People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)

People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)

Limitations on the Power/Authority of the State to Punish Crimes

FACTS: Hon. Simeon N. Ferrer in his capacity as Judge of the CFI of Tarlac, Branch I dismissed two (2) cases involving criminal complaints for violation of Anti-Subversion Act on the grounds that the said act is a bill of attainder and that it is vague and overbroad.

The two cases include that of Feliciano Co who was criminally charged for violation of Section 4 of Anti-Subversion Act and Nilo Tayag et. al., who were charged with subversion. In both cases aggravating circumstances are present. Counsel on both cases moved to quash the complaint on the ground that the basis of the complaint, the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder.

ISSUE: The Government appealed the decision of the CFI of Tarlac, Branch 1. The Supreme Court resolved to treat its appeal as a special civil action for certiorari. Is the Anti-Subversion Act a bill of attainder?

DECISION: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Anti-Subversion Act with reservation. On the grounds that the act provides that the guilt of the accused has to be judicially established. Specifically, the statute requires that membership must be knowing or active, with specific intent to further the illegal objectives of the Party. That is what section 4 means when it requires that membership, to be unlawful, must be shown to have been acquired "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts." The ingredient of specific intent to pursue the unlawful goals of the Party must be shown by "overt acts." This constitutes an element of "membership" distinct from the ingredient of guilty knowledge. The former requires proof of direct participation in the organization’s unlawful activities, while the latter requires proof of mere adherence to the organization’s illegal objectives.

RATIO: That the Government has a right to protect itself against subversion is a proposition too plain to require elaboration. Self-preservation is the "ultimate value" of society. It surpasses and transcends every other value, "for if a society cannot protect its very structure from armed internal attack, no subordinate value can be protected".