2.

PEOPLE VS FERRER

Facts: Hon. Judge Simeon Ferrer is the Tarlac trial court judge that declared
RA1700 or the Anti-Subversive 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 afford impunity. 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 actto outlaw
the CPP and similar associations penalizing membershiptherein, 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 allowsthe 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) Whether or not RA1700 is a bill of attainder/ ex post facto law.

Held: The court holds the VALIDITY Of the Anti-Subversion 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 appliedretroactively 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 MEMBERSHIPwith 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

prohibitsacts 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 accordancewith Section 8. The statute applies
the principle of mutatis mutandis or that the necessary changes having been made.

3. Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383

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 auditassigned to the Ministry of education 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 nom-existent obligations of the teacherscamp resulting in damage to
the government of several millions. The 1st 32 cases were filed on july 25, 1987,
while Bayot ran for municipalmayor 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 twocases 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.