Political Law Bar Exam Answers: Bill of Attainder

Bill of Attainder (1987)

No. XI: Congress passed a law relating to officials and employees who had served in the Government for the period from September 21, 1972 up to February 25, 1986.

(a) One provision of the law declared all officials from the rank of assistant head of a department, bureau, office or agency “Unfit” for continued service in the government and declared their respective positions vacant.

(b) Another provision required all the other officials and employees to take an oath of loyalty to the flag and government as a condition for their continued employment. Are the two provisions valid? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The law is a bill of attainder by which Congress, by assuming judicial magistracy, in effect declares all officials and employees during martial law (September 21, 1972- February 25, 1986) as disloyal and, on this basis, removes some while subjecting others to a loyalty test.

With respect to the provision declaring positions vacant, even the power to reorganize can not be invoked because under the Freedom Constitution such power can be exercised only by the President and only up to February 25, 1987. Since the law under question was presumably passed after February 25, 1987 and by Congress, it is unconstitutional.

(b) With respect to the provision requiring the loyalty test, loyalty as a general rule is a relevant consideration in assessing employees’ fitness. However, the requirement in this case is not a general requirement but singles out “martial law” employees and therefore is administered in a discriminatory manner. Loyalty, therefore, while a relevant consideration in other circumstances, is being employed in this case for an unconstitutional purpose.

Bill of Attainder (1990)

No. 1; Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and empowered it to sequester any property shown prima facie to be ill-gotten wealth of the late President Marcos, his relatives and cronies. Executive Order No. 14 vests on the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction to try hidden wealth cases. On April 14, 1986, after an investigation, the PCGG sequestered the assets of X Corporation, Inc.

(1) X Corporation, Inc. claimed that President Aquino, as President, could not lawfully issue Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14, which have the force of law, on the ground that legislation is a function of Congress. Decide.

(2) Said corporation also questioned the validity of the three executive orders on the ground that they are bills of attainder and, therefore, unconstitutional. Decide.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(1) Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 were issued in 1986. At that time President Corazon Aquino exercised legislative power ….

(2) Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 are not bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. Accordingly, it was held in Bataan Shipyards and Engineering company. Inc. v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, that Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 are not bills of attainder, because they do not inflict any punishment. On the contrary, they expressly provide that any judgment that the property sequestered is ill-gotten wealth is to be made by a court (the Sandiganbayan) only after trial.

From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in POLITICAL LAW by the UP LAW COMPLEX and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS.