
to cope withthis continuing menace to the freedom and security of the
country.
*n truth, the constitutionality of the Act would be opento <uestion if, instead of making these
findings in enactingthe statute, Congress omitted to do so.
*n saying that by means of the Act Congress has assumed 3udicial magistracy, the trial
courd failed to takeproper account of the distinction between legislati+e
fact and ad/udicati+e fact. Professor Paul )reund elucidatesthe crucial distinction, thus0
... A law forbidding the sale of beverages containingmore than D./ per cent of
alcohol would raise a <uestion of legislativefact, i.e., whether this standard
has a reasonable relationto public health, morals, and the enforcement
problem. Alaw forbidding the sale of intoEicating beverages 8assuming itis not
so vague as to re<uire supplementation by rule-making9would raise a
<uestion of ad3udicative fact, i.e., whether thisor that beverage is intoEicating
within the meaning of the statuteand the limits on governmental action
imposed by the Constitution. !f course what we mean by fact in each case is
itselfan ultimate conclusion founded on underlying facts and oncriteria of
3udgment for weighing them.
A conventional formulation is that legislative facts H those facts which are relevant to the
legislative 3udgment H will not be canvassed save to determine whether there is a
rationalbasis for believing that they eEist, while ad3udicativefacts H those which tie the
legislative enactment to the litigant H are to be demonstrated and found according to the
ordinarystandards prevailing for 3udicial trials.
36
+he test formulated in Ne((ia +s. ne' *ork,
37
andadopted by this Court in -ansang +s.
.arcia,
36
is that 7if laws are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper legislati+e
purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the re<uirements of due process are
satisfied, and 3udicial determination to that effect renders a court functus officio." +he recital
of legislative findings implements this test.
;ith respect to a similar statement of legislative findingsin the 6.S. )ederal Subversive
Activities Control Actof $%#' 8that "Communist-action organiations" are controlledby the
foreign government controlling the worldCommunist movement and that they operate
primarily to"advance the ob3ectives of such world Communist movement"9,the 6.S.
Supreme Court said0
*t is not for the courts to reeEamine the validity of theselegislative findings and re3ect
them....+hey are the productof eEtensive investigation by Committes of Congress over
morethan a decade and a half. Cf. .ebbia v. .ew @ork, /%$ 6.S.#'/, #$1, #D'. ;e
certainly cannot dismiss them as unfoundedirrational imaginings. ... And if we accept
them, as we mustas a not unentertainable appraisal by Congress of the threatwhich
Communist organiations pose not only to eEisting governmentin the 6nited States, but
to the 6nited States as asovereign, independent .ation. ...we must recognie that
thepower of Congress to regulate Communist organiations of thisnature is
eEtensive.
39
+his statement, mutatis mutandis, may be said of thelegislative findings articulated in the
Anti-Subversion Act.
+hat the -overnment has a right to protect itself againstsubversion is a proposition too plain
to re<uire elaboration.Self-preservation is the "ultimate value" of society. *t surpasses and
transcendes every other value, "forif a society cannot protect its very structure from
armedinternal attack, ...no subordinate value can be protected"
47
As Chief ,ustice Binson
so aptly said in Dennis +s. 0nited States0
41
;hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argumentthat there is a 7right7
to rebellion against dictatorial governmentsis without force where the eEisting
structure of government provides for peaceful and orderly change. ;e
re3ectany principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparationfor
revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion,must lead to
anarchy. .o one could conceive that it isnot within the power of Congress to
prohibit acts intended tooverthrow the government by force and violence.
/. >y carefully delimiting the reach of the Act to conduct 8as eEplicitly described in sectin (
thereof9, Congressreaffirmed its respect for the rule that "even throughthe governmental
purpose be legitimate and substantial,that purpose cannot be pursued by means that
broadly stiflefundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly
achieved."
42
+he re<uirement of kno'ing membership,as distinguished
from nominalmembership, hasbeen held as a sufficient basis for penaliing membershipin a
subversive organiation.
43
)or, as has been stated0
"embership in an organiation renders aid and encouragement to the organiation: and
when membership is acceptedor retained with knowledge that the organiation is
engaged inan unlawful purpose, the one accepting or retaining membershipwith such
knowledge makes himself a party to the unlawfulenterprise in which it is engaged.
44
D. +he argument that the Act is unconstitutionallyoverbroad because section / merely
speaks of "overthrow"of the -overnment and overthrow may be achieved
by peaceful means, misconceives the function of the phrase"knowingly, willfully and by overt
acts" in section (. Section / is merely a legislative declaration: the definitionsof and the
penalties prescribed for the different acts prescribedare stated in section ( which re<uires
that membershipin the Communist Party of the Philippines, to be unlawful, must be ac<uired
"knowingly, willfully and by overt acts." *ndeed, the first "whereas" clause makes clear
thatthe overthrow contemplated is "overthrow not only by forceand violence but also be
deceit, subversion and other illegalmeans." +he absence of this <ualificatio in section /
appearsto be due more to an oversight rather than to deliberateomission.
"oreover, the word "overthrow7 sufficiently connotesthe use of violent and other illegal
means. !nly in a metaphoricalsense may one speak of peaceful overthrow ofgovernments,
and certainly the law does not speak in metaphors.*n the case of the Anti-Subversion Act,
the use ofthe word "overthrow" in a metaphorical sense is hardlyconsistent with the clearly
delineated ob3ective of the "overthrow,"namely, "establishing in the Philippines a
totalitarianregime and place FsicG the -overnment under thecontrol and domination of an
alien power." ;hat thisCourt once said in a prosecution for sedition is appropos0 "+he
language used by the appellant clearly imported anoverthrow of the -overnment by
violence, and it should beinterpreted in the plain and obvious sense in which it wasevidently
intended to be understood. +he word 7overthrow7could not have been intended as referring
to an ordinarychange by the eEercise of the elective franchise. +he useof the whip Fwhich
the accused eEhorted his audience to useagainst the ConstabularyG, an instrument
designed toleave marks on the sides of adversaries, is inconsistentwith the mild
interpretation which the appellant wouldhave us impute to the language."
45
I1. Te !ct and te .uaranty of Free 2$pression
As already pointed out, the Act is aimed against conspiracies to overthrow the -overnment
by force, violence orother illegal means. ;hatever interest in freedom of speechand
freedom of association is infringed by the prohibitionagainst knowing membership in the
Communist Party ofthe Philippines, is so indirect and so insubstantial as to beclearly and
heavily outweighed by the overriding considerationsof national security and the
preservartion of democraticinstitutions in his country.
+he membership clause of the 6.S. )ederal Smith Actis similar in many respects to the
membership provision ofthe Anti-Subversion Act. +he former provides0
;hoever organies or helps or attempts to organie anysociety, group, or
assembly of persons who teach, advocate, orencourage the overthrow or
destruction of any such governmentby force or violence: or becomes or is a
member of, or affiliatedwith, any such society, group or assembly of persons,
knowingthe purpose thereof H
Shall be fined not more than I/',''' or imprisoned notmore than twenty years, or both,
and shall be ineligible for emplymentby the 6nited States or any department or
agencythereof, for the five years neEt following his conviction....
46
*n sustaining the validity of this provision, the "Court said in Scales +s. 0nited States0
47
*t was settled in Dennis that advocacy with which we arehere concerned is
not constitutionally protected speech, and itwas further established that a
combination to promote suchadvocacy, albeit under the aegis of what
purports to be a politicalparty, is not such association as is protected by the
firstAmendment. ;e can discern no reason why membership, whenit
constitutes a purposeful form of complicity in a group engagingin this same
forbidden advocacy, should receive anygreater degree of protection from the
guarantees of that Amendment.
"oreover, as was held in another case, where the problemsof accommodating the
eEigencies of self-preservationand the values of liberty are as compleE and intricate as inthe
situation described in the legislative findings stated inthe 6.S. )ederal Subversive Activities
Control Act of $%#',the legislative 3udgment as to how that threat may best bemet
consistently with the safeguards of personal freedomsis not to be set aside merely because
the 3udgment of 3udgeswould, in the first instance, have chosen other methods.
46
)or in
truth, legislation, "whether it restrains freedom tohire or freedom to speak, is itself an effort
at compromisebetween the claims of the social order and individual freedom,and when the
legislative compromise in either case isbrought to the 3udicial test the court stands one step
removedfrom the conflict and its resolution through law."
49
1. Te !ct and its Title
+he respondent +ayag invokes the constitutional commandthat "no bill which may be
enacted into law shall embrace more than one sub3ect which shall be eEpressed in the title
of the bill."
57
;hat is assailed as not germane to or embraced in thetitle of the Act is the last proviso of
section ( which reads0
!nd pro+ided& finally, +hat one who conspires with anyother person to
overthrow the -overnment of the =epublic ofthe Philippines, or the
government of any of its political subdivisionsby force, violence, deceit,
subversion or illegal means,for the purpose of placing such -overnment or
political subdivisionunder the control and domination of any lien power,
shallbe punished by prision correccional to prision mayor with allthe
accessory penalties provided therefor in the same code.
*t is argued that the said proviso, in reality, punishes notonly membership in the Communist
Party of the Philippinesor similar associations, but as well "any conspiracyby two persons to
overthrow the national or any local governmentby illegal means, even if their intent is not to
establisha totalitarian regime, burt a democratic regime, evenif their purpose is not to place
the nation under an aliencommunist power, but under an alien democratic power likethe
6nited States or ?ngland or "alaysia or even an anti-communistpower like Spain, ,apan,
+hailand or +aiwanor *ndonesia."
+he Act, in addition to its main title 8"An Act to !utlawthe Communist Party of the
Philippines and SimilarAssociations, Penaliing "embership +herein, and for!ther
Purposes"9, has a short title. Section $ providesthat "+his Act shall be known as the
Anti-Subversion Act."+ogether with the main title, the short title of the statuteune<uivocally
indicates that the sub3ect matter is subversionin general which has for its fundamental
purpose the substitutionof a foreign totalitarian regime in place of theeEisting -overnment
and not merely subversion by Communistconspiracies..
+he title of a bill need not be a catalogue or an indeEof its contents, and need not recite the
details of the Act.
51
*t is a valid title if it indicates in broad but clear termsthe nature, scope,
and conse<uences of the proposed lawand its operation.
52
A narrow or technical
construction isto be avoided, and the statute will be read fairly and reasonablyin order not to
thwart the legislative intent. ;e holdthat the Anti-Subversion Act fully satisfies these
re<uirements.
1I. Conclusion and .uidelines
*n conclusion, even as we uphold the validity of theAnti-Subversion Act, we cannot
overemphasie the needfor prudence and circumspection in its enforcement, operatingas it
does in the sensitive area of freedom of eEpressionand belief. Accordingly, we set the
following (asic guidelines to be observed in any prosecution under the Act.+he
-overnment, in addition to proving such circumstancesas may affect liability, must establish
the following elementsof the crime of 3oining the Communist Party of the Philippinesor any
other subversive association0
8$9 *n the case of subversive organiations other thanthe Communist Party of the
Philippines, 8a9 that thepurpose of the organiation is to overthrow the present-overnment
of the Philippines and to establish in thiscountry a totalitarian regime under the domination
of aforeign power: 8b9 that the accused 3oined such organiation:and 8c9 that he did so
knowingly, willfully and byovert acts: and
8/9 *n the case of the Communist Party of the Philippines,8a9 that the CPP continues to
pursue the ob3ectiveswhich led Congress in $%#& to declare it to be an organiedconspiracy
for the overthrow of the -overnment by illegalmeans for the purpose of placing the country
under thecontrol of a foreign power: 8b9 that the accused 3oined theCPP: and 8c9 that he did
so willfully, knowingly and byovert acts.
;e refrain from making any pronouncement as to thecrime or remaining a member of the
Communist Party ofthe Philippines or of any other subversive association0 weleave this
matter to future determination.
ACC!=2*.-A@, the <uestioned resolution of September$#, $%&' is set aside, and these
two cases are herebyremanded to the court a <uo for trial on the merits. Costs de oficio.
Makalintal& ,aldi+ar& Teeankee& "arredo and 2sguerra& JJ.& concur.
Concepcion& C.J.& concurs in te result.
Makasiar and !ntonio& JJ.& took no part.



Se&%r%'e O&"#"o#s

FERN2NDO, J., dissenting0
*t is with regard that * find myself unable to 3oin therest of my brethren in the decision
reached upholding thevalidity of the Anti-Subversion Act.
1
*t is to be admittedthat the
learned and scholarly opinbion of ,ustice Castro hasthe impress of conscientious and
painstaking scrutiny ofthe constitutional issues raised. ;hat is more, the stressin the
concluding portion thereof on basic guidelines thatwill assure in the trial of those prosecuted
under suchAct respect for their constitutional rights is to be commended..onetheless, my
own reading of the decisionscited, interpreting the bill of attainder clause
2
coupled withthe
fears, perhaps induced by a too-latitudinarian constructionof the guarantees of freedom of
belief and eEpression
3
as well as freedom of association
4
as to impermissible inroadsto
which they may be eEposed, compels a differentconclusion. 4ence this dissent.
$. +here is to be sure no thought on my part that thee<ually pressing concern of state safety
and security shouldbe ignored. +he political branches of the governmentwould lay
themselves oepn to a 3ustifiable indictment fornegligence had they been remiss in their
obligation tosafeguard the nation against its sworn enemies. *n a simplerera, where the
overthrow of the government wasusually through the rising up in arms, with weapons farless
sophisticated than those now in eEistence, there wasno constitutional issue of the
magnitude that now confrontsus. )orce has to be met with force. *t was as clearcutas that.
Advances in science as well as more subtlemethods of inducing disloyalty and weakening
the senseof allegiance have introduced compleEities in coping withsuch problems. +here
must be then, and * am the firstto recognie it, a greater understanding for the
governmentalresponde to situations of that character. *t is inthat light that the validity of the
Anti-Subversion Act isto be appraised. )rom ny standpoint, and * am not
presumptuousenough to claim that it is the only perspectiveor that is the most realistic, * feel
that there was an insufficientappreciation of the compulsion of the constitutionalcommands
against bills of attainder and abridgmentof free speech. * am comforted by the thought that
evenhad my view prevailed, all that it would mean is that anew legislation, more in
comformity to my way of thinkingto what is ordained by the fundamental law, wouldhave to
be enacted. .o valid fear need be entertained thenthat a setback would be occasioned to
legitilate state effortsto stem the tide of subversive activities, in whateverform manifested.
/. +he starting point in any in<uiry as to the significanceof the bill of attainder clause is the
meaning attachedto it by the Constitutional Convention of $%D( and by the people who
adopted it. As was eEplained by the then 2elegate, later ,ustice, ,ose P. Aaurel in his
address on .ovember$%, $%D( as Chairman of the Committee on the >ill of =ights <uoted
in the opinion of the Court0 "A billof attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without 3udicial trial. 8Cummings v. 6nited States, (;all. /&&, $J A ed D#19. *n ?ngland, the
>ill of Attainder was an act of Parliament by which a man was tried, convictedand
sentenced to death without a 3ury, without ahearing in court, without hearing the witnesses
againsthim and without regard to the rules of evidence. 4is bloodwas attainted or corrupted,
rendering him devoid of allheritable <uality H of ac<uiring and disposing property
bydescent. 82$ parte -arland, ( ;all. DDD, $J A ed. D119 *f the penalty imposed was less
than death, the act wasknown as a 7bill of pains and penalties.7 >ills of attainder, like e$ post
facto laws, were favorite methods of Stuartoppression. !nce, the name of +homas
,efferson was includedin a bill of attainder presented to Parliament becauseof his reform
activities."
5
+wo American SupremeCourt decision were thus in the minds of the
framers.+hey are Cummings v. "issouri
6
and 2$ parte -arland.
7
+hey speak
une<uivocally. Aegislative acts, no matter whattheir form, that apply either to named
individuals or easilyascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflicton them
punishment amounting to a deprivation ofany right, civil or political, without 3udicial trial are
billsof attainder prohibited by the Constitution.
6
Cummings v. "issouri
9
was a criminal prosecution ofa Catholic priest for refusing to take
the loyalty oath re<uiredby the state Constitution of "issouri of $J1#. 6ndersuch a
provision, lawyers, doctors, ministers, and otherprofessionals must disavow that they had
ever, "by act orword," manifested a "desire" for the success of the nation7senemies or a
sympathy" with the rebels of the AmericanCivil ;ar. *f they swore falsely, they were guilty of
per3ury.*f they engaged in their professions without theoath, they were criminally liable. +he
6nited States Supreme Court condemned the provision as a bill of attainder,identified as
any legislative act inflicting punishment without3udicial trial. +he deprivation of any right, civil
orpolitical, previously en3oyed, amounted to a punishment.;hy such a conclusion was
unavoidable was eEplained inthe opinion of ,ustice )ield thus0 "A bill of attainder isa
legislative act, which inflicts punishment without a 3udicialtrial. *f the punishment be less
than death, the actis termed a bill of pains and penalties. ;ithin the meaningof the
Constitution, bills of attainder include bills ofpains and penalties. *n these cases the
legislative body, inaddition to its legitimate functions, eEercises the powersand office of
3udge: it assumes, in the language of theteEtbooks, 3udicial magistracy: it pronounces upon
theguilt of the party, without any of the forms or safeguardsof trial: it determines the
sufficiency of the proofs produced,whether conformable to the rules of evidence
orotherwise: and it fiEes the degree of punishment in accordancewith its own notions of the
enormity of the offense. ... *f the clauses of the /d article of the Constitutionof "issouri, to
which we have referred, had in termsdeclared that "r. Cummings was guilty, or should be
heldguilty, of having been in armed hostility to the 6nitedStates, or of having entered that
state to avoid beingenrolled or drafted into the military service of the 6nitedStates, and,
therefore, should be deprived of the right topreach as a priest of the Catholic church, or to
teach inany institution of learning, there could be no <uestion thatthe clauses would
constitute a bill of attainder within themeaning of the )ederal Constitution. *f these clauses,
insteadof mentioning his name, had declared that all priestsand clergymen within the state
of "issouri were guiltyof these acts, or should be held guilty of them, and hencebe
sub3ected to the like deprivation, the clause would bee<ually open to ob3ection. And further,
it these clauseshad declared that all such priests and clergymen shouldbe so held guilty,
and be thus deprived, provided they didnot, by a day designated, do certain specified acts,
theywould be no less within the inhibition of the )ederal Constitution.*n all these cases there
would be the legislativeenactment creating the deprivation, without any of theordinary forms
and guards provided for the security ofthe citien in the administration of 3ustice by the
establishedtribunales."
17
!n the very same day that the ruling in Cummings washanded down, 2$
parte -arland
11
was also decided. +hatwas a motion for leave to practrice as an attorney
beforethe American Supreme Court. Petitioner -arland wasadmitted to such bar at the
2ecember term of $J1'. 6nderthe previous rules of such Court, all that was necessarywas
that the applicant have three years practice in the statecourts to which he belonged. *n
"arch $J1#, the rule waschanged by the addition of a clause re<uiring that an oathbe taken
under the Congressional acts of $J1/ and $J1#to the effect that such candidate for
admission to the barhad never voluntarily borne arms against the 6nitedStates. Petitioner
-arland could not in conscience subscribeto such an oath, but he was able to show a
presidentialpardon eEtended on ,uly $#, $J1#. ;ith such actof clemency, he moved that he
be allowed to continue inpractice contending that the test oath re<uirement
wasunconstitutional as a bill of attainder and that at any rate,he was pardoned. +he same
ruling was announced by theCourt again through ,ustice )ield. +hus0 "*n the eEclusionwhich
the statute ad3udges, it imposes a punishmentfor some of the acts specified which were not
punishableat the time they were committedl: and for other of the actsit adds a new
punishment to that before prescribed, andit is thus brought within the further inhibition of the
Consitutionagainst the passage of an e$ post facto law. *nthe case of Cummings +.
Missouri, 3ust decided, ... wehave had occasion to consider at length the meaning of abill of
attainder and of an e$ post facto law in the clauseof the Constitution forbidding their
passage by the states,and it is unnecessary to repeat here what we there said.A like
prohibition is contained in the Constitution againstenactments of this kind by Congress: and
the argumentpresented in that case against certain clauses of the Constitutionof "issouri is
e<ually applicable to the act ofCongress under consideration in this case."
12
+here was a reiteration of the Cummings and -arlanddoctrine in 6nited States v.
Aovett,
13
decided in $%(1.+here it was shown that in $%(D the respondents, Aovett,;atson,
and 2odd, were and had been for several yearsworking for the government. +he
government agencies,which had lawfully employed them, were fully satisfiedwith the <uality
of their work and wished to keep thememployed on their 3obs. !ver their protest, Congress
providedin Section D'( of the 6rgent 2eficiency AppropriationAct of $%(D, by way of an
amendment attached to the4ouse >ill, that after .ovember $#, $%(D, no salary
orcompensation should be paid respondent out of any moneythen or thereafter appropriated
eEcept for services as 3urorsor members of the armed forces, unless they wereprior to
.ovember $#, $%(D, again appointed to 3obs bythe President with the advide and consent of
the Senate..otwithstanding such Congressional enactment, and thefailure of the President
to reappoint the respondents, theagencies, kept all the respondents at work on their 3obs
forvarying periods after .ovember $#, $%(D, but their compensationwas discontinued after
that date. =espondentsbrought this action in the Court of Claims for the salariesto which
they felt entitled. +he Ameican Supreme Courtstated that its in<uiry was thus confined to
whether theaction in the light of proper construction of the Act presenteda 3ustificiable
controversy, and, if so, whether SectionD'( is a bill of attainder insofar as the respondents
wereconcerned.
After holding that there was a 3uditiciable, view theAmerican Supreme Court in an opinion
by ,ustice >lackcategorically affirmed0 ";e hold that Section D'( fallsprecisely within the
category of Congressional actionswhich the Constitution barred by providing that 7.o >illof
Attainder or eE post Aaw shall be passed.7 *nCummings v. State of "issouri, ... this Court
said, 7Abill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishmentwithout a 3udicial trial. *f
the punishment be lessthan death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties.;ithin the
meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainderinclude bills of pains and penalties.7 ... !n the
sameday the Cummings case was decided, the Court, in ?Eparte -arland, also held invalid
on the same grounds anAct of Congress which re<uired attorneys practicing beforethis
Court to take a similar oath. .either of thesecases has ever been overruled. +hey stand for
the propositionthat legislative acts, no matter what their form,that apply either to named
individuals or to easily ascertainablemembers of a group in such a way as to
inflictpunishment on them without a 3udicial trial are billsof attainder prohibited by the
Constitution. Adherenceto this principle re<uires invalidation of Section D'(. ;edo adhere
to it."
14
6nited States v. >rown
15
a $%1# decision was the firstcase to review a conviction under the
Aabor-"anagement=eporting and 2isclosure Act of $%#%, making it a crimefor a member of
the Communist Party to serve as anofficer ir, eEcept in clerical or custodial positions,
anemployee of a labor union. =espondent >rown, a longshoremanon the San )rancisco
docks, and an open andavowed Communist, for more than a <uarter of a centurywas
elected to the ?Eecutive >oard of Aocal $' of the*nternational Aongshoremen7s and
;arehousemen7s 6nionfor consecutive one-year terms in $%#%, $%1', and $%1$.!n "ay
/(, $%1$, respondent was charged in a one-countindictment returned in a district court of
California withservicing as a member of an eEecutive board of a labororganiation while a
member of the Communist Party, inwillful violation of the above provision. +he <uestion ofits
validity under the bill of attainder clause was thusproperly raised for ad3udication. ;hile
convicted in thelower court, the Court of Appeals for the .inth Circuitreversed. *t was
sustained by the American SupremeCourt. As noted in the opinion by Chief ,ustice
;arren,"the wide variation in form, purpose and effect of ante-Constitutionbills of attainder
indicates that the properscope of the >ill of Attainder Clause, and its relevance
tocontemporary problems, must ultimately be sought by attemptingto discern the reasons
for its inclusion in theConstitution, and the evils it was desinged to eliminate.+he best
available evidence, the writings of the architectsof our constitutional system, indicates that
the >ill ofAttainder Clause was inteded not as a narrow, technical8and therefore soon to be
outmoded9 prohibition, but ratheras an implementation of the separation of powers,
ageneral safeguard against legislative eEercise of the 3udicialfunction, or more simply H trial
by legislature."
16
+hen after referring to Cummings, -arland, and Aovett,Chief ,ustice
;arren continued0 "6nder the line of cases3ust outlined, Sec. #'( of the Aabor "anagement
=eportingand 2isclosure Act plainly constitutes a bill of attainder. Congress undoubtedly
possesses power under theCommerce Clause to enact legislation designed to keepfrom
positions affecting interstate commerce persons whomay use such positions to bring about
political strikes. *n Sec. #'(, however, Congress has eEceeded the authoritygranted it by the
Constitution. +he statute does not setforth a generally applicable rule decreeing that any
personwho commits certain acts or possesses certain characteristics 8acts and
characteristics whhich, in Congress7view, make them likely to initiate political strikes9
shallnot hold union office, and leave to courts and 3uries the3ob of deciding what persons
have committed the specifiedacts or possessed the specified characteristics. *nstead,it
designates in no uncertain terms the personswho possess the fearec characteristics and
therefore cannothold union office without incurring criminal liability H members of the
Communist Party."
17
?ven Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control>oard,
16
where the provision of the
Subversive ActivitiesControl Act of $%#' re<uiring the Communist Party ofthe 6nited States
to register was sustained, the opinionof ,ustice )rankfurter for the Court, speaking for a
five-manma3ority, did indicate adherence to the Cummingsprinciple. 4ad the American
Communist Party been outlawed,the outcome certainly would have been different.+hus0
"+he Act is not a bill of attainder. *t attaches notto specified organiations but to described
activities inwhich an organiation may or may not engage. +he singlingout of an individual
for legislatively prescribed punishmentconstitutes an attainder whether the individualis
called by name or described in terms of conduct which,because it is past conduct, operates
only as a designationof particular persons. ... +he Subversive Activities ControlAct is not of
that king. *t re<uires the registrationonly of organiations which, after the date of the Act,are
found to be under the direction, domination, or controlof certain foreign powers and to
operate primarily toadvance certain ob3ectives. +his finding must be madeafter full
administrative hearing, sub3ect to 3udicial reviewwhich opens the record for the reviewing
court7sdetermination whether the administrative findings as tofact are supported by the
preponderance of the evidence.Present activity constitutes an operative element to
whichthe statute attaches legal conse<uences, not merely a pointof reference for the
ascertainment of particularly personsineluctably designated by the legislature."
19
+he teaching of the above cases, which * find highlypersuasive considering what appeared
to be in the mindsof the framers of the $%D( Constitutional Conventionyields for me the
conclusion that the Anti-SubversionAct falls within the ban of the bill of attainder clause.
*tshould be noted that three subse<uent cases upholding theCummings and -arland
doctrine were likewise cited in theopinion of the Court. +he interpretation accorded to
themby my brethren is, of course, different but * am unable togo along with them especially
in the light of the categoricallanguage appearing in Aovett. +his is not to lose sightof the
<ualification that for them could deprive such aholding of its eEplicit character as shown by
this eEcerptfrom the opinion of the Court0 "*ndeed, were the Anti-SubversionAct a bill of
attainder it would be totally unnecessaryto charge communists in court, as the law
alone,without more, would suffice to secure their conviction andpunishment. >ut the fact is
that their guilt still has to be3udicially estblished. +he -overnment has yet to proveat the trial
that the accused 3oined the Party knowingly,willfully and by overt acts, and that they 3oined
the Partyknowing its subversive character and with specific intentto further its ob3ective, i.e.,
to overthrow the eEisting -overnmentby force, deceit, and other illegal means and placeit
under the control and domination of a foreign power. /';hile not implausible, * find difficulty
in yielding acceptance.*n Cummings, there was a criminal prosecution ofthe Catholic priest
who refused to take the loyalty oath.Again in >rown, there was an indictment of the
laborleader who, 3udging by his membership in the CommunistParty, did transgress the
statutory provision subse<uentlyfound offensive to the bill attainder clause. *f the
construction* would place on theoff-repeated pronouncementof the American Supreme
Court is correct, then the merefact that a criminal case would have to be instituted wouldnot
save the statute. *t does seem clear to me that fromthe very title of the Anti-Subversion Act,
"to outlaw the Communist Party of the Philippines and similar associations,"not to mention
other specific provisions, the taintof invalidity is <uite marked. 4ence, my inability to
concurin the 3udgment reached as the statute not suffering fromany fatal infirmity in view of
the Constitutional prohibitionagainst bills of attainder.
D. +his brings me to the <uestion of the alleged repugnancyof the Anti-Subversion Act to the
intellectual libertysafeguarded by the Constitution in terms of the free speechand free
assocition guarantees.
21
*t is to be admitted thatat the time of the enactment of =epublic Act
.o. $&'',the threat that Communism, the =ussian brand then, didpose was a painful reality
for Congressional leaders andthe then President. *ts shadow fell s<uarely across thelives of
all. Subversion then could neither be denied notdisparaged. +here was, in the eEpert
opinion of those conversantwith such mattes, a danger to out national eEistenceof no mean
character. .onetheless, the remedies toward off such menace must not be repugnant to our
Constitution.;e are legally precluded from acting in anyother way. +he apprehension 3ustly
felt is no warrant forthrowing to the discard fundamental guarantees. Bigilantwe had to be,
but not at the eEpense of constitutional ideals.
!ne of them, certainly highly-pried of the utmost significance,is the right to dissent. !ne
can differ, evenob3ect: one can eEpress dissatisfaction with things as theyare. +here are
timew when one not only can but must.Such dissent can take the form of the most critical
andthe most disparaging remarks. +hey may give offense tothose in authority, to those who
wield powe and influence..evertheless, they are entitled to constitutional protection.*nsofar
as the content of such dissent is concerned, thelimits are hardly discernible. *t cannot be
confined totrivial matters or to such as are devoid of too much significance.*t can reach the
heart of things. Such dissentmay, for those not so adventurous in the realm of
ideas,possess a subversive tinge. ?ven those who oppose a democraticform of government
cannot be silenced. +his is trueespecially in centers of learning where scholars competentin
their line may, as a result of their studies, assert thata future is bleak for the system of
government now favoredby ;estern democracies. +here may be doubts entertainedby
some as to the lawfulness of their eEercisingthis right to dissent to the point of advocary of
such adrastic change. Any citien may do so without fear thatthereby he incurs the risk of a
penal sanction. +hat ismerely to affirm the truth of this ringing declaration from,efferson0 "*f
there be any among us who would wish todissolve this union or to change its republican
form, letthem stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety withwhich error of opinion may
be tolerated where reason isleft free to combat it."
22
As was so well put by the
philosopher,Sidney 4ook0 ";ithout holding the right to theeEpression of heresy at any time
and place to be absolute H for even the right to non-heretical speech cannot beabsolute H
it still seems wise to tolerate the eEpression evenof Communist, fascist and other heresies,
lest in outlawingthem we include other kings of heresies, and deprive ourselvesof the
opportunity to ac<uite possibly sounder ideasthan our own."
23
+he line is to be drawn, however, where the wordsamount to an incitement to commit the
crime of seditionor rebellion. +he state has been reached, to follow theformulation of
Cardoo, where thought merges into action.+hus is loyalty shown to the freedom of speech
or pressordained by the Constitution. *t does not bar the eEpressionof views affecting the
very life of the state, even ifopposed to its fundamental presuppositions. *t allows, ifit does
not re<uire as a matter of fact, that unorthodoEideas be freely ventilated and fully heard.
2issent is notdisloyalty.
Such an approach is reinforced by the well-settled constitutionalprinciple "that even though
the governmental purposesbe legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursuedby means
that broadly stifle fundamental personalliberties when the end can be more narrowly
achieved.)or precision of regulation is the touchstone in an areaso closely related to our
most precious freedoms."
24
+his is so for "a governmental purpose to control or prevent
activities constitutionally sub3ect to state regulation may notbe achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broadlyand thereby invade the area of protected freedoms."
25
*t
isindispensable then that "an over breadth" in the applicabilityof the statute be avoided. *f
such be the case, then theline dividing the valid from the constitutionally infirm hasbeen
crossed. +hat for me is the conclusion to be drawnfrom the wording of the Anti-Subversion
Act.
+here is to my mind support for the stand * take inthe dissent of ,ustice >lack in the
Communist Party casediscussed above. ;hat is to be kept in view is that a
legislativemeasure certainly less drastic in its treatment ofthe admittedly serious Communist
problem was found inthe opinion of this noted 3urist offensive to the )irstAmendment of the
American Constitution safeguardingfree speech. +hus0 "*f there is one thing certain aboutthe
)irst Amendment it is that this Amendment was designedto guarantee the freest interchange
of ideas aboutall public matters and that, of course, means the interchangeof all ideas,
however such ideas may be viewed inother countries and whatever change in the eEisting
structureof government it may be hoped that these ideas willbring about. .ow, when this
country is trying to spreadthe high ideals of democracy all over the world H ideals that are
revolutionary in many countries H seems to be aparticularly inappropriate time to stifle )irst
Amendmentfreedoms in this country. +he same arguments that areused to 3ustify the
outlawry of Communist ideas here couldbe used to 3ustify an outlawry of the ideas of
democracyin other countries."
26
)urther he stated0 "* believe with the)ramers of the )irst
Amendment that the internal securityof a nation like ours does not and cannot be made
todepend upon the use of force by -overnment to make allthe beliefs and opinions of the
people fit into a commonmold on any single sub3ect. Such enforced conformity ofthought
would tend only to deprive our people of the boldspirit of adventure and progress which has
brought this.ation to its present greatness. +he creation of publicopinion by groups,
organiations, societies, clubs, and partieshas been and is a necessary part of our
democraticsociety. Such groups, like the Sons of Aiberty and theAmerican Corresponding
Societies, played a large part increating sentiment in this country that led the people ofthe
Colonies to want a nation of their own. +he )ather ofthe Constitution H ,ames "adison H
said, in speakingof the Sedition Act aimed at crushing the ,efferson Party,that had that law
been in effect during the period beforethe =evolution, the 6nited States might well have
continuedto be 7miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke.7*n my 3udgment, this
country7s internal security can betterbe served by depending upon the affection of the
peoplethan by attempting to instill them with fear and dreadof the power of -overnment.
+he Communist Party hasnever been more than a small group in this country. Andits
numbers had been dwindling even before the -overnmentbegan its campaign to destroy
the Party by force oflaw. +his was because a vast ma3ority of the Americanpeople were
against the Party7s policies and overwhelminglyre3ected its candidates year after year. +hat
is the trueAmerican way of securing this .ation against dangerousideas. !f course that is
not the way to protect the .ationagainst actions of violence and treason. +he )oundersdrew
a distinction in our Constitution which we would bewise to follow. +hey gave the
-overnment the fullest powerto prosecute overt actions in violation of valid lawsbut withheld
any power to punish people for nothing morethan advocacy of their views."
27
;ith the sentiments thus eEpressed uppermost in mymind and congenial to my way of
thinking, * cannot sharethe conclusion reached by my breathren as to the Anti-Subversion
Act successfully meeting the test of validity onfree speech and freedom of association
grounds.
(. *t could be that this approach to the constitutional<uestions involved arises from an
appraisal of the challengedstatute which for me is susceptible of an interpretationthat it does
represent a defeatist attitude on thepart of those of us, who are devotees at the shrine of
aliberal-democratic state. +hat certainly could not havebeen the thought of its framers:
nonetheless, such an assumptionis not devoid of plausibility for why resort tothis eEtreme
measure susceptible as it is to what apparentlyare not unfounded attacks on constitutional
groundsK*s this not to ignore what previously was accepted as anobvious truth, namely that
the light of liberalism sendsits shafts in many directionsK *t can illuminate, and itcan win the
hearts and minds of men. *t if difficult forme to accept the view then that a resort to outlawry
isindispensable, that suppression is the only answer to whatis an admitted evil. +here could
have been a greater eEposureof the undesirability of the communist creed, itscontradictions
and arbitrarines, its lack of fealty to reason,its inculcation of disloyalty, and its subservience
tocentralied dictation that brooks no opposition. *t is thus,in a realistic sense, a
manifestation of the fear of freethought and the will to suppress it. )or better, of course,is
the propaganda of the deed. ;hat the communists promise,this government can fulfill. *t is
up to it then to takeremedial measures to alleviate the condition of our countrymenwhose
lives are in a condition of destitution andmisery. *t may not be able to change matters
radically.At least, it should take earnest steps in that direction.;hat is important for those at
the bottom of the economicpyramid is that they are not denied the opportunity for abetter
life. *f they, or at least their children, cannot evenlook forward to that, then a constitutional
regime is nothingbut a mockery and a tragic illusion. Such a response,* am optimistic
enough to believe, has the merit of thinning,if not completely eliminating, the embattled
ranksand outposts of ignorance, fanaticism and error. +hat forme would be more in
accordance with the basic propositionof our polity. +his is not therefore to preach a doctrine
of ob3ect surrender to the forces apparently bent on the adoption of a way of life so totally
opposed to the deeply felt traditions of our people. +his is, for me at least, an affirmation of
the vitality of the democratic creed, with an eEpression of regret that it could not have been
more impressively set forth in language worthy of the sub3ect.
*t is in the light of the views above eEpressed that * find myself unable to yield concurrence
to the ably-written opinion of ,ustice Castro for the Court sustaining the validity of the Anti-
Subversion Act.


Se&%r%'e O&"#"o#s
FERN2NDO, J., dissenting0
*t is with regard that * find myself unable to 3oin therest of my brethren in the decision
reached upholding thevalidity of the Anti-Subversion Act.
1
*t is to be admittedthat the
learned and scholarly opinbion of ,ustice Castro hasthe impress of conscientious and
painstaking scrutiny ofthe constitutional issues raised. ;hat is more, the stressin the
concluding portion thereof on basic guidelines thatwill assure in the trial of those prosecuted
under suchAct respect for their constitutional rights is to be commended..onetheless, my
own reading of the decisionscited, interpreting the bill of attainder clause
2
coupled withthe
fears, perhaps induced by a too-latitudinarian constructionof the guarantees of freedom of
belief and eEpression
3
as well as freedom of association
4
as to impermissible inroadsto
which they may be eEposed, compels a differentconclusion. 4ence this dissent.
$. +here is to be sure no thought on my part that thee<ually pressing concern of state safety
and security shouldbe ignored. +he political branches of the governmentwould lay
themselves oepn to a 3ustifiable indictment fornegligence had they been remiss in their
obligation tosafeguard the nation against its sworn enemies. *n a simplerera, where the
overthrow of the government wasusually through the rising up in arms, with weapons farless
sophisticated than those now in eEistence, there wasno constitutional issue of the
magnitude that now confrontsus. )orce has to be met with force. *t was as clearcutas that.
Advances in science as well as more subtlemethods of inducing disloyalty and weakening
the senseof allegiance have introduced compleEities in coping withsuch problems. +here
must be then, and * am the firstto recognie it, a greater understanding for the
governmentalresponde to situations of that character. *t is inthat light that the validity of the
Anti-Subversion Act isto be appraised. )rom ny standpoint, and * am not
presumptuousenough to claim that it is the only perspectiveor that is the most realistic, * feel
that there was an insufficientappreciation of the compulsion of the constitutionalcommands
against bills of attainder and abridgmentof free speech. * am comforted by the thought that
evenhad my view prevailed, all that it would mean is that anew legislation, more in
comformity to my way of thinkingto what is ordained by the fundamental law, wouldhave to
be enacted. .o valid fear need be entertained thenthat a setback would be occasioned to
legitilate state effortsto stem the tide of subversive activities, in whateverform manifested.
/. +he starting point in any in<uiry as to the significanceof the bill of attainder clause is the
meaning attachedto it by the Constitutional Convention of $%D( and by the people who
adopted it. As was eEplained by the then 2elegate, later ,ustice, ,ose P. Aaurel in his
address on .ovember$%, $%D( as Chairman of the Committee on the >ill of =ights <uoted
in the opinion of the Court0 "A billof attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without 3udicial trial. 8Cummings v. 6nited States, (;all. /&&, $J A ed D#19. *n ?ngland, the
>ill of Attainder was an act of Parliament by which a man was tried, convictedand
sentenced to death without a 3ury, without ahearing in court, without hearing the witnesses
againsthim and without regard to the rules of evidence. 4is bloodwas attainted or corrupted,
rendering him devoid of allheritable <uality H of ac<uiring and disposing property
bydescent. 82$ parte -arland, ( ;all. DDD, $J A ed. D119 *f the penalty imposed was less
than death, the act wasknown as a 7bill of pains and penalties.7 >ills of attainder, like e$ post
facto laws, were favorite methods of Stuartoppression. !nce, the name of +homas
,efferson was includedin a bill of attainder presented to Parliament becauseof his reform
activities."
5
+wo American SupremeCourt decision were thus in the minds of the
framers.+hey are Cummings v. "issouri
6
and 2$ parte -arland.
7
+hey speak
une<uivocally. Aegislative acts, no matter whattheir form, that apply either to named
individuals or easilyascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflicton them
punishment amounting to a deprivation ofany right, civil or political, without 3udicial trial are
billsof attainder prohibited by the Constitution.
6
Cummings v. "issouri
9
was a criminal prosecution ofa Catholic priest for refusing to take
the loyalty oath re<uiredby the state Constitution of "issouri of $J1#. 6ndersuch a
provision, lawyers, doctors, ministers, and otherprofessionals must disavow that they had
ever, "by act orword," manifested a "desire" for the success of the nation7senemies or a
sympathy" with the rebels of the AmericanCivil ;ar. *f they swore falsely, they were guilty of
per3ury.*f they engaged in their professions without theoath, they were criminally liable. +he
6nited States Supreme Court condemned the provision as a bill of attainder,identified as
any legislative act inflicting punishment without3udicial trial. +he deprivation of any right, civil
orpolitical, previously en3oyed, amounted to a punishment.;hy such a conclusion was
unavoidable was eEplained inthe opinion of ,ustice )ield thus0 "A bill of attainder isa
legislative act, which inflicts punishment without a 3udicialtrial. *f the punishment be less
than death, the actis termed a bill of pains and penalties. ;ithin the meaningof the
Constitution, bills of attainder include bills ofpains and penalties. *n these cases the
legislative body, inaddition to its legitimate functions, eEercises the powersand office of
3udge: it assumes, in the language of theteEtbooks, 3udicial magistracy: it pronounces upon
theguilt of the party, without any of the forms or safeguardsof trial: it determines the
sufficiency of the proofs produced,whether conformable to the rules of evidence
orotherwise: and it fiEes the degree of punishment in accordancewith its own notions of the
enormity of the offense. ... *f the clauses of the /d article of the Constitutionof "issouri, to
which we have referred, had in termsdeclared that "r. Cummings was guilty, or should be
heldguilty, of having been in armed hostility to the 6nitedStates, or of having entered that
state to avoid beingenrolled or drafted into the military service of the 6nitedStates, and,
therefore, should be deprived of the right topreach as a priest of the Catholic church, or to
teach inany institution of learning, there could be no <uestion thatthe clauses would
constitute a bill of attainder within themeaning of the )ederal Constitution. *f these clauses,
insteadof mentioning his name, had declared that all priestsand clergymen within the state
of "issouri were guiltyof these acts, or should be held guilty of them, and hencebe
sub3ected to the like deprivation, the clause would bee<ually open to ob3ection. And further,
it these clauseshad declared that all such priests and clergymen shouldbe so held guilty,
and be thus deprived, provided they didnot, by a day designated, do certain specified acts,
theywould be no less within the inhibition of the )ederal Constitution.*n all these cases there
would be the legislativeenactment creating the deprivation, without any of theordinary forms
and guards provided for the security ofthe citien in the administration of 3ustice by the
establishedtribunales."
17
!n the very same day that the ruling in Cummings washanded down, 2$
parte -arland
11
was also decided. +hatwas a motion for leave to practrice as an attorney
beforethe American Supreme Court. Petitioner -arland wasadmitted to such bar at the
2ecember term of $J1'. 6nderthe previous rules of such Court, all that was necessarywas
that the applicant have three years practice in the statecourts to which he belonged. *n
"arch $J1#, the rule waschanged by the addition of a clause re<uiring that an oathbe taken
under the Congressional acts of $J1/ and $J1#to the effect that such candidate for
admission to the barhad never voluntarily borne arms against the 6nitedStates. Petitioner
-arland could not in conscience subscribeto such an oath, but he was able to show a
presidentialpardon eEtended on ,uly $#, $J1#. ;ith such actof clemency, he moved that he
be allowed to continue inpractice contending that the test oath re<uirement
wasunconstitutional as a bill of attainder and that at any rate,he was pardoned. +he same
ruling was announced by theCourt again through ,ustice )ield. +hus0 "*n the eEclusionwhich
the statute ad3udges, it imposes a punishmentfor some of the acts specified which were not
punishableat the time they were committedl: and for other of the actsit adds a new
punishment to that before prescribed, andit is thus brought within the further inhibition of the
Consitutionagainst the passage of an e$ post facto law. *nthe case of Cummings +.
Missouri, 3ust decided, ... wehave had occasion to consider at length the meaning of abill of
attainder and of an e$ post facto law in the clauseof the Constitution forbidding their
passage by the states,and it is unnecessary to repeat here what we there said.A like
prohibition is contained in the Constitution againstenactments of this kind by Congress: and
the argumentpresented in that case against certain clauses of the Constitutionof "issouri is
e<ually applicable to the act ofCongress under consideration in this case."
12
+here was a reiteration of the Cummings and -arlanddoctrine in 6nited States v.
Aovett,
13
decided in $%(1.+here it was shown that in $%(D the respondents, Aovett,;atson,
and 2odd, were and had been for several yearsworking for the government. +he
government agencies,which had lawfully employed them, were fully satisfiedwith the <uality
of their work and wished to keep thememployed on their 3obs. !ver their protest, Congress
providedin Section D'( of the 6rgent 2eficiency AppropriationAct of $%(D, by way of an
amendment attached to the4ouse >ill, that after .ovember $#, $%(D, no salary
orcompensation should be paid respondent out of any moneythen or thereafter appropriated
eEcept for services as 3urorsor members of the armed forces, unless they wereprior to
.ovember $#, $%(D, again appointed to 3obs bythe President with the advide and consent of
the Senate..otwithstanding such Congressional enactment, and thefailure of the President
to reappoint the respondents, theagencies, kept all the respondents at work on their 3obs
forvarying periods after .ovember $#, $%(D, but their compensationwas discontinued after
that date. =espondentsbrought this action in the Court of Claims for the salariesto which
they felt entitled. +he Ameican Supreme Courtstated that its in<uiry was thus confined to
whether theaction in the light of proper construction of the Act presenteda 3ustificiable
controversy, and, if so, whether SectionD'( is a bill of attainder insofar as the respondents
wereconcerned.
After holding that there was a 3uditiciable, view theAmerican Supreme Court in an opinion
by ,ustice >lackcategorically affirmed0 ";e hold that Section D'( fallsprecisely within the
category of Congressional actionswhich the Constitution barred by providing that 7.o >illof
Attainder or eE post Aaw shall be passed.7 *nCummings v. State of "issouri, ... this Court
said, 7Abill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishmentwithout a 3udicial trial. *f
the punishment be lessthan death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties.;ithin the
meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainderinclude bills of pains and penalties.7 ... !n the
sameday the Cummings case was decided, the Court, in ?Eparte -arland, also held invalid
on the same grounds anAct of Congress which re<uired attorneys practicing beforethis
Court to take a similar oath. .either of thesecases has ever been overruled. +hey stand for
the propositionthat legislative acts, no matter what their form,that apply either to named
individuals or to easily ascertainablemembers of a group in such a way as to
inflictpunishment on them without a 3udicial trial are billsof attainder prohibited by the
Constitution. Adherenceto this principle re<uires invalidation of Section D'(. ;edo adhere
to it."
14
6nited States v. >rown
15
a $%1# decision was the firstcase to review a conviction under the
Aabor-"anagement=eporting and 2isclosure Act of $%#%, making it a crimefor a member of
the Communist Party to serve as anofficer ir, eEcept in clerical or custodial positions,
anemployee of a labor union. =espondent >rown, a longshoremanon the San )rancisco
docks, and an open andavowed Communist, for more than a <uarter of a centurywas
elected to the ?Eecutive >oard of Aocal $' of the*nternational Aongshoremen7s and
;arehousemen7s 6nionfor consecutive one-year terms in $%#%, $%1', and $%1$.!n "ay
/(, $%1$, respondent was charged in a one-countindictment returned in a district court of
California withservicing as a member of an eEecutive board of a labororganiation while a
member of the Communist Party, inwillful violation of the above provision. +he <uestion ofits
validity under the bill of attainder clause was thusproperly raised for ad3udication. ;hile
convicted in thelower court, the Court of Appeals for the .inth Circuitreversed. *t was
sustained by the American SupremeCourt. As noted in the opinion by Chief ,ustice
;arren,"the wide variation in form, purpose and effect of ante-Constitutionbills of attainder
indicates that the properscope of the >ill of Attainder Clause, and its relevance
tocontemporary problems, must ultimately be sought by attemptingto discern the reasons
for its inclusion in theConstitution, and the evils it was desinged to eliminate.+he best
available evidence, the writings of the architectsof our constitutional system, indicates that
the >ill ofAttainder Clause was inteded not as a narrow, technical8and therefore soon to be
outmoded9 prohibition, but ratheras an implementation of the separation of powers,
ageneral safeguard against legislative eEercise of the 3udicialfunction, or more simply H trial
by legislature."
16
+hen after referring to Cummings, -arland, and Aovett,Chief ,ustice
;arren continued0 "6nder the line of cases3ust outlined, Sec. #'( of the Aabor "anagement
=eportingand 2isclosure Act plainly constitutes a bill of attainder. Congress undoubtedly
possesses power under theCommerce Clause to enact legislation designed to keepfrom
positions affecting interstate commerce persons whomay use such positions to bring about
political strikes. *n Sec. #'(, however, Congress has eEceeded the authoritygranted it by the
Constitution. +he statute does not setforth a generally applicable rule decreeing that any
personwho commits certain acts or possesses certain characteristics 8acts and
characteristics whhich, in Congress7view, make them likely to initiate political strikes9
shallnot hold union office, and leave to courts and 3uries the3ob of deciding what persons
have committed the specifiedacts or possessed the specified characteristics. *nstead,it
designates in no uncertain terms the personswho possess the fearec characteristics and
therefore cannothold union office without incurring criminal liability H members of the
Communist Party."
17
?ven Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control>oard,
16
where the provision of the
Subversive ActivitiesControl Act of $%#' re<uiring the Communist Party ofthe 6nited States
to register was sustained, the opinionof ,ustice )rankfurter for the Court, speaking for a
five-manma3ority, did indicate adherence to the Cummingsprinciple. 4ad the American
Communist Party been outlawed,the outcome certainly would have been different.+hus0
"+he Act is not a bill of attainder. *t attaches notto specified organiations but to described
activities inwhich an organiation may or may not engage. +he singlingout of an individual
for legislatively prescribed punishmentconstitutes an attainder whether the individualis
called by name or described in terms of conduct which,because it is past conduct, operates
only as a designationof particular persons. ... +he Subversive Activities ControlAct is not of
that king. *t re<uires the registrationonly of organiations which, after the date of the Act,are
found to be under the direction, domination, or controlof certain foreign powers and to
operate primarily toadvance certain ob3ectives. +his finding must be madeafter full
administrative hearing, sub3ect to 3udicial reviewwhich opens the record for the reviewing
court7sdetermination whether the administrative findings as tofact are supported by the
preponderance of the evidence.Present activity constitutes an operative element to
whichthe statute attaches legal conse<uences, not merely a pointof reference for the
ascertainment of particularly personsineluctably designated by the legislature."
19
+he teaching of the above cases, which * find highlypersuasive considering what appeared
to be in the mindsof the framers of the $%D( Constitutional Conventionyields for me the
conclusion that the Anti-SubversionAct falls within the ban of the bill of attainder clause.
*tshould be noted that three subse<uent cases upholding theCummings and -arland
doctrine were likewise cited in theopinion of the Court. +he interpretation accorded to
themby my brethren is, of course, different but * am unable togo along with them especially
in the light of the categoricallanguage appearing in Aovett. +his is not to lose sightof the
<ualification that for them could deprive such aholding of its eEplicit character as shown by
this eEcerptfrom the opinion of the Court0 "*ndeed, were the Anti-SubversionAct a bill of
attainder it would be totally unnecessaryto charge communists in court, as the law
alone,without more, would suffice to secure their conviction andpunishment. >ut the fact is
that their guilt still has to be3udicially estblished. +he -overnment has yet to proveat the trial
that the accused 3oined the Party knowingly,willfully and by overt acts, and that they 3oined
the Partyknowing its subversive character and with specific intentto further its ob3ective, i.e.,
to overthrow the eEisting -overnmentby force, deceit, and other illegal means and placeit
under the control and domination of a foreign power. /';hile not implausible, * find difficulty
in yielding acceptance.*n Cummings, there was a criminal prosecution ofthe Catholic priest
who refused to take the loyalty oath.Again in >rown, there was an indictment of the
laborleader who, 3udging by his membership in the CommunistParty, did transgress the
statutory provision subse<uentlyfound offensive to the bill attainder clause. *f the
construction* would place on theoff-repeated pronouncementof the American Supreme
Court is correct, then the merefact that a criminal case would have to be instituted wouldnot
save the statute. *t does seem clear to me that fromthe very title of the Anti-Subversion Act,
"to outlaw the Communist Party of the Philippines and similar associations,"not to mention
other specific provisions, the taintof invalidity is <uite marked. 4ence, my inability to
concurin the 3udgment reached as the statute not suffering fromany fatal infirmity in view of
the Constitutional prohibitionagainst bills of attainder.
D. +his brings me to the <uestion of the alleged repugnancyof the Anti-Subversion Act to the
intellectual libertysafeguarded by the Constitution in terms of the free speechand free
assocition guarantees.
21
*t is to be admitted thatat the time of the enactment of =epublic Act
.o. $&'',the threat that Communism, the =ussian brand then, didpose was a painful reality
for Congressional leaders andthe then President. *ts shadow fell s<uarely across thelives of
all. Subversion then could neither be denied notdisparaged. +here was, in the eEpert
opinion of those conversantwith such mattes, a danger to out national eEistenceof no mean
character. .onetheless, the remedies toward off such menace must not be repugnant to our
Constitution.;e are legally precluded from acting in anyother way. +he apprehension 3ustly
felt is no warrant forthrowing to the discard fundamental guarantees. Bigilantwe had to be,
but not at the eEpense of constitutional ideals.
!ne of them, certainly highly-pried of the utmost significance,is the right to dissent. !ne
can differ, evenob3ect: one can eEpress dissatisfaction with things as theyare. +here are
timew when one not only can but must.Such dissent can take the form of the most critical
andthe most disparaging remarks. +hey may give offense tothose in authority, to those who
wield powe and influence..evertheless, they are entitled to constitutional protection.*nsofar
as the content of such dissent is concerned, thelimits are hardly discernible. *t cannot be
confined totrivial matters or to such as are devoid of too much significance.*t can reach the
heart of things. Such dissentmay, for those not so adventurous in the realm of
ideas,possess a subversive tinge. ?ven those who oppose a democraticform of government
cannot be silenced. +his is trueespecially in centers of learning where scholars competentin
their line may, as a result of their studies, assert thata future is bleak for the system of
government now favoredby ;estern democracies. +here may be doubts entertainedby
some as to the lawfulness of their eEercisingthis right to dissent to the point of advocary of
such adrastic change. Any citien may do so without fear thatthereby he incurs the risk of a
penal sanction. +hat ismerely to affirm the truth of this ringing declaration from,efferson0 "*f
there be any among us who would wish todissolve this union or to change its republican
form, letthem stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety withwhich error of opinion may
be tolerated where reason isleft free to combat it."
22
As was so well put by the
philosopher,Sidney 4ook0 ";ithout holding the right to theeEpression of heresy at any time
and place to be absolute H for even the right to non-heretical speech cannot beabsolute H
it still seems wise to tolerate the eEpression evenof Communist, fascist and other heresies,
lest in outlawingthem we include other kings of heresies, and deprive ourselvesof the
opportunity to ac<uite possibly sounder ideasthan our own."
23
+he line is to be drawn, however, where the wordsamount to an incitement to commit the
crime of seditionor rebellion. +he state has been reached, to follow theformulation of
Cardoo, where thought merges into action.+hus is loyalty shown to the freedom of speech
or pressordained by the Constitution. *t does not bar the eEpressionof views affecting the
very life of the state, even ifopposed to its fundamental presuppositions. *t allows, ifit does
not re<uire as a matter of fact, that unorthodoEideas be freely ventilated and fully heard.
2issent is notdisloyalty.
Such an approach is reinforced by the well-settled constitutionalprinciple "that even though
the governmental purposesbe legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursuedby means
that broadly stifle fundamental personalliberties when the end can be more narrowly
achieved.)or precision of regulation is the touchstone in an areaso closely related to our
most precious freedoms."
24
+his is so for "a governmental purpose to control or prevent
activities constitutionally sub3ect to state regulation may notbe achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broadlyand thereby invade the area of protected freedoms."
25
*t
isindispensable then that "an over breadth" in the applicabilityof the statute be avoided. *f
such be the case, then theline dividing the valid from the constitutionally infirm hasbeen
crossed. +hat for me is the conclusion to be drawnfrom the wording of the Anti-Subversion
Act.
+here is to my mind support for the stand * take inthe dissent of ,ustice >lack in the
Communist Party casediscussed above. ;hat is to be kept in view is that a
legislativemeasure certainly less drastic in its treatment ofthe admittedly serious Communist
problem was found inthe opinion of this noted 3urist offensive to the )irstAmendment of the
American Constitution safeguardingfree speech. +hus0 "*f there is one thing certain aboutthe
)irst Amendment it is that this Amendment was designedto guarantee the freest interchange
of ideas aboutall public matters and that, of course, means the interchangeof all ideas,
however such ideas may be viewed inother countries and whatever change in the eEisting
structureof government it may be hoped that these ideas willbring about. .ow, when this
country is trying to spreadthe high ideals of democracy all over the world H ideals that are
revolutionary in many countries H seems to be aparticularly inappropriate time to stifle )irst
Amendmentfreedoms in this country. +he same arguments that areused to 3ustify the
outlawry of Communist ideas here couldbe used to 3ustify an outlawry of the ideas of
democracyin other countries."
26
)urther he stated0 "* believe with the)ramers of the )irst
Amendment that the internal securityof a nation like ours does not and cannot be made
todepend upon the use of force by -overnment to make allthe beliefs and opinions of the
people fit into a commonmold on any single sub3ect. Such enforced conformity ofthought
would tend only to deprive our people of the boldspirit of adventure and progress which has
brought this.ation to its present greatness. +he creation of publicopinion by groups,
organiations, societies, clubs, and partieshas been and is a necessary part of our
democraticsociety. Such groups, like the Sons of Aiberty and theAmerican Corresponding
Societies, played a large part increating sentiment in this country that led the people ofthe
Colonies to want a nation of their own. +he )ather ofthe Constitution H ,ames "adison H
said, in speakingof the Sedition Act aimed at crushing the ,efferson Party,that had that law
been in effect during the period beforethe =evolution, the 6nited States might well have
continuedto be 7miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke.7*n my 3udgment, this
country7s internal security can betterbe served by depending upon the affection of the
peoplethan by attempting to instill them with fear and dreadof the power of -overnment.
+he Communist Party hasnever been more than a small group in this country. Andits
numbers had been dwindling even before the -overnmentbegan its campaign to destroy
the Party by force oflaw. +his was because a vast ma3ority of the Americanpeople were
against the Party7s policies and overwhelminglyre3ected its candidates year after year. +hat
is the trueAmerican way of securing this .ation against dangerousideas. !f course that is
not the way to protect the .ationagainst actions of violence and treason. +he )oundersdrew
a distinction in our Constitution which we would bewise to follow. +hey gave the
-overnment the fullest powerto prosecute overt actions in violation of valid lawsbut withheld
any power to punish people for nothing morethan advocacy of their views."
27
;ith the sentiments thus eEpressed uppermost in mymind and congenial to my way of
thinking, * cannot sharethe conclusion reached by my breathren as to the Anti-Subversion
Act successfully meeting the test of validity onfree speech and freedom of association
grounds.
(. *t could be that this approach to the constitutional<uestions involved arises from an
appraisal of the challengedstatute which for me is susceptible of an interpretationthat it does
represent a defeatist attitude on thepart of those of us, who are devotees at the shrine of
aliberal-democratic state. +hat certainly could not havebeen the thought of its framers:
nonetheless, such an assumptionis not devoid of plausibility for why resort tothis eEtreme
measure susceptible as it is to what apparentlyare not unfounded attacks on constitutional
groundsK*s this not to ignore what previously was accepted as anobvious truth, namely that
the light of liberalism sendsits shafts in many directionsK *t can illuminate, and itcan win the
hearts and minds of men. *t if difficult forme to accept the view then that a resort to outlawry
isindispensable, that suppression is the only answer to whatis an admitted evil. +here could
have been a greater eEposureof the undesirability of the communist creed, itscontradictions
and arbitrarines, its lack of fealty to reason,its inculcation of disloyalty, and its subservience
tocentralied dictation that brooks no opposition. *t is thus,in a realistic sense, a
manifestation of the fear of freethought and the will to suppress it. )or better, of course,is
the propaganda of the deed. ;hat the communists promise,this government can fulfill. *t is
up to it then to takeremedial measures to alleviate the condition of our countrymenwhose
lives are in a condition of destitution andmisery. *t may not be able to change matters
radically.At least, it should take earnest steps in that direction.;hat is important for those at
the bottom of the economicpyramid is that they are not denied the opportunity for abetter
life. *f they, or at least their children, cannot evenlook forward to that, then a constitutional
regime is nothingbut a mockery and a tragic illusion. Such a response,* am optimistic
enough to believe, has the merit of thinning,if not completely eliminating, the embattled
ranksand outposts of ignorance, fanaticism and error. +hat forme would be more in
accordance with the basic propositionof our polity. +his is not therefore to preach a doctrine
of ob3ect surrender to the forces apparently bent on the adoption of a way of life so totally
opposed to the deeply felt traditions of our people. +his is, for me at least, an affirmation of
the vitality of the democratic creed, with an eEpression of regret that it could not have been
more impressively set forth in language worthy of the sub3ect.
*t is in the light of the views above eEpressed that * find myself unable to yield concurrence
to the ably-written opinion of ,ustice Castro for the Court sustaining the validity of the Anti-
Subversion Act.
Foo'#o'es
$ =ep. Act. .o. $&'', $/ Aaws L =es. $'/ 8$%#&9. +he teEt of the statute is
hereunder reproduced in full0
"A. AC+ +! !6+AA; +4? C!""6.*S+ PA=+@ !) +4? P4*A*PP*.?S
A.2 S*"*AA= ASS!C*A+*!.S P?.AA*M*.- "?">?=S4*P +4?=?*.,
A.2 )!= !+4?= P6=P!S?S.
";4?=?AS, the Communist Party of the Philippines, although purportedly a
political party, is in fact an organied conspiracy to overthrow the -overnment
of the =epublic of the Philippines not only by force and violence but also by
deceit, subversion and other illegal means, for the purpose of establishing in
the Philippines a totalitarian regime sub3ect to alien domination and control:
";4?=?AS, the continued eEistence and activities of the Communist Party of
the Philippines constitutes a clear, present and grave danger to the security of
the Philippines: and
";4?=?AS, in the face of the organied, systematic and persistent
subversion, national in scope but international in direction, posed by the
Communist Party of the Philippines and its activities, there is urgent need for
special legislation to cope with this continuing menace to the freedom and
security of the country0 .ow, therefore,
""e it enacted (y te Senate and 3ouse of Representati+es of te )ilippines
in Congress assem(led0
"Section $. +his Act shall be known as Anti-Subversion Act.
"Section /. +he Congress hereby declares the Communist Party of the
Philippines to be an organied conspiracy to overthrow the -overnment of
the =epublic of the Philippines for the purpose of establishing in the
Philippines a totalitarian regime and place the -overnment under the control
and domination of an alien power. +he said party and any other organiation
having the same purpose and their successors are hereby declared illegal
and outlawed.
Section D. As used in this Act, the term 7Communist Party of the Philippines7
shall me and and include the organiations now known as the Communist
Party of the Philippines and its military arm, the3uk(ong Mapagpalayang
"ayan, formerly known as 46C>AAA4APS, and any successors of such
organiations.
"Section (. After the approval of this Act, whoever knowingly, willfully and by
overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a member of the
Communist Party of the Philippines and5or its successor or of any subversive
association as defined in section two hereof shall be punished by the penalty
of arresto mayor and shall be dis<ualified permanently from holding any
public office, appointive and elective, and from eEercising the right to vote: in
case of a second conviction, the principal penalty shall be prision
correccional, and in all subse<uent convictions the penalty of prision
mayor shall be imposed: and any alien convicted under this Act shall be
deported immediately after he shall have served the sentence imposed upon
him0 )ro+ided, +hat if such member is an officer or a ranking leader of the
Communist Party of the Philippines or of any subversive association as
defined in section two hereof, or if such member takes up arms against the
-overnment he shall be punished by prision mayor to deal with all the
accessory penalties provided therefor in the =evised Penal Code0 And
provided, finally, +hat one who conspires with any other person to overthrow
the -overnment of the =epublic of the Philippines or the government of any
of its political subdivisions by force, violence, deceit, subversion or other
illegal means, for the purpose of placing such -overnment or political
subdivision under the control and domination of any alien power, shall be
punished by prision correccional to prision mayor with all the accessory
penalties provided therefor in the same Code.
"Section #. .o prosecution under this Act shall be made unless the city or
provincial fiscal, or any special attorney or prosecutor duly designated by the
Secretary of ,ustice as the case may be, finds after due investigation of the
facts, that a prima facie case for violation of this Act eEists against the
accused, and thereafter presents an information in court against the said
accused in due form, and certifies under oath that he has conducted a proper
preliminary investigation thereof, with notice, whenever it is possible to give
the same, to the party concerned, who shall have the right to be represented
by counsel, to testify, to have compulsory process for obtaining witness in his
favor, and to cross-eEamine witnesses against him0 )ro+ided& +hat the
preliminary investigation of any offense defined and penalied herein
by prision mayor to death shall be conducted by the property Court of )irst
*nstance.
"Section 1. Any person who knowingly furnishes false evidence in any action
brought under this Act shall be punished by prision correccional.
"Section &. .o person shall be convicted of any of the offenses penalied
herein with prision mayor to death unless on the testimony of at least two
witnesses to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open
court.
"Section J. ;ithin thirty days after the approval of this Act, any person who is
a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines or of any such
association or conspiracy, who desires to renounce such membership may do
so in writing and under oath before a municipal or city mayor, a provincial
governor, or a person authoried by law to administer oaths. Such
renunciation shall eEempt such person or persons from the penal sanction of
this Act, but the same shall in no way eEempt him from liability for criminal
acts or for any violation of the eEisting laws of the =epublic of the Philippines
committed before this Act takes effect.
"Section %. .othing in this Act shall be interpreted as a restriction to freedom
of thought, of assembly and of association for purposes not contrary to law as
guaranteed by the Constitution.
"Approved, ,une /', $%#&."
/ 2elegate ,ose P. Aaurel 8of the $%D( Constitutional Convention9 referred to
the Anglo-American origin of this right thus0
".o e$ post facto la' or (ill of attainder sall (e enacted. +his provision is
found in the American )ederal Constitution 8Art. $, Sec. %9 and is applicable
to the States 8id. Sec. $'9. An e$ post facto law is a law which makes an act
punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. *t
creates or aggravates the crime or increases the punishment, or changes the
rules of evidence for the purpose of conviction. +he prohibition against the
passage of e$ post facto laws is an additional bulwark of personal security H
protecting the citien from punishment by legislative act which has a
retrospective operation.
"+he phrase e$ post facto has a technical meaning and refers to crimes and
criminal proceedings. *t is in this sense that it was used in ?ngland. *t was in
this sense that the convention of $&J& understood it. 8Calder v. >ull, supra:
;atson v. "ercer, J Pet. JJ, $$': Suterlee v. "athewson, / Peters, DJ': Cring
v. "issouri, $'& 6.S. //$.9 +his interpretation was upheld by our Supreme
Court 86.S. vs. Ang Cen Co, 1 Phil. D&1.9.
"A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without 3udicial
trial. 8Cummings vs. 6nited States, ( ;all. /&&, $J A. ed. D#1.9 *n ?ngland,
the >ill of Attainder was an act of Parliament by which a man was tried,
convicted and sentenced to death without a 3ury, without a hearing in court,
without hearing the witnesses against him and without regard to the rules of
evidence. 4is blood was attained or corrupted, rendering him devoid of all
heritable <uality H of ac<uiring and disposing property by descent. 82$
parte -arland, ( ;all. DDD, $J A. ed D11.9 *f the penalty imposed was less
than death, the act was known as a "bill of pains and penalties." >ills of
attainder, like e$ post factolaws, were favorite methods of Stuart oppression.
!nce, the name of +homas ,efferson was included in a bill of attainder
presented to Parliament because of his reform activities.
"!ften, such bills were 7stimulated by ambition or personal resentment, and
vindictive malice.7 8Calder v. >ull, supra.9 A well known case illustrating the
ruthless manner in which a bill of attainder was resorted to was that of
+homas ;entworth, chief adviser of Charles *. 4e was brought to
impeachment charged with attempting to subvert the liberties of ?ngland. 4e
defended himself so ably that his enemies, fearing his ac<uittal, withdrew the
impeachment and a bill of attainder was passed instead. ;entworth was
beheaded. >ills of attainder were also passed in the Colonies 8.orth, +he
Constitution of the 6.S., its Sources and Applications, p. J#.9 +he prohibition
in the >ill of =ights, therefore, seeks to present acts of violence and in3ustice
brought about the passage of such bills." 8D ,. Aaurel, Proceedings of the
Constitutional Convention 11$-11D F$%11G9.
D Cummings vs. 6nited States, ( ;all. 8&$ 6.S.9 /&& 8$J1&9: accord, 2$
parte -arland, ( ;all. 8&$ 6.S.9 DDD 8$J1&9. +his definition was adopted by
this Court in People vs. Carlos, &J Phil. #D#, #(( 8$%(&9 and in People vs.
"ontenegro, %$ Phil. JJD,JJ# 8$%#/9.
( 2e Beau vs. >raisted, D1D 6.S. $((, $1' 8$%1'9: 6nited States vs. Aovett,
D/J 6.S. D'D, 1$#, 8$%(19.
# Chief ,ustice ;arren referred to the >ill of Attainder Chause as an
implementation of the separation of powers, "a general safeguard against
legislative eEercise of 3udicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature."
6nited States vs. >rown, DJ$ 6.S. (D& 8$%1(9.
1 "*t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for
the government of society: the application of those rules to individuals in
society would seem to be the duty of other departments." )letcher vs. Peck, 1
Cranch 8$' 6.S.9J&, $D1 8$J$'9.
& "+he legislative body in enacting bills of attainder eEercises the powers and
office of 3udge, it pronounces upon the guilt of the party, without any of the
forms or safeguards of trial...it fiEes the degree of punishment in accordance
with its own notions of the enormity of the offense." Cummings vs.
"issouri, supra note D.
J >ills of this sort, says "r. ,ustice Story, have been most usually passed in
?ngland in times of rebellion or gross subserviency to the crown, or of violent
political eEcitements: periods, in which all nations are most liable 8as well as
free as the enslabe9 to forget their duties, and to trample upon the rights and
liberties of others." Comm. sec. $D((, in re @oung Sing 4ee, D1 )ed. D(&,
(('. 2uring the American revolution legislative punishments had been
continued by state legislatures, when numerous bills of attainder were
enacted against the +orries. $C. Antieu, Modern Constitutional -a', (/#.
% C. Antieu, supra note J at (/D.
$' +he Supreme Court of the 6nited States said in )leming vs. .estor, D1D
6.S. 1'D, 1$D-$( 8$%1'90
"*n determining whether legislation which bases a dis<ualification on the
happening of a certain past event imposes a punishment, the Court has
sought to discern the ob3ects on which the enactment in <uestion was
focused. ;here the source of legislative concern can be thought to be the
activity or status from which the individual is barred, the dis<ualification is not
punishment even though it may bear harshly upon one affected."
$$ &D Stat. #D1, /% 6.S.C. sec. #'( 8$%#J ed. Supp. *B9.
$/ DJ$ 6.S. (D& 8$%1#9 8#-( vote9.
$D Ceyishian vs. >oard of =egents, DJ# 6.S. #J% 8$%1&9:?lfbrandt vs.
=ussell, DJ( 6.S. $$ 8$%119.
$( Cf . Scales vs. 6nited States, D1& 6.S. /'D 8$%1$9: .oto vs. 6nited States,
D1& 6.S. /%' 8$%1$9.
$# 2uring the Senate deliberations on the bill, Senator Cea remarked0 "* have
inserted the words 7overt acts7 because we are punishing membership in the
Communist Party. * would like that membership to be proved by overt acts, by
positive acts, because it may happen that one7s name may appear in the list
of members." Senate Cong. =ec. "ay //, $%#&, p. $%''.
$1 >oard of -overnors of )ederal =eserve System vs. Agnew, D/% 6.S. (($.
$& .ew @ork eE rel. >ryant vs. Mimmerman, /&J 6.S. 1D8$%/J9.
$J =epealed by =ep. Act (/($.
$% Philippine Ass7n of )ree Aabor 6nions vs. Secretary of Aabor, )eb. /&,
$%1%, /& SC=A ('.
/' 6nited States vs. Aovett, D/J 6.S. D'D 8$%(19.
/$ Cummings vs. "issouri, ( ;all. 8&$ 6.S.9 /&& 8$J1&9.
// 2$ parte -arland, ( ;all. 8&$ 6.S.9 DDD 8$J1&9.
/D 6nited States vs. Aovett, D/J 6.S. D'D 8$%(19.
/( 6nited States vs. >rown, DJ$ 6.S. (D& 8$%1#9.
/# +he >ounds of Aegislative Specification0 A Suggested Approach to the >ill
of Attainder Clause, &/ @ale A. ,. DD', D#$-#(8$%1/9.
/1 /&J 6.S. 1D 8$%/J9.
/& Id. at &#-&&.
/J People vs. ?vangelista, #& Phil. D&# 8$%D/9: see also People vs.
?vangelista, #& Phil., D&/ 8$%D/9: People vs. Capadocia, #& Phil. D1( 8$%D/9:
People vs. ?vangelista, #& Phil. D#( 8$%D/9: People vs. )eleo, #& Phil. (#$
8$%D/9: People vs. nabong, #& Phil. (## 8$%D/9.
/% People vs. Aava, A-(%&(-&J, "ay $1, $%1%.
D' A-DDJ1(, 2ec. $$, $%&$, (/ SC=A ((J.
D$ 6nited States vs. Aovett, D/J 6.S. D'D, D$J 8$%(19.
D/ D($ 6.S. &$1 8$%#$9.
DD Communist Party vs. Subversive Activities Control >oard, D1& 6.S. $
8$%1'9.
D( Sec. J.
D# ?. g., Covacs vs. Cooper, DD1 6.S. && 8$%(%9: Bera vs. Arca, A-/#&/$,
"ay /1, $%1%, /J SC=A D#$.
D1 )reund, Re+ie' of Facts in Constitutional Cases, in Supreme Court and
Supreme Aaw (&-(J 8Cahn ed. $%#(9.
D& /%$ 6.S. #'/, #D& 8$%D(9.
DJ A-DD%1(, 2ec. $$, $%&$, ($ SC=A ((J.
D% Communist Party vs. S.A.C. >oard, D1& 6.S. %( 8$%1$9.
(' 2ennis vs. 6nited States, D($ 6.S. (%(, #'% 8$%#$9.
($ Id. at #'$.
(/ Shelton vs. +ucker, D1( 6.s. (&% 8$%1'9.
(D Scales vs. 6nited States, D1& 6.S. /'D 8$%1$9: see also .oto vs. 6nited
States, D1& 6.S. /%' 8$%1$9.
(( )rankfeld vs. 6nited States, $%J ). /d J&% 8(th Cir. $%#/9.
(# People vs. nabong, #& Phil. (##, (#J 8$%D/9.
(1 $J 6.S.C. sec. /DJ#. 8emphasis added9.
(& D1& 6.S. /'D 8$%1$9.
(J Communist Party vs. Subversive Activities Control >oard, D1& 6.S. $
8$%1$9.
(% P. A. )reud, +he Supreme Court of the 6nited States &# 8$%1$9.
#' Const., art B*, Sec. /$ 8$9.
#$ -overnment vs. 4ongkong L Shaihai >anking Corp., 11 Phil. (JD 8$%DJ9.
#/ Aindasan vs. Commission on ?lections, A-/J'J%, !ct. /#, $%1&, /$ SC=A
(%1.
)?=.A.2!, ,., concurring0
$ =ep. Act .o. $&'' 8$%#&9..
/ According to Art. ***, Sec. $, par. $$0 ".o e$ post facto law or bill of attainder
shall be enacted."
D According to Art. ***, Sec. $, par. J0 ".o law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacebly to
assemble and petition the -overnment for redress of grievances."
( According to Art. ***, Sec. $ par. (0 "+he liberty of abode and of changing the
same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired."
# )ootnote /, p. % of !pinion of the Court.
1 ( ;all. /&& 8$J1&9.
& ( ;all. DDD 8$J1&9.
J Cf. 6nited States v. A Aovett, D/J 6S D'D 9$%(19.
% ( ;all. /&& 8$J1&9.
$' I(id, D/D, D/#.
$$ ( ;all. DDD 8$J1&9.
$/ I(id, D&&-D&J.
$D D/J 6S D'D.
$( I(id, D$#-D$1.
$# DJ$ 6S (D&.
$1 I(id, ((/.
$& I(id, ((%-(#'.
$J D1& 6S $ 8$%1$9.
$% I(id, J1-J&.
/' !pinion of the Court, p. $#.
/$ According to Art. ***, Sec. $, par. 10 "+he right to form associations or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged." Paragraph J
of this section reads as follows0 ".o law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacebly to
assemble and petition the -overnment for redress of grievances."
// ,efferson7s )irst *nstance Address, "arch (, $J'$, in Padover, ed., +he
Complete ,efferson, DJ# 8$%(D9.
/D 4ook, 4eresy, @es-Conspiracy, .o. &$ 8$%#D9.
/( -onale v. Commission on ?lections, /& SC=A JD#,J&$8$%1%9 citing
Shelton v. +ucker, D1( 6S (&% 8$%1'9 and .AACP v. >utton, D&$ 6S ($#
8$%1D9.
/# .AACP vs. Alabama, D&& 6S /JJ 8$%1(9.
/1 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control >oard, D1& 6S $, $(J.