Ex Post Facto Laws and Bill of Attainder Flashcards
Sec. 22, Art. III.
No _____________ or bill of _________ shall be enacted.
ex post facto law;
attainder
Can the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto law and bills of attainder be invoked to protect allegedly vested civil rights?
The constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder cannot be invoked to
protect allegedly vested civil rights, because it is only applicable to criminal proceedings, and not to civil proceedings which affect private rights retrospectively
[Province of Camarines Sur v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-43361 (1937)].
What is an ex post facto law?
- Equivalent of the impairment clause in criminal matters.
- Operates retroactively to affect antecedent acts
- An ex post facto law is one that would make a previous act criminal although it was not so at the time it was committed [CRUZ at 589].
What are considered Ex Post Facto laws?
- Makes criminal an action done before the passage of the law which was innocent when done, and punishes such action.
- Aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed.
- Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed.
- Alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant [Mekin v. Wolfe, G.R. No. 1251 (1903)].
- Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful.
- Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty [In re Kay Villegas Kami, G.R. No. L-32485 (1970)].
What are the characteristics of an ex post facto law?
In order to be considered ex post facto, the law must:
- Refer to criminal matters;
- Be retroactive in its application;
- To the prejudice of the accused.
[Cruz commentary, p. 591]
Is retroactive imposition of taxes on properties and income acquired during the Japanese occupation an expost facto law?
NO.
In Republic v. Fernandez [G.R. No. L-9141 (1956)], the retroactive imposition of taxes on properties and income acquired during the Japanese occupation was not an ex post facto law. “The prohibition applies only to criminal or penal matters and not to laws which concern civil matters or proceedings generally, or which affect or regulate civil or private rights.”
What is the relation of Bill of Attainders to Ex Post Facto Law?
“Frequently a bill of attainder was doubly objectionable because of its ex post facto features. This is the historic explanation for uniting the two mischiefs in one clause… Therefore, if a statute is a bill of attainder, it is also an ex post facto law. But if it is not an ex post facto law, the reasons that establish that it is not are persuasive that it cannot be a bill of attainder” [People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-32613-14 (1972)].
What is a Bill of Attainder?
A bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt. It is only when a statute applies to either named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial that it becomes a bill of attainder [People v. Ferrer, supra].
It is a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or trial by legislature [U.S. v. Brown 381 U.S. 437 (1965)].
What are the elements of a bill of attainder?
- There must be a law.
- The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable members of a group.
- There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.
What are not considered bills of attainder?
- R.A. 9335, which provides for the removal of the Bureau of Customs’ employees who would not be able to meet their revenue targets, as prescribed by law. RA 9335 does not seek to inflict punishment without judicial trial, but it merely lays down the grounds for the termination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides for the consequences thereof [Bureau of Customs Employees Association v. Teves, G.R. No. 181704 (2011)].
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.
In other words, if a legislation only states the grounds for a violation, then it is not considered as a bill of attainder
- Sec. 20 of the Cybercrime Law, which imposed a penalty of imprisonment upon those who would fail to comply with certain provisions of Chapter IV of the said law. The Court held that since the non-compliance would be punished as a violation of PD 1829, Sec. 20 of the Cybercrime Law necessarily incorporates elements of the offense which are defined therein. The act of noncompliance, for it to be punishable, must still be done “knowingly or willfully.” There must still be a judicial declaration of guilt, during which, defense and justifications for non-compliance may be raised [Disini v. Sec. of Justice, supra].
- R.A. 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 [People v. Ferrer, supra