Taruc v. Ericta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Linda Taruc was charged with violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Act) for allegedly knowingly, willfully, and by overt acts joining or maintaining membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). A preliminary investigation was conducted by respondent Judge Vicente G. Ericta. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion to quash, arguing that R.A. No. 1700 was unconstitutional and thus the court lacked jurisdiction. The respondent judge issued an order for petitioner's arrest and denied her motion to quash. Subsequently, the judge granted bail but denied a motion to reduce it. The City Fiscal was ordered to file an information, which was subsequently filed. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction seeking to annul the resolution denying her motion to quash and to enjoin the judge from proceeding with the investigation, primarily on the ground of the alleged unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 1700.
Issue(s)
Whether or not Republic Act No. 1700, the Anti-Subversion Law, is unconstitutional. 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.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, upholding the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1700.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of R.A. No. 1700: The Court held that the issue of the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1700 had already been resolved in the case of People v. Ferrer, L-32613-14, December 27, 1972, 48 SCRA 382. In Ferrer, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, declaring that it was neither a bill of attainder nor an infringement of the freedom of expression and freedom of association. The present petition did not present any new arguments or circumstances that would warrant a reconsideration of the established ruling in Ferrer. Therefore, the petition raising the same constitutional challenge was dismissed for lack of merit. On the jurisdiction of the lower court: Since the Court affirmed the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1700, the basis for the petitioner's motion to quash and her challenge to the lower court's jurisdiction was rendered moot. The lower court, having jurisdiction over offenses defined and penalized by a valid law, could validly proceed with the preliminary investigation and the subsequent criminal case filed against the petitioner. The arguments presented by the petitioner regarding the unconstitutionality of the law were found to be without merit, thus negating any claim of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent judge.
Main Doctrine
The constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1700, the Anti-Subversion Act, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in People v. Ferrer, and this ruling remains authoritative.