( t ) Case: The rppellant attackcd the constitutionality of the

"r-
' P.opie's Court Act on the ground that it contains provisions which
deal on mattcrs entirely foreign to the subjcct matter expressed in
its title, such as, ( 1) a provision which retains the jurisdiction of
the Court of First Instance; (2) a provision which ndds to the
disqualification of Justices of the Supreme Court and provides a
procedure for their substitution; (J) a provision which changed
the existing Rules of Court on the subiect of bail, and (4) a Pro'
vision which suspends Article 125 of. the Revised Penal Code. Held:
The various provisions mentioned are allied and germane to the
" subject matter and purpose of the People's Court Act which is in-
J tended to be a full and complete scheme with its own machinery
for the indictment and trial of treason cases. These provisions are
i.
.' subordinate to its end. (People os' Carlos, 44 O.G- 4281).