4. Operative Fact Doctrine

Operative Fact Doctrine

The operative fact doctrine recognizes that an unconstitutional legal provision existed and may have produced effects before it was declared unconstitutional; it does not validate the provision itself and hence, legitimizes otherwise invalid acts done pursuant thereto because of considerations of practicality and fairness. In this regard, certain acts done pursuant to a legal provision which was just recently declared as unconstitutional by the Court cannot be anymore undone because not only would it be highly impractical to do so, but more so, unfair to those who have relied on the said legal provision prior to the time it was struck down [Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 203754, June 16, 2015].

The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law, but it can never be invoked to validate an unconstitutional act as constitutional [Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, G.R. No. L-28113 (1969)].

Applicability: The doctrine "applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, and only when the extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application." [Mandanas v. Ochoa, Jr., citing Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. Nos. 199802 and 208488)]

General Rule: The interpretation or declaration of unconstitutionality is retroactive in that it applies from the law’s effectivity.

Exception: Subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality does not nullify the acts exercised in line with the law. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration [Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, supra]

ATENEO NOTES

Updated: The operative fact doctrine may preserve effects arising before the declaration of unconstitutionality becomes final, without validating the unconstitutional provision itself (Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 203754, 3 November 2020).

Effect of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. (Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corp., G.R. Nos. 203754 & 204418, Oct. 15, 2019)

The exception is the doctrine of operative fact, which applies as a matter of equity and fair play. (Id.)

• This doctrine may recognize and preserve certain effects produced before an unconstitutional law or executive act was declared invalid, when equity and fairness warrant it; it does not validate the measure itself. (Id.)
• Hence, it legitimizes otherwise invalid acts done pursuant thereto because of considerations of practicality and fairness. In this regard, certain acts done pursuant to a legal provision which was just recently declared as unconstitutional cannot be anymore undone because not only would it be highly impractical to do so, but more so, unfair to those who have, in good faith, relied on the said legal provision prior to the time it was struck down. (Id.)
• It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist, AND only when the extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent conditions that will permit its application. (Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)

Updated: The operative effects of the invalid provisions concerning graded films extended through the judgment’s finality (Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 203754, 3 November 2020).