Taruc vs. Ericta

Republic Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Act) is constitutional, being neither a bill of attainder nor an infringement of freedom of expression and freedom of association, and a criminal prosecution thereunder may therefore proceed.

Republic Act No. 1700, approved on June 20, 1957, outlaws the Communist Party of the Philippines and similar associations and penalizes membership therein. Linda Taruc was the petitioner-accused in a criminal complaint filed under the Act, while Hon. Vicente G. Ericta was the Court of First Instance Judge assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation pursuant to Section 7, and Gen. Tagumpay A. Nanadiego was the Judge Advocate General of the AFP who filed the charge.

On November 13, 1971, Col. Tagumpay A. Nanadiego, Judge Advocate General, charged Linda Taruc with 45 others designated only as John Does in Criminal Case No. Q-1623 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, with violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1700, which penalizes persons who, after approval of the Act, are found after trial knowingly, willfully and by overt acts to have joined the Communist Party of the Philippines or to have maintained membership therein. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, the complaint was assigned to respondent Judge Vicente G. Ericta, who held a preliminary investigation.

On January 25, 1972, petitioner filed a motion to quash on the ground that the Act was unconstitutional, such that the facts alleged did not constitute a crime and the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. The following day, January 26, 1972, respondent Judge issued an order for the arrest of petitioner and three others after finding them prima facie guilty, fixing no bail for petitioner. A warrant of arrest issued the same date, but petitioner could not be located and remained at large.

On February 2, 1972, counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of the arrest order and, in the alternative, for release on bail. Meantime, respondent Judge issued the questioned order of February 3, 1972 denying the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of petitioner and others on the same ground that similar motions to dismiss had been denied. In an order dated February 4, 1972, reconsideration of the arrest order was denied but bail was granted in the amount of P30,000.00. Petitioner's motion of February 9, 1972 to reduce bail to P10,000.00 was denied on February 10, 1972.

Having practically terminated the preliminary investigation, respondent Judge on May 18, 1972 ordered the City Fiscal of Quezon City to file the information against petitioner and 55 others as officers or ranking leaders of the Communist Party of the Philippines or of any subversive organization penalized by the first proviso of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1700 with the penalty of prision mayor to death. The information was filed on June 14, 1972. The memoranda for respondents and petitioner were thereafter filed on June 30, 1972 and September 1, 1972, respectively.

• Constitutionality of R.A. No. 1700: Petitioner argued that R.A. No. 1700, otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Law, is unconstitutional, such that the facts alleged in the complaint did not constitute a crime.
• Jurisdiction of the Lower Court: Petitioner maintained that the lower court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint filed under R.A. No. 1700 because the statute was patently unconstitutional.

• Constitutionality: Whether or not R.A. No. 1700, otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Law, is unconstitutional.
• Jurisdiction: Whether or not the lower court has jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint filed against petitioner under R.A. No. 1700 which petitioner claims to be patently unconstitutional.

• Constitutionality: No. R.A. No. 1700 is constitutional, its validity having already been upheld as neither a bill of attainder nor an infringement of expression and association.
• Jurisdiction: Yes. The lower court retained jurisdiction to proceed, the statute under which the complaint was filed being constitutional and the charge therefore cognizable.

• Constitutionality: The main issue was controlled by People vs. Ferrer, L-32613-14, December 27, 1972, 48 SCRA 382, which upheld the constitutionality of the Act, declaring it not to be a bill of attainder nor an infringement of freedom of expression and freedom of association. That precedent disposed of the attack on the statute's validity.
• Jurisdiction: Because the constitutional challenge failed under the controlling precedent, no basis existed to hold that the facts charged stated no crime or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the offense under R.A. No. 1700.

• Constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion Act — Republic Act No. 1700 is constitutional. It was declared not to be a bill of attainder and not to infringe freedom of expression and freedom of association, as settled in People vs. Ferrer. The doctrine was applied to reject the motion to quash and sustain the prosecution for violation of Section 4.

• "The Court has already resolved the issue in the case of People v. Ferrer, L-32613-14, December 27, 1972, 48 SCRA 382, where it upheld the constitutionality of the Act, declaring it not to be a bill of attainder, nor an infringement of the freedom of expression and freedom of association." — States the ratio decidendi by invoking controlling precedent to dispose of the constitutional attack on R.A. No. 1700.
• "Acting on the petition, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS the same for lack of merit." — Records the dispositive action denying the certiorari challenge to the preliminary investigation and arrest orders.

• People vs. Ferrer, L-32613-14, December 27, 1972, 48 SCRA 382 — Followed as controlling precedent upholding the constitutionality of R.A. No. 1700 against claims that it was a bill of attainder and violative of expression and association.

• Section 4, Republic Act No. 1700 — Penalizes persons who, after approval of the Act, are found after trial knowingly, willfully and by overt acts to have joined the Communist Party of the Philippines or maintained membership therein; its first proviso imposes prision mayor to death on officers or ranking leaders.
• Section 7, Republic Act No. 1700 — Provides the basis for the preliminary investigation conducted by the respondent Judge to whose sala the criminal complaint was assigned.

Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur. Gutierrez, Jr., J., concurred in the result. Narvasa, J., was on leave.

• Sarmiento, J., dissenting — Maintained that EDSA, the 1987 Constitution, and the reenactment of R.A. No. 1700 as Executive Order No. 167 warranted reexamination of People vs. Ferrer; that the Act is a bill of attainder because it declares the CPP an organized conspiracy and punishes mere membership with guilt predetermined by statute; that it abridges intellectual liberty and toleration of dissent; that existing crimes against national security suffice; that its “similar associations” language ominously threatens the legal Left; and that it offends the people's-organizations guarantees in Article XIII, Sections 15 and 16.
• Cruz, J. — Joined Mr. Justice Sarmiento in his dissent.