Constitutional Law: Article III, Section 22 Summary (De Leon)

 SEC. 21. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Meaning of ex post facto law. (CAPE-SCP)

An ex post facto law is one which, operating retrospectively:

1) makes an act done before the passage of a law, innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such act; or

(2) aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; or

(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than what the law annexed to the crime when committed; or

(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less testimony than or different testimony from what the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender; or

(5) which in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage; or

(6) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect, imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; or

(7) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty, alters the situation of a person, in relation to the offense or its consequences, to his disadvantage.

Characteristics of ex post facto laws. (CRD)

(1) Ex post facto laws relate to penal or criminal matters only (civil interests are protected by the non-impairment guarantee), i.e., laws penal in nature

(2) They are retroactive in their operation; and

(3) They deprive persons accused of crime of some protection or defense previously available, to their disadvantage.

The guarantees against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are, like substantive due process, constitutional limits on legislative power.

Retroactive application of penal law to accused's prejudice.

Penal laws are laws which prohibit certain acts and provide penalties for their violations or those that define crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their punishment.

Ex post facto laws, unless they are favorable to the accused, are absolutely prohibited by the Constitution because they are patently unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive. Hence, even without the prohibition, such laws are subject to constitutional objection on due process grounds.

(1) An example of an ex post facto law is a statute declaring as usurious and unlawful a rate of interest provided in a contract which was not usurious under the laws in force at the time of the execution of the contract; or increasing the penalty for a crime. 

(2) The forfeiture to the State of ill-gotten wealth of a public officer or employee prescribed by the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 1379.), being in the nature of penalty and the forfeiture proceedings being deemed criminal or penal, cannot be made to apply to acquisitions made prior to its passage without running afoul of the constitutional provision condemning ex post facto laws or bills of attainder.

(3) A law (P.D. No. 957.) which makes punishable thereunder the failure of the owner-developer or administrator to deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment, is not ex post facto although the contract to sell was executed long before the enactment of the law, because what is being punished is not the execution of such contract but the failure to deliver such title after the enactment of the law.

(4) The prohibition is against laws that are ex post facto. There is no constitutional restriction on the power of a court to overrule precedent or decision of a lower court by holding a criminal statute to apply to acts previously held to be excluded from the statute's coverage but a conviction may violate due process of law where the reinterpretation has practically the effect of an ex post facto law. 

(5) Although an additional fine of P15,000 is imposed by R.A. No. 8294 which amends Pres. Decree No. 1866 punishing illegal possession of firearms, the same is still advantageous to the accused considering that the imprisonment is lowered to prision correccional in its maximum period from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua under Pres. Decree No. 1866.

(6) The imposition of a higher penalty on habitual delinquents is not violative of the constitutional principle, as such penalty is not considered punishment for previously unpunished acts.

Meaning of bill of attainder/bill of pains and penalties.

(1) A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial.

(2) If the punishment is less than death (i.e., deprivation of liberty, rights, or property), the act is called a bill of pains and penalties. It is included within the meaning of bill of attainder as used in the Constitution. 

Purpose and basis of prohibition against bill of attainder.

(1) The prohibition against the enactment of bills of attainder is designed as a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or simply trial by legislature.

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.

(2) Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. 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.

Characteristics of a bill of attainder. (SRL)

They are as follows:

(1) The statute applies to specifically defined or easily ascertainable person or group of persons;

(2) It applies retroactively and reaches past conduct; and

(3) A conviction or sentence is pronounced by the law (i.e., legislature), instead of by the courts (i.e., without judicial trial).

Conviction and punishment without judicial trial.

(1) By the legislative body.

In a bill of attainder, the legislative body, in addition to its legitimate functions, exercises the power and office of Judge; it pronounces upon the guilt of a party, without any of the forms and safeguards of a judicial trial (e.g., right to be heard, application of the rules of evidence); and it fixes the degree of punishment m accordance with its own notions of the gravity of the offense. Thus:

(a) A law passed declaring members of an association guilty of subversion and subjecting them to imprisonment is unconstitutional because it convicts and penalizes without the benefit of judicial trial. .

(b) In a case where a law passed by the United States Congress declared in one of its sections that three government employees named therein were not to receive any salary after a certain date because of their subversive activities, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the enactment was in the nature of a bill of pains and penalties, the Congress assuming the role of a judge and giving no hearing to the parties. Hence, the provision was void.

But the detention of a prisoner for a certain period pending investigation and trial is not a punishment; it is a necessary extension of the well-recognized power of the State to hold a criminal suspect for investigation.

(2) For past conduct. 

To constitute a bill of attainder, only punishment consisting of deprivation of life, liberty, or property for past conduct is considered. 

Any deprivation imposed only to prevent future conduct is not prohibited; and a deprivation is considered preventive, so not covered by the prohibition, if it is "escapable," that is, if the people affected can avoid harm by acting in accordance with the statute.

Thus, a state is entitled to require as a condition for public employment, non-membership in organizations advocating the violent overthrow of the government. It may discharge those employed by it who are affiliated with them, or refuse to affirm or deny them.