G.R. No. L-23761 - SEPTEMBER 1979 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-23761September 4, 1979 Jesus Lava vs. Jesus De Veyra G.R. No. L-35260September 4, 1979 Republic of the Philippines vs. J. Juan Bocar, et al. A.M. No. 1053September 7, 1979 Santa Pangan vs. Atty. Dionisio Ramos A.M. No. 997September 10, 1979 Pilar Abaigar vs. David D.C. Paz G.R. No. L-33015September 10, 1979 Gop-Ccp Workers Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. L-35281September 10, 1979 People of the Phil vs. Jessie V. Tapales G.R. No. L-23480September 11, 1979 J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-36824September 11, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Ariston Guillermo, et al. A.M. No. 1402-MJSeptember 14, 1979 Hermogenes Anguluan vs. Hon. Henry C. Taguba G.R. No. L-29803September 14, 1979 Leopoldo Poblete vs. Donato Fabros A.M. No. P-2082September 20, 1979 Judge Numeriano G. Estenzo vs. Leonardo C. Dejaño G.R. No. L-31623September 25, 1979 Ilocos Norte Coconut Producers Association, Inc. vs. John F. Northcott, Jr. G.R. No. L-31785September 25, 1979 Antipolo Highway Lines Employees Union vs. Benjamin H. Aquino G.R. No. L-45168September 25, 1979 Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-49829September 25, 1979 Lamberto Funtila vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-31087September 27, 1979 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Margarine-Verkaufs-Union Gmbh G.R. No. L-50907September 27, 1979 Atty. Reynaldo P. Dimayacyac vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. P-1821September 28, 1979 Anacleta Villanueva vs. Pedro Santos G.R. No. L-24157September 28, 1979 People of the Phil vs. Abdugafar Abubakar G.R. No. L-25488September 28, 1979 Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Co. (Pnr), et al. G.R. No. L-29979September 28, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Mada-I Santalani G.R. No. L-33951September 28, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Compacion G.R. No. L-37418September 28, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Juan Francisco G.R. No. L-42640September 28, 1979 Sofia L. Enriquez vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-43286September 28, 1979 Oscar S. Nuguid vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Jesus Lava vs. Jesus De Veyra Republic of the Philippines vs. J. Juan Bocar, et al. Santa Pangan vs. Atty. Dionisio Ramos Pilar Abaigar vs. David D.C. Paz Gop-Ccp Workers Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations People of the Phil vs. Jessie V. Tapales J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ariston Guillermo, et al. Hermogenes Anguluan vs. Hon. Henry C. Taguba Leopoldo Poblete vs. Donato Fabros Judge Numeriano G. Estenzo vs. Leonardo C. Dejaño Ilocos Norte Coconut Producers Association, Inc. vs. John F. Northcott, Jr. Antipolo Highway Lines Employees Union vs. Benjamin H. Aquino Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Lamberto Funtila vs. Court of Appeals Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Margarine-Verkaufs-Union Gmbh Atty. Reynaldo P. Dimayacyac vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Anacleta Villanueva vs. Pedro Santos People of the Phil vs. Abdugafar Abubakar Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Co. (Pnr), et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mada-I Santalani People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Compacion People of the Philippines vs. Juan Francisco Sofia L. Enriquez vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Oscar S. Nuguid vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23761 September 4, 1979

JESUS LAVA,petitioner,
vs.
JESUS DE VEYRA, as Presiding Judge of Branch XIV of the Court of First Instance of Manila; FLORENTINO N. VILLANUEVA, as Second Assistant City Fiscal of Manila; BUENAVENTURA FERNANDEZ, as Special Prosecutor, Philippine Constabulary, Camp Crame, Quezon City; SANTIAGO TAN, as Special Prosecutor, Philippine Constabulary, Camp Crame, Quezon City; PEDRO S. DAVID, as Assistant Fiscal of Manila, City Hall, Manila; and ERNESTO R. OXCIANO, as Assistant Fiscal of Manila, City Hall, Manila,respondents.

FERNANDO,C.J.:

In this certiorari and prohibition proceeding, petitioner Jesus Lava sought to set aside and nullify an order of respondent Judge Jesus de Veyra, now retired, denying his motion to dismiss for lack of merit.ℒαwρhi৷It is his contention that the act under which he was prosecuted for anti-subversion, Republic Act No. 1700, is unconstitutional, primarily on the ground of its being anex post factolaw and a bill of attainder, but including likewise the allegation that it constituted as to the petitioner a denial of due process, equal protection, and his freedom of association. This Court required respondents1to answer. Accordingly, such responsive pleading was filed2wherein the alleged infirmities imputed to the Anti- Subversion Law were refuted and the assertion that petitioner was likewise denied due process, equal protection and his freedom of association were characterized as devoid of merit. The case was orally argued. Thereafter, respondents were given a period of ten days to submit an additional memorandum and petitioner, the same period to reply.

It is apparent that the principal question raised is the validity of the Anti-Subversion Law. Accordingly, in a resolution of June 20, 1979, this Court issued a resolution requiring the parties, more specifically the petitioners, to state by appropriate pleadings whether the petition has become moot and academic in the light of the decision inPeople v. Ferrer3sustaining the validity of the Anti- Subversion Act and the fact that petitioner Jesus Lava is no longer under detention. Petitioner, as of this date, has not filed such manifestation. It is understandable why. He has been released, and is now free. The threat of loss of liberty no longer exists. His prosecution has ceased. As to him, the issue of the validity of the Anti-Subversion Act and the alleged denial of due process, equal protection, and freedom of association no longer possess any significance. The legal points raised are merely of academic interest now, insofar as he is concerned.

It only remains to be added that the validity of the Anti-Subversion Law was sustained by this Court, as noted inPeople v. Ferrer,the extensive and scholarly opinion being penned by the late Chief Justice Castro, with only one dissent coming from the writer of this resolution.

WHEREFORE,this petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and Melencio Herrera, JJ., concur.

Makasiar and Santos, JJ., is on leave.

Footnotes

Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEEJ.,concurring:

I concur. I only wish to add that when the Court in its Resolution of April 30, 1974 denied respondents-accused's motions for reconsideration of the decision of December 27, 1972 inPeople vs. Ferrer(48 SCRA 382), I filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which I stressed that the very rationale of the decision in saving the Anti-Subversion Act from the fatal stigma of the bill of attainder is that the Act benotconstrued "as punishingmere membershipdevoid of any specific intent to further the unlawful goals of the [Communist] Party," as follows: