temporarily or permanently with his consent to a court of

[No. L-239. June 30, 1947] different grade and make-up, such as the People's Court.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and
appellee, vs. APOLONIO CARLOS, defendant and appellant.
1. 8.ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION REGARDING
UNIFORMITY OF RULES OF COURT, SCOPE OF.—It is the
1. 1.CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL LAW; TITLE OF rules promulgated by the Su
LAW; WHEN SUFFICIENT; PEOPLE'S COURT ACT.—The
People's Court was intended to be a full and complete scheme
537
with its own machinery for the indictment, trial and judgment of
treason cases. The various provisos mentioned in appellant's
brief are allied and germane to the subject matter and purposes of VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947
the People's Court Act; they are subordinate to its end. The
multitude of matters which/the legislation, by its nature, has to 37
embrace would make mention of all of them in the title of the act People vs. Carlos
cumbersome. It is not necessary, and the Congress is not
expected, to make the title of an enactment a complete index of
its contents. (Government of the Philippine 1. preme Court which are required by section 13 of Article VIII of the
Islands vs. Municipality of Binalonan, 32 Phil., 634.) The Constitution to be uniform for all courts of the same grade. The
constitutional rule is satisfied if all parts of a law relate to the People's Court is not a court of the same grade, considering many
subject expressed in its title. of its special features, and its purposes, as the Court of First
Instance or any other existing court in the Philippines, so that the
adoption of special rules of procedure for said court different
1. 2.ID.; EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
from those applicable to Courts of First Instance is not violative
LAWS; DISCRIMINATION OR DIS-TINCTION WHEN
of this constitutional mandate. More than this, the last sentence
ALLOWED.—The equal protection of the laws guaranteed by
of the section expressly authorizes the Congress "to repeal, alter,
the Constitution "does not prevent a state or municipality from
or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice, and
adjusting its legislation to differences in situations and making a
procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the
discrimination or distinction in its legislation in respect of things
Philippines."
that are different, provided the discrimination or distinction has a
reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably,
purely, and entirely arbitrary 1. 9.ID.; WISDOM OF LAW A LEGISLATIVE CONCERN.—It is
not the province of the courts to supervise legislation and keep it
536
within the bounds of propriety and common sense. That is
primarily and exclusively a legislative concern.

5 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the People's Court.
36 ANNOTATED The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
People vs. Carlos Vicente J. Francisco, Felicisimo Ocampo and Alberto V.
Francisco for appellant.
First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor
1. in the legislative sense, that is, outside of the wide discretion which Tomacruz for appellee.
the legislative body may exercise." (16 C. J. S., 997.)
TUASON, J.:
The appellant was found guilty of treason by the People's Court
1. 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; EIGHT TO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION and sentenced to reclusión perpetua, to pay a fine of P7,000, and
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.—Preliminary investigation is not a costs.
fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. For the rest,
the constitutional prohibition against discrimination among
The findings of the People's Court are not assigned as errors or
defendants placed in the same situation and condition is not disputed.
infringed. The lower court found that one day in July or August, 1944,
about two or three o'clock in the morning, a truck pulled up to the
curb in front of a house on Constancia Street, Sampaloc, Manila,
1. 4.ID.; BILL OF ATTAINDER; DETENTION PENDING
INVESTIGATION OR TRIAL NOT A PUNISHMENT.—"The where one Martin Mateo lived. From the truck the accused, a
bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment Japanese spy, alighted together with members of the Japanese
without judicial trial." (Cummings vs. Missouri, 4 Wall., 232; military police and pointed Martin Mateo's house and Fermin Javier's
etc.) Detention of a prisoner for a period not exceeding six house to his Japanese companions, whereupon the Japanese soldiers
months pending investigation or trial is not a punishment but a broke into Martin Mateo's dwelling first and Fermin
necessary extension of the well recognized power to hold the 538
criminal suspected for investigation.
53 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
1. 5.ID.; DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE 8 ANNOTATED
POWER; DISCRETION TO INSTITUTE CERTAIN CASES IN People vs. Carlos
ONE COURT OR ANOTHER NOT LEGISLATIVE.—The
power to institute certain cases in one court or another in the
Javier's afterwards. In those houses they seized Martin Mateo,
discretion of the prosecuting attorney is not an exercise of Ladislao Mateo and Fermin Javier, bound their hands, and put them
legislative power. "The true distinction is between the delegation in the truck. Along with other persons who had been rounded up in
of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a other places and who had been kept in the truck while it was parked,
discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or they were taken to Fort Santiago where the two Mateos and Fermin
discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in Javier were tortured and from which they were released six days
pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no later. The reason for the arrest and maltreatment of Martin and
valid objection can be made." Ladislao Mateo was that they had refused to divulge the whereabouts
of their brother, Marcelino Mateo, who was a guerrilla and who had
1. 6.ID.; PUBLIC OFFICERS; LEGISLATIVE POWER TO escaped from the Japanese. And Fermin Javier was arrested and
CREATE OFFICES AND COURTS.—The power to create tortured because he himself was a guerrilla, a fact which Carlos knew
offices and courts is vested in the legislative department. Subject or at least suspected.
to constitutional restrictions, the Congress may determine on the
The defendant in this instance invokes only questions of law. He
eligibility and qualification of officers and provide the method
for filling them. assigns four alleged errors, viz.:

1. 7.ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION REGARDING 1. "I.The lower court erred in not holding that the accused
TRANSFER OF JUDGES WITHOUT APPROVAL OF cannot be convicted of the offense of treason committed
SUPREME COURT, SCOPE OF.—Section 7 of Article VIII of against the government of the United States and of the
the Constitution provides that "no judge appointed for a Philippines, because it is a settled principle in
particular district shall be designated or transferred to another international law that in a territory 'actually under the
district without the approval of the Supreme Court. The Congress authority of the enemy', all laws of political complexion
shall by law determine the residence of judges of the inferior
of the previous government are suspended, and are
courts." This constitutional provision, as its language clearly
states, refers to transfers from one judicial district to another. It without force and inasmuch as the laws of the United
does not prohibit the appointment or designation of a judge of the States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines defining
Court of First Instance or any other judge from being appointed and penalyzing the crime of treason are all of political
complexion, they were suspended and had no binding
 effect whatsoever upon the inhabitants in the said those accused therein even of crimes other than those
occupied territories. against national security, although its title does not in any
2. "II.The People's Court erred in not declaring the accused way indicate that such jurisdiction over other crimes
could not have violated the Philippine law on treason, would be granted to the said court;
because it is also a settled principle in international law 3. "(3)Section 14 thereof, which adds to the disqualifications
that in such occupied territories all laws inconsistent with of Justices of the Supreme Court and provides a
the occupation are being likewise suspended and without procedure for their substitution, a matter not indicated in
force and effect over the inhabitants, and since the laws of any manner in its title;
the United States and the Commonwealth of the 4. "(4)The first proviso of section 19 thereof, which changes
Philippines defining and penalizing treason against the the existing Rules of Court on the subject of bail although
said government are by their very nature evidently its title speaks only of the creation of the People's Court
inconsistent with the said occupation of the Philippines by and the Office of Special Prosecutors; and
the Imperial Japanese forces, the said laws must be 5. "(5)The second proviso of the same section, which
deemed as having been suspended and without force and suspends the provisions of article 125 of the Revised
effect upon the Filipinos, during the said occupation. Penal Code, a substantive law, which is not referred to in
3. "III.The People's Court erred in not holding that the its title either expressly or by implication."
accused herein cannot be convicted of the crime of
treason committed against the government of the United The People's Court was intended to be a full and complete scheme
States and of the Philippines, because with its own machinery for the indictment, trial and judgment of
treason cases. The various provisos mentioned, in our opinion, are
539 allied and germane to the subject matter and purposes of the People's
VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 539 Court Act; they are subordinate to its end. The multitude of matters
which the legislation, by its nature, has to embrace would make
People vs. Carlos mention of all of them in the title of the act cumbersome. It is not
necessary, and the Congress is not expected, to make the title of an
1. it is a settled principle in international law that once the enactment a complete index of its contents. (Government of the
territory is so occupied by the enemy, the allegiance is as Philippine Islands vs. Municipality of Binalonan, 32 Phil., 634.) The
a legal obligation distinguishable and distinguished from constitutional rule is satisfied if all parts of a law relate to the subject
loyalty of the inhabitants therein to the former expressed in its title.
government or governments is temporarily suspended, The brief says:
and it being necessary and essential for the commission of
the offense of treason against the United States and the 1. "(b)It deprives persons similarly situated of the equal
Commonwealth of the Philippines that the supposed protection of the laws inasmuch as:
offender should owe allegiance to said government at the
time of the alleged offense, it follows that the accused
cannot possibly be chargeable with treason against the 1. "(1)Only those political offenders against whom cases are
United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines filed within six months from the passage of the law are to
for acts allegedly committed by him in the territory of the be tried in the People's Court, while others are to be tried
Philippines actually occupied by the Japanese during said in the Courts of First Instance;
occupation.
2. "IV.The decision rendered in this case should be reversed 541
and set aside, because the law creating the People's Court VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 541
is unconstitutional."
People vs. Carlos
The questions propounded in the first, second and third assignments
of error were squarely raised and decided in the case 1. "(2)Political offenders accused in the People's Court are
of Laurel vs. Misa (77 Phil., 856). That decision controls this appeal denied preliminary examination and/or investigation
so far as the pleas of suspended allegiance and change of sovereignty whereas the others who may be accused of the same
are concerned. On the strength thereof, the first three assignments of crimes in the Courts of First Instance shall be entitled
error must be overruled. thereto;
The fourth assignment of error attacks the law creating the 2. "(3)Political offenders accused in the People's Court have
People's Court as unconstitutional. Numerous provisions of the limited right to appeal, while those who may be accused
People's Court Act are singled out as contrary to the Organic Law. of the same crimes in the Courts of First Instance have
But in f ormulating many of his propositions the appellant has not absolute right of appeal inasmuch as under section 13 of
indicated the reasons or the authorities which sustain them. We shall the law, Rules 42 and 46 of the Rules of Court are made
dispose of them as briefly as they are presented. For better applicable to the latter;
understanding, we shall reproduce the appellant's propositions and 3. "(4)Appeals in the cases involving persons who held any
will comment on them separately. office or position under either or both the Philippine
The brief says: Executive Commission and the Philippine Republic or
any branch, instrumentality and /or agency thereof are to
be heard and decided by a substantially different Supreme
1. "(a)It (People's Court Act) -contains provisions which deal Court, thus causing lack of uniformity in rulings over the
on matters entirely foreign to the subject matter expressed same subject;
in its title, such as: 4. "(5)The first proviso of section 19 thereof prescribes a
different rule as to the granting of release on bail only
1. "(1)The first proviso of section 2 thereof, which retains the with respect to the political offenders detained by the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to try and decide United States Army and released to the Commonwealth
cases of crimes against national security committed of the Philippines but not as to other political offenders
during the second world war not filed within six months, accused or accusable of the same crimes; and
notwithstanding the fact that according 5. "(6)The second proviso of section 19 thereof suspends
article 125 of the Revised Penal Code only as to those
540 political detainees released by the United States Array to
the Commonwealth of the Philippines or, at most, only to
54 PHILIPPINE REPORTS those accused or accusable of the crimes specified in the
0 ANNOTATED law and not as to all persons accused or accusable of
People vs. Carlos crimes against national security committed during the
second world war, much less to all offenders,
notwithstanding the fact that there is no reasonable and
1. to its title, the People's Court is precisely created for that real difference among said groups of offenders."
purpose, and impliedly, the People's Court jurisdiction in
regard to said crimes is exclusive;
(1) The People's Court is a court of special and restricted jurisdiction
2. "(2)The second proviso of the same section which grants
created under the stress of an emergency and national security. It was
the People's Court jurisdiction to convict and sentence
devised to operate for a limited period only, a limitation imposed by 54 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
economic necessity and other factors of public policy. Obviously, the
main concern in the creation of a special court was the trial and 4 ANNOTATED
disposition of the cases, numbering over 6,000, of accused who were People vs. Carlos
being held by the United States military authorities and who were to protests that his case is heard by a Supreme Court which, by reason
be turned over to the Commonwealth Government. It was presumed of disability of a majority of its regular members, is made up mostly
that there were other cases of treason not included in this number— of judges from outside. As to the "lack of uniformity in rulings over
cases which might not be discovered until years afterward—, and the the same subject," it need only be said that the Constitution does not
possibility was not overlooked that even some of insure uniformity of judicial decisions; neither does it assure
542
immunity from judicial error.
54 PHILIPPINE REPORTS (5) and (6) The two provisos in section 19 do not constitute
2 ANNOTATED denial of equal protection of the laws. The distinction made by these
provisos between two sets of accused in the "granting or release on
People vs. Carlos bail" and in the application of article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
the cases which the United States Army was on the eve of placing are not arbitrary or fanciful calculated to favor or prejudice one or the
under the jurisdiction of the Philippine Government could not be filed other class. This point was discussed at length and made clear
and submitted for trial within a foreseeable future owing to lack of in Laurel vs. Misa (76 Phil., 372), in which this Court explained the
readily available evidence, absence of witnesses, or other causes. On reasons which necessitated the extension to six months of the
the other hand, considerations of economy and public interests authorized detention of persons charged with treason before the filing
forbade maintenance of the People's Court for an indefinite period. of information. The provisos rest "on some real and substantial
Under the circumstances, it was necessary that a provision be made difference or distinction bearing a just and fair relation to the
requiring that only cases which could be brought to court within six legislation." (16 C. J. S., 998.)
months and which were deemed enough to occupy the attention of The brief says:
the People's Court within the limited time of its life, should be "(c) It is a bill of attainder in that it virtually imposes upon
cognizable by it, and the rest should be instituted in the proper Courts specific, known and identified individuals or group of individuals, the
of First Instance. Such provision is not an arbitrary and intentional penalty of detention and imprisonment for a period not exceeding six
discrimination, and does not work as a deprivation of the right to months without any form of judicial trial or procedure."
equal protection of the laws. Both in privileges or advantages "The bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
conferred, if any, and in liabilities imposed, if any, persons under punishment without judicial trial." (Cummings vs. Missouri, 4 Wall.,
equal circumstances are treated alike. It does not deprive appellant of 232, etc.) Detention of a prisoner for a period not exceeding six
the protection enjoyed by others falling within his class. The equal months pending investigation or trial is not a punishment but a
protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution "does not necessary extension of the well recognized power to hold the criminal
prevent a state or municipality from adjusting its legislation to suspected for investigation, This proviso was held by this Court to be
differences in situations and making a discrimination or distinction in justified and reasonable under existing circumstances
its legislation in respect of things that are different, provided that the in Laurel vs. Misa, supra.
discrimination or distinction has a reasonable foundation or rational 545
basis and is not palpably, purely, and entirely arbitrary in the VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 545
legislative sense, that is, outside of the wide discretion which the
legislative body may exercise." (16 C. J. S., 997.) Moreover, with its People vs. Carlos
associate feature the People's Court is designed to extend greater The brief says:
protection to persons charged with collaboration with the enemy. If " (d) Section 2 thereof which purports to define the jurisdiction
others are prosecuted before a Court of First Instance, they and not of the People's Court constitutes an invalid and void delegation of
the appellant should have cause to complain of discrimination. legislative power which is vested exclusively in the Congress of the
(2) Section 22 in denying preliminary investigation to persona Philippines by the Constitution, in so f ar as said section virtually
accused before the People's Court is justified by leaves unqualifiedly in the discretion of the Solicitor General and/or
543 the Office of Special Prosecutors the power to determine the actual
VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 543 cases over which the People's Court shall have jurisdiction."
Granting the correctness of the premise of this proposition, it
People vs. Carlos does not follow that the authority vested in the Solicitor General
the conditions prevailing when the law was enacted. In view of the amounts to a delegation of legislative power. We do not think that
great number of prisoners then under detention and the length of time power to institute certain cases in one court or another in the
and amount of labor that would be consumed if so many prisoners discretion of the prosecuting attorney is an exercise of legislative
were allowed the right to have preliminary investigation, considered power. "The true distinction is between the delegation of power to
with the necessity of disposing of these cases at the earliest possible make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it
dates in the interest of the public and of the accused themselves, it shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution, to
was not an unwise measure which dispensed with such investigation be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be
in such cases. Preliminary investigation, it must be remembered, is done; to the latter no valid objection can be made." (Cincinnati, V. &
not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. For the rest, Z. R. Co. vs. Clinton County Comr's [1852], 1 Ohio St., 77, cited in
the constitutional prohibition against discrimination among Tañada on the Constitution of the Philippines, p. 291.)
defendants placed in the same situation and condition is not The brief says:
infringed. "(e) Sections 1, 4 and 18 thereof abridge, limit and curtail the
(3) For the same reasons stated before, this contention cannot be power of appointment of the President or the Chief Executive in that
upheld. There is a rational basis for the distinction. The employment —
of two modes of appellate procedure in the two classes of cases
involved are, in our opinion, suitably adapted to the differences, in
1. "(1)Section 1 practically leaves the President with such a
their composition, between the courts from which the appeals are
very small field of choice in the appointment of the
taken. The People's Court is a collegiate court whereas the Court of
members of the court that he can hardly use his discretion
First Instance is presided over by a single judge. Appeal is not a
in regard thereto; and
constitutional but statutory right. The admitted fact that there is no
2. "(4)Sections 4 and 18 actually designate and appoint the
discrimination among appeals from the same court or class of court
persons who will occupy the positions left vacant by
saves the provision objected to from being unconstitutional.
those appointed to the People's Court and the Office of
(4) This objection does not seem to fall within the subject of
Special Prosecutors respectively."
constitutional guarantee against deprivation of equal protection of the
laws. Be that as it may, we find no merit in the appellant's contention.
The disqualification under the People's Court Act of some or a The power to create offices and courts is vested in the legislative
majority of the members of this Court and their substitution by department. Subject to constitutional restrictions, the Congress may
justices of the Court of Appeals or judges of the Courts of First determine on the eligibility and qualification of officers and provide
Instance do not make the Supreme Court, as thus constituted, a new the method for filling
court in the eyes of the law. A court is an entity possessing a 546
personality separate and distinct from the men who compose or sit on 54 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
it. This objection is no more valid than that of a party in an ordinary
6 ANNOTATED
action who
544 People vs. Carlos
them. We find no valid objection on constitutional ground to a law 8 ANNOTATED
which directs that a special temporary court should be filled by
appointment by the Chief Executive himself from among judges People vs. Carlos
already on the bench and/or other quasi-judicial officers. As to
outsiders who might have to be appointed by reason of insufficiency 1. "(3)In leaving practically in the hands of the Solicitor
of qualified men already in the service, the Chief Executive is left General the absolute right to choose, in which court he
with a wide field of choice. shall prosecute the cases contemplated by the law, and in
The theory that "sections 4 and 18 actually designate and appoint providing that the judges of the People's Court shall be
the persons who will occupy the positions left t vacant by those chosen from a limited group of the judges of the Court of
appointed to the People's Court and the Office of Special Prosecutors First Instance, etc., the law does not leave a wide room
respectively" loses sight of the fact that the positions referred to are, for the play of external factors in the administration of
as a matter of fact, vacant only in theory, and for the duration of the justice to those concerned but also destroys the
People's Court, and that the law does no more than say that after confidence of the people in the judiciary."
those judges and officers shall have accomplished their work, they
shall go back to their permanent posts.
The brief says: (1 and 2) These objections go to the wisdom of the law and to matters
"(f) The said law provides for the designation and/or transfer of judges of policy. This being so, it is enough that the Congress deemed it
appointed for particular districts to another place outside of their respective necessary to incorporate these provisions in Commonwealth Act No.
districts without the consent of the Supreme Court." 682. It is not the province of the courts to supervise legislation and
Section 7 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides that "no judge keep it within the bounds of propriety and common sense. That is
appointed for a particular district shall be designated or transferred to another primarily and exclusively a legislative concern. (Rubi vs. Provincial
district without the approval of the Supreme Court. The Congress shall by law Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil., 661.)
determine the residence of judges of the inferior courts." This constitutional (3) This proposition is covered by and answered in our comment
provision, as its language clearly states, refers to transfers from one judicial
district to another. It does not prohibit the appointment or designation of a on paragraph (d) of the brief.
judge of the Court of First Instance or any other judge from being appointed The judgment of the lower court is affirmed with costs against
temporarily or permanently with his consent to a court of different grade and the appellant.
make-up, such as the People's Court. Moran, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Bengzon, and Briones,
JJ., concur.
The brief says: Hontiveros, and Padilla, JJ., concur in the result.
"(g) Sections 13 and 19 thereof prescribed rules of procedure
regarding appeal and bail which violate the rule of PARÁS, J.;
547 I reserve my vote, the decision in the Laurel case is not as yet
VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 547 final.
PERFECTO, J., concurring and dissenting:
People vs. Carlos The appeal in this case raises only questions of law. Of the four
uniformity of rules for all courts of the same grade established in the assignments of error made in appellant's brief, the first three are
Constitution." premised on the theory of suspended allegiance, and the last is
It is the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court which are premised on the theory that the law creating the People's Court is
required by section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution to be unconstitutional.
uniform for all courts of the same grade. The People's Court is not a The question of suspended allegiance was already rejected by a
court of the same grade, considering many of its special features, and majority of this court in the case of Laurel vs. Misa, in a resolution
its purposes, as the Court of First Instance or any other existing court dated January 30, 1947 (77 Phil., 856), and our reasons for voting for
in the Philippines, so that the adoption of special rules of procedure the rejection are expressed in our written opinion in said case.
for said court different from those applicable to Courts of First 549
Instance is not violative of this constitutional mandate. More than VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 549
this, the last sentence of the section expressly authorizes the Congress
"to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading, People vs. Carlos
practice, and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in We do not see in appellant's brief any argument which may justify
the Philippines." the changing of our opinion in the Laurel case where, by the way, the
The brief says: question of suspended allegiance appears to have been discussed,
perhaps, thoroughly and exhaustibly.
1. "(h)It is destructive of the independence of the judiciary Regarding the fourth assignment of error, appellant advances the
and thereby violates the constitutional provision that the following proposition: "The People's Court Law (Commonwealth Act
Philippines is a republican state because: No. 682) is unconstitutional and void in many parts and as a whole
because:

1. "(1)By creating a special court with jurisdiction over cases

which were already within the jurisdiction of the existing 1. "(a)It contains provisions which deal on matters entirely
Courts of First Instance without any real necessity and foreign to the subject matter expressed in its title;
urgent justification, considering that the persons involved 2. "(b)It deprives persons similarly situated of the equal
in said cases were more or less known and identified at protection of the laws;
the time of the creation of said special court, the law 3. "(c)It is a bill of attainder in that it virtually imposes upon
establishes a precedent under which the legislature may at specific, known, and identified individuals or group of
any time remove from the jurisdiction of existing courts individuals, the penalty of detention and imprisonment for
cases involving definite or specific individuals or groups a period not exceeding six months without any form of
of individuals to serve any purpose which said legislature judicial trial or procedure;
or the legislators composing the same may wish to 4. "(d)Section 2 thereof constitutes an invalid and void
accomplish, either to the benefit or damage of said delegation of legislative power, in so far as it virtually
individuals or groups of individuals; leaves unqualifiedly in the discretion of the Solicitor
2. "(2)By limiting the choice of the judges to compose the General and/or the Office of Special Prosecutors the
People's Court to those who did not hold any position in power to determine the actual case over which the
the Philippine Executive Commission and/or the so-called People's Court shall have jurisdiction;
Republic of the Philippines, the law makes a 5. "(e)Sections 1, 4, and 18 thereof abridge, limit and curtail
classification that has absolutely no rational basis the power of appointment of the President;
inasmuch as the reason for discriminating against those 6. "(f)It provides for the designation and/or transfer of judges
who served in said governments, which is, that they might appointed for particular districts to another place outside
be prejudiced or influenced in favor of the accused exists of their respective districts without the consent of the
in equal measure for those who did not serve, in the sense Supreme Court;
that they may likewise be prejudiced or influenced against 7. " (g)Sections 13 and 19 thereof prescribed rules of
the accused; and procedure regarding appeal and bail which violate the rule
of uniformity of rules for all courts of the same grade
established in the Constitution;
548
54 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
 8. "(h)It is destructive of the independence of the judiciary
People vs. Carlos
and thereby violates the constitutional provision that the
offenses are included among the facts alleged in the information filed
Philippines is a republican state;
with the People's Court and proved by the evidence, there is no
reason why said court should not punish them as a court of first
550 instance would, it appearing that the People's Court is but a special
55 PHILIPPINE REPORTS court of first instance.
0 ANNOTATED (3) The third objection points to the disqualification of certain
Justices of the Supreme Court and the procedure of their substitution
People vs. Carlos as provided in section 14 of Commonwealth Act No. 682. Although
said section is, in effect, null and void as unconstitutional, it is not
1. "(i)Section 14 providing for disqualification of some enough ground to hold the whole act as unconstitutional, as said
Justices of the Supreme Court is unreasonable in its section can be eliminated without affecting the remaining provisions
operation." of the act.
(4) The fourth objection points to the proviso of section 19,
which provides for an exception concerning political offenders in the
Although it is regrettable that appellant failed to elaborate on the existing rules of court on the subject of bail. Whether the proviso is
several grounds upon which he impugns the validity of the law in valid or not, it cannot affect the constitutionality of the whole act. If it
question, upon which theory he seeks reversal of the decision of the is valid, it is within the purview of the creation of the People's Court.
People's Court and his acquittal from the treason charge, such failure If it is invalid, it can be discarded without affecting the other
does not relieve us from the duty of passing upon the questions provisions of the law.
raised, much more because they are not of passing importance. Our (5) The fifth objection points to the second proviso of section 19,
opinion on the several grounds relied upon by appellant to attack the suspending the provisions of article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
validity of Commonwealth Act No. 682 is as f ollows: The proviso is evidently unconstitutional. It is not within the purview
(a) MULTIPLICITY OF SUBJECT MATTER of the creation of the People's Court. It creates a discrimination
On the first ground, appellant undoubtedly relies on the following violative of the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the
provision of the Constitution: laws. In effect, it authorizes deprivation of liberty of the political
"No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject prisoners for a period of six months, which is violative of the
which shall be expressed in the title of the bill." (Section 21 [1], Article VI.) constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of his liberty
without due process of law. But the proviso may be eliminated
Five reasons are advanced by appellant to show that the act violates without affecting the remaining portions of the act and, therefore, is
the constitutional prohibition against multiplicity of subject matter. not enough ground for declaring the whole act null and void.
We are going to deal with them separately. Our conclusion is that the first ground attacking the validity of
(1) It is alleged that, although the People's Court has been created the law is without merit.
precisely to try crimes against national security with jurisdiction 553
impliedly exclusive, section 2 thereof retains the jurisdiction of courts VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 553
of first instance to try and decide cases not filed within six months.
We do not believe that the provision violates the constitutional People vs. Carlos
inhibition. There should not be any question that the creation of the (b) EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
People's Court was an answer to an unusual situation, created by the Appellant advances six reasons to show that the act violates the
extraordinary social upheaval provoked by the last war, demanding constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.
an uncommon solution, compatible with the tenets of our democracy, (1) The first reason is that, under section 2, the People's Court is
with the provision of the Constitution, and with the noble aims of only to try the cases of political offenders against whom the
justice. The several thousands of persons detained upon information has been filed within six months, while others shall be
551
tried in a Court of First Instance. We believe that there is no unjust
VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 551 discrimination in it. Those who will be tried by courts of first
People vs. Carlos instance cannot complain of any unjust discrimination. They will be
liberation charged with treason and other crimes against national tried by the regular tribunals created to try all other offenses. Those
security, needed the creation of a judicial machinery for the prompt who are to be tried by the People's Court cannot complain either,
disposal of their cases so as not to violate their constitutional right to because said court is but another court of first instance, although
a speedy trial. It was admitted that the inferior courts then existing especially created for the prompt disposal of the cases of political
were not enough to cope with the situation. Those who are guilty, detainees. Congress made it collegiate as a guarantee against possible
should be sentenced as soon as possible, so they may expiate for the miscarriage of justice due to popular excitement during the first
wrongs that they have committed, and those who are innocent are months after the liberation. Congress believed that a three-person
entitled to be cleared without any delay. The People's Court was, tribunal can defend itself better against any outside pressure than a
therefore, created to shoulder the burden that the courts of first one-man tribunal.
instance could not bear. Congress estimated that six months was (2) The second reason is that political offenders accused in the
enough time for the cases of the thousands of detainees to be filed People's Court are denied the preliminary investigation accorded to
with the People's Court, while the cases of those who have not yet those who may be accused in the court of first instance. We are of
been detained, on the assumption that they will be f ew, there was no opinion that the allegation is groundless. There is nothing in the act in
reason why these should not be disposed of by the courts of first question depriving political offenders accused in the People's Court
instance as is declared in the proviso of section 2. The proviso is of the preliminary investigation as provided by Rule 108.
germane with the subject matter of the law and does not violate the (3) The third reason is that political offenders accused in the
prohibition against multiplicity of subject matter. People's Court have limited right to appeal, while those who may be
(2) The second objection is raised against the proviso authorizing accused of the same crime in a court of first instance have absolute
the People's Court to convict and sentence those accused for any right to appeal. The allegation is partly true. There appears a
crime included in the acts alleged in the information and established discrimination against those who may be convicted by the People's
by the evidence, although they are not classified as among those Court in banc, by providing that they can only appeal in accordance
committed against national security. The objection cannot be with Rule 46, under which only questions of law may be raised. We
entertained. The proviso is within the logical purview of the creation are of opinion that the discrimination is violative of
554
of the People's Court. The lawmaker must have had in mind the fact
that among the thousands of detainees which motivated the creation 55 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
of the court there were persons who had committed crimes other than 4 ANNOTATED
those against national security.
Although these are the crimes primarily in the minds of those People vs. Carlos
who arrested said detainees, there is nothing unnatural that those who the guarantee of the equal protection of the laws, and should not be
committed said crimes may have also committed offenses of different given effect. But the unconstitutional provision may be eliminated,
nature either in connection with the first ones or independently, and if without annulling the whole act. In practice, the invalid
said other discriminating provision seems to have become obsolete as all cases
552 in the People's Court are tried and decided in division and not in
banc. ,
55 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
(4) The fourth reason is that appeals in cases involving persons
2 ANNOTATED who held any office under the governments established by the
Japanese during the occupation are to be heard and decided by a courts of first instance, considering that the persons
substantially different Supreme Court. The allegation is correct by involved in said cases were more or less known and
virtue of the provisions of section 14 which is flagrantly identified at the time of the creation of said court, the law
unconstitutional because (a) the disqualification of some members of establishes a precedent under which Congress may at any
the Supreme Court provided therein constitutes in effect partial time remove from the jurisdiction of existing court cases
removal from office in open violation of the guarantees and involving definite or specific individuals or groups of
procedure provided by Article IX of the Constitution, (b) it provides individuals to serve any purpose which the members of
for sitting in the Supreme Court of persons not appointed in Congress may wish to accomplish, either to the benefit or
accordance with section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution and damage of said individuals.
without the qualifications provided in section 6 of the same article, 2. 2.By limiting the choice of the judges to compose the
and (c) it provides for the existence of a second Supreme Court in People's Court, the law makes a classification that has
violation of section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which absolutely no rational basis.
provides for only "one Supreme Court." But, as we have already 3. 3.In leaving to the hands of the Solicitor General the
stated, section 14 can be eliminated from Commonwealth Act No. absolute right to choose in which court he shall prosecute
682, without declaring the act wholly unconstitutional. the cases contemplated by the law and in providing that
(5) The fifth reason is that there is discrimination in the first the judges of the People's Court shall be chosen from a
proviso of section 19 as to the granting of release on bail. We are of limited groups of individuals, etc., the law does not leave
opinion that there is no substantial discrimination. a wide
(6) The sixth reason is the discrimination provided in the second
proviso of section 19. The proviso is null and void, but it can be 557
eliminated without annulling the whole act. It is a denial of the equal
protection of the laws and is violative of the constitutional guarantee
VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 557
against deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The proviso Ignacio vs. Racho and Dolores
should not be given effect, without annulling the whole act.
555
1. room for the play of external factors in the administration
VOL. 78, JUNE 30, 1947 555 of justice to those concerned but also destroys the
People vs. Carlos confidence of the people in the judiciary.
(c) BILL OF ATTAINDER
Appellant alleges that Commonwealth Act No. 682 is a bill of The questions raised in the above three propositions are serious but
attainder in that it virtually imposes upon specific, known and none of them amounts to a violation of the fundamental law that may
identified individuals or group of individuals, the penalty of detention nullify the law in question, as they involve a matter of public policy,
and imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months without any although the first one points to a situation bordering into a
form of judicial trial or procedure. transgression of the guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. If
The allegation is justified by the second proviso of section 19 of the provisions of the law creating the special court should show a
the act. But it cannot affect it in whole as said proviso can be clear purpose of making a discrimination, pro or against those who
eliminated without impairing the remaining proviso of the law. may be tried under it, then the law must be declared null and void in
toto. Such is not the case of the law under discussion. Matters of
(d) DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER public policy not involving a violation of the fundamental law are
Appellant alleges that section 2 constitutes an invalid and void within the province of Congress to legislate, subject only to the
delegation of legislative power in so far as it virtually leaves control of the people through the electorate.
unqualifiedly in the discretion of the Solicitor General and/or the For all the foregoing, we vote to affirm the decision rendered by
Office of Special Prosecutors the power to determine the actual cases the lower court in this case.
over which the People's Court shall have jurisdiction. There is no Judgment affirmed.
such delegation. The People's Court is substantially but one court of
first instance, only with limited jurisdiction. Whether a case is to be
tried by the People's Court or by an ordinary court of first instance,
there is no substantial difference for purposes of the administration of
justice and the jurisdictions of both courts are specifically provided in
the law,
(e) CURTAILMENT OF THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT
OF THE PRESIDENT
Appellant's objection is directed against sections 1, 4, and 18. The
objection is untenable. Congress may validly provide for the
qualifications of the members of the People's Court. Section 8 of
Article VIII of the Constitution expressly grants that authority.
(f) TRANSFER OF JUDGES WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE
SUPREME COURT
Appellant alleges that Commonwealth Act No. 682 provides for the
designation and/or transfer of judges to an-
556
55 PHILIPPINE REPORTS
6 ANNOTATED
People vs. Carlos
other place outside of their respective districts without the consent of
the Supreme Court, implying that section 7 of Article VIII of the
Constitution is violated. The allegation is untenable. The fact that the
act authorizes the appointment of persons already holding positions
in the judiciary to be members of the People's Court is no violation of
the constitutional mandate. What the authors of the Constitution
contemplated were transfers from one district to another, but not
appointment of those already holding positions to other positions.
(g) UNIFORMITY OF LAWS
The objections of appellant in paragraph (g) is but a repetition of his
objections in paragraph (b) already dealt with above.
(h) INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
Appellant sets the following propositions:

1. 1.By creating a special court with jurisdiction over cases

which were already within the jurisdiction of the existing