T. Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder

EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER

Concept

The Constitution prohibits the enactment of both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. These are express limits on what may be enacted, stated together in Article III, Section 22. The supplied case doctrine explains the ex post facto prohibition in terms of retrospective penal laws, but does not provide a definition or a separate test for bills of attainder. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const.)¹ (Chavez v. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, 9 June 2004)²

Governing provisions

Article III, Section 22 provides: “No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.” The provision names two prohibited forms of enactment. Its text does not set out their elements or identify particular measures that fall within either prohibition. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const.)¹

Requisites / Rules

• For the ex post facto issue addressed in the supplied case, ask whether the challenged measure is penal and retrospective. The Court stated that the prohibition applies only to retrospective penal laws. (Chavez v. Romulo)²
• Ask how the measure operates, rather than treating an ex post facto objection as established by its assertion alone. In Chavez v. Romulo, the guidelines applied prospectively and did not punish prior acts; the Court therefore rejected the ex post facto challenge. (Chavez v. Romulo)²
• Bills of attainder are prohibited. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const.)¹ (Chavez v. Romulo)²

Distinctions

Article III, Section 22 places the two prohibitions side by side, while the supplied decision discusses only ex post facto laws. A discussion of whether guidelines are retrospective and penal accordingly addresses the ex post facto objection; it does not, without further authority, resolve a bill-of-attainder objection. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const.)¹ (Chavez v. Romulo)²

Key doctrines

Chavez v. Romulo supplies a concrete application of the temporal rule. The Court held that the challenged administrative guidelines were prospective, did not punish prior acts, and were not an ex post facto law. The petition was dismissed. The decision thus provides a direct answer when the facts show prospective guidelines rather than a retrospective penal measure. (Chavez v. Romulo)²

Exceptions

No exception to either express constitutional prohibition is stated in the supplied provision. Prospective application in Chavez was not treated as an exception to an otherwise prohibited ex post facto law; it was the reason the guidelines did not fall within the prohibition addressed by the Court. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const.)¹ (Chavez v. Romulo)²

Bar tip

Start with Article III, Section 22. For an ex post facto claim, identify any retrospective penal operation; if the measure is prospective and does not punish prior acts, apply Chavez. Do not invent a bill-of-attainder test from this limited pack. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const.)¹ (Chavez v. Romulo)²