EX POST FACTO LAWS

BAYOT VS. SANDIGANBAYAN [128 SCRA 383; NO.L-61776 TO NO.L-61861; 23 MAR 1984]
Monday, February 09, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: Bayot is one of the several persons who was accused in more than 100 counts of estafa thru
falsification of Public documents before the Sandiganbayan. The said charges started from his alleged
involvement as a government auditor of the commission on audit assigned to the Ministry
ofeducation and culture, with some other employees from the said ministry.The bureau of treasury and the
teachers camp in Baguio City for the preparation and encashment of fictitious TCAA checks for the nomexistent obligations of the teachers camp resulting in damage to the government of several millions. The
1st 32 cases were filed on july 25, 1987, while Bayot ran for municipal mayor of Amadeo Cavite and was
elected on January 1980. but on May 1980 Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision convicting the accused
together with his other co-accused in all but one of the thirty two cases filed against them.
On

Mach

16,

1982

Batas

Pambansa

Blg

195

was

passed

amending

RA

3019.

Issue: Whether or Not it would be violative of the constitutional guarantee against an ex post facto law.
Held: The court finds no merit in the petitioners contention that RA 3019 as amended by Batas
Pambansa Blg 195, which includes the crime of estafa through falsification of Public Documents as
among crimes subjecting the public officer charged therewith with suspension from public office
pending action in court, is a penal provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the
enactment of ex post facto law. Accdg to the RPC suspension from employment and public office during
trial shall not be considered as a penalty. It is not a penalty because it is not a result of a judicial
proceeding. In fact, if acquitted the official who is suspended shall be entitled to reinstatement and the
salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. And does not violate the constitutional
provision
against
ex
post
facto
law.
The claim of the petitioner that he cannot be suspended because he is currently occupying a position
diffren tfrom that under which he is charged is untenable. The amendatory provision clearly states that
any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under RA
3019 for any offense involving fraud upon the government or public funds or property or whatever stage
of execution and mode of participation shall be suspended from office. The use of the word office
applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding and not only the particular office under
which he was charged.

PEOPLE VS. FERRER [48 SCRA 382; NOS.L-32613-14; 27 DEC 1972]

Monday, February 09, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: Hon. Judge Simeon Ferrer is the Tarlac trial court judge that declared RA1700 or the AntiSubversive Act of 1957 as a bill of attainder. Thus, dismissing the information of subversion against the
following: 1.) Feliciano Co for being an officer/leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) aggravated by circumstances of contempt and insult to public officers, subversion by a band and

aid of armed men to affordimpunity. 2.) Nilo Tayag and 5 others, for being members/leaders of the NPA,
inciting, instigating people to unite and overthrow the Philippine Government. Attended by Aggravating
Circumstances of Aid or Armed Men, Craft, and Fraud. The trial court is of opinion that 1.) The Congress
usurped the powers of the judge 2.) Assumed judicial magistracy by pronouncing the guilt of the CPP
without any forms of safeguard of a judicial trial. 3.) It created a presumption of organizational guilt by
being
members
of
the
CPP
regardless
of
voluntariness.
The Anti Subversive Act of 1957 was approved 20June1957. It is an act to outlaw the CPP and similar
associations penalizing membership therein, and for other purposes. It defined the Communist Party being
although a political party is in fact an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government, not only by
force and violence but also by deceit, subversion and other illegal means. It declares that the CPP is a
clear and present danger to the security of the Philippines. Section 4 provided that affiliation with full
knowledge of the illegal acts of the CPP is punishable. Section 5 states that due investigation by a
designated prosecutor by the Secretary of Justice be made prior to filing of information in court. Section 6
provides for penalty for furnishing false evidence. Section 7 provides for 2 witnesses in open court for
acts penalized by prision mayor to death. Section 8 allows the renunciation of membership to the CCP
through writing under oath. Section 9 declares the constitutionality of the statute and its valid exercise
under
freedom
if
thought, assembly and
association.
Issues:
(1)
(2)

Whether

or

Whether

Held: The

court

not
or
holds

RA1700
Not
the

is

bill

RA1700
VALIDITY

Of

of

attainder/

violates
the

ex

post

freedom

Anti-Subversion

facto

law.

of expression.
Act

of

1957.

A bill of attainder is solely a legislative act. It punishes without the benefit of the trial. It is the
substitution of judicial determination to a legislative determination of guilt. In order for a statute be
measured as a bill of attainder, the following requisites must be present: 1.) The statute specifies persons,
groups. 2.) the statute is applied retroactively and reach past conduct. (A bill of attainder relatively is also
an
ex
post
facto
law.)
In the case at bar, the statute simply declares the CPP as an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the
Government for purposes of example of SECTION 4 of the Act. The Act applies not only to the CPP but
also to other organizations having the same purpose and their successors. The Acts focus is on the
conduct
not
person.
Membership to this organizations, to be UNLAWFUL, it must be shown that membership was acquired
with the intent to further the goals of the organization by overt acts. This is the element of
MEMBERSHIP with KNOWLEDGE that is punishable. This is the required proof of a members direct
participation. Why is membership punished. Membership renders aid and encouragement to the
organization.
Membership
makes
himself
party
to
its
unlawful
acts.
Furthermore, the statute is PROSPECTIVE in nature. Section 4 prohibits acts committed after approval of
the act. The members of the subversive organizations before the passing of this Act is given an
opportunity to escape liability by renouncing membership in accordance with Section 8. The
statute applies the principle of mutatis mutandis or that the necessary changes having been made.

The declaration of that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Philippine Government
should not be the basis of guilt. This declaration is only a basis of Section 4 of the Act. The EXISTENCE
OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL justifies the limitation to the exercise of Freedom of Expression and
Association in this matter. Before the enactment of the statute and statements in the preamble, careful
investigations by the Congress were done. The court further stresses that whatever interest in freedom of
speech and association is excluded in the prohibition of membership in the CPP are weak
considering NATIONAL SECURITY
and
PRESERVATION
of
DEMOCRACY.
The court set basic guidelines to be observed in the prosecution under RA1700. In addition to proving
circumstances/ evidences of subversion, the following elements must also be established:
1. Subversive Organizations besides the CPP, it must be proven that the organization purpose is to
overthrow the present Government of the Philippines and establish a domination of a FOREIGN
POWER.
Membership
is
willfully
and
knowingly
done
by
overt
acts.
2. In case of CPP, the continued pursuance of its subversive purpose. Membership is willfully and
knowingly
done
by
overt
acts.
The court did not make any judgment on the crimes of the accused under the Act. The Supreme Court set
aside the resolution of the TRIAL COURT.