People v.
Ferrer
J. Castro December 27, 1972 G.R. No. L-32613-14
Doctrine The freedom of expression and assembly, as guaranteed by the Constitution, are not absolute and may be
validly restricted by the Legislature in the interest of national security (self-preservation of the State) and
the conservation of democracy.
Summary Feliciano Co along with the other co-accused, were who charged with violating the Anti-Subversion Act
(RA 1700) They contested the constitutionality of the Act, averring that it amounted to an ex post facto
law/bill of attainder and that its title did not not express the contents of the law. They also assailed the Act
on the ground that it violated the freedom of expression and assembly. Judge Ferrer of the trial court
declared the Anti-subversion Act unconstitutional, saying it was a bill of attainder. However, the Supreme
Court ruled that the statute was actually constitutional.
Facts • Judge Ferrer dimissed the criminal information of subversion against Feliciano Co, Nilo Tayag, and
5 others who were members of the CPP/NPA. The trial court held that:
o Congress usurped the powers of the judiciary when the enacted RA 1700, and
o It assumed judicial magistracy by pronouncing the guilt of the CPP without any trial
o Created a presumption of guilt by being members of CPP regardless of voluntariness
• RA 1700 was approved on June 20, 1957. It outlawed the CPP and similar organizations,
penalizing membership therein. It defined the CPP as an organized conspiracy to overthrow the
government of the Philippines, not only by force or violence, but also by deceit and subversion
and other illegal means.
Ratio/Issues
I. W/N the Act is constitutional (YES, it is valid)
(1) Ex post facto/bill of attainder
1. There are two requisites:
a. The statute specifies persons/groups
b. The statute applies retroactively
2. RA 1700 applies only prospectively, as it punishes acts done only after the effectivity
of the Act.
3. The Act does not apply specifically to named individuals or members of a group, as it
punishes conduct (organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the government), not
persons.
4. The fact that they are in court proves that the respondents were not deprived of
judicial trial
(2) Freedom of expression and assembly
1. The government has a right to self-preservation, and may validly restrict such
freedoms in order to protect itself from those who wish to overthrow it using force,
violence, deceit, and other means.
2. Like all legislation, the Anti-subversion Act is basically a compromise between the
claims of the social order and individual freedom; national security is to be protected,
so some freedoms must be restrained as a result.
NOTE: The Court also set guidelines to be observed in prosecution under RA 1700
1. In case of subversive organizations other than the CPP:
a. Purpose of the organization is to overthrow the gov’t and establish a totalitarian regime
under a foreign power
b. Accused joined such an organization
c. He did so willingly and by overt acts
2. In case of the CPP:
a. CPP continues to pursue its objectives (organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the
gov’t by illegal means to place the country under a foreign power
b. The accused joined the CPP
c. He did so willingly and by overt acts
Held No judgment as to the crime of remaining a member of CPP; resolution of trial court SET ASIDE.
Dissenting J. Fernando
Opinion (1) Freedom of expression = freedom to disagree with the majority, without fear of retaliation. We have the
right to dissent. We can express dissatisfaction with the way things are. Even though these may be
offending to those in power, such dissents are guaranteed consitutitional protection. Even those who
oppose a democratic form of gov’t should not be silenced. Dissent is not disloyalty.
(2) The line is drawn when the words used amount to an incitement to commit sedition or rebellion; where
mere thought merges into action.
Prepared by: VJ Dominguez (Consti2/de Vera)
