What is a Bill of Attainder?

No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

What is a Bill of Attainder?

●A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. (People vs. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14, December 27, 1972)

● A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties.

Bills of attainder are an ancient instrument of tyranny. In England a few centuries back, Parliament would at times enact bills or statutes which declared certain persons attainted and their blood corrupted so that it lost all heritable quality (Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L.Ed. 366 [1867]). In more modern terms, a bill of attainder is essentially a usurpation of judicial power by a legislative body. It envisages and effects the imposition of a penalty — the deprivation of life or liberty or property — not by the ordinary processes of judicial trial, but by legislative fiat. While cast in the form of special legislation, a bill of attainder (or bill of pains and penalties, if it prescribed a penalty other than death) is in intent and effect a penal judgment visited upon an identified person or group of persons (and not upon the general community) without a prior charge or demand, without notice and hearing, without an opportunity to defend, without any of the civilized forms and safeguards of the judicial process as we know it. Such is the archetypal bill of attainder wielded as a means of legislative oppression. (BOCEA vs. Teves, G.R. No. 181704, December 6, 2011, 661 SCRA 589)


Elements of Bill of Attainder

1. There must be a law.
2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable members of a group.
3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.

Characteristic:

It substitutes legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.


What is the purpose of the constitutional ban against bills of attainder?

The constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle of separation of powers by confining legislatures to rule-making and thereby forestalling legislative usurpation of the judicial function. History in perspective, bills of attainder were employed to suppress unpopular causes and political minorities, and it is against this evil that the constitutional prohibition is directed. The singling out of a definite class, the imposition of a burden on it, and a legislative intent, suffice to stigmatize a statute as a bill of attainder. (People vs. Ferrer)


Cases:

● R.A. No. 9335 does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder. It does not seek to inflict punishment without a judicial trial. R.A. No. 9335 merely lays down the grounds for the termination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides for the consequences thereof. The democratic processes are still followed and the constitutional rights of the concerned employee are amply protected. (BOCEA vs. Teves)


● The contention that B. P. 22 is a bill of attainder, one which inflicts punishment without trial and the essence of which is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt, fails. For under B. P. 22, every element of the crime is still to be proven before the trial court to warrant a conviction for violation thereof. (Recuerdo vs People, G.R. No. 133036. January 22, 2003)


● RA 1700 which declared the Communist Party of the Philippines a clear and present danger to Philippine security, and thus prohibited membership in such organization, was contended to be a bill of attainder. Although the law mentions the CPP in particular, its purpose is not to define a crime but only to lay a basis or to justify the legislative determination that membership in such organization is a crime because of the clear and present danger to national security.

The Anti-Subversion Act is not a bill of attainder, because it does not specify the Communist Party of the Philippines or the members thereof for the purpose of punishment; what it does is simply declare the Party to be an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government; and the term “Communist Party of the Philippines” is used solely for definitional purposes. (People vs. Ferrer)


Read:

BOCEA vs. Teves Case Digest