STATUTORY

CONSTRUCTION
First Semester, SY 2019-2020 Commented [AMJS1]:
HEADER:
SBU logo
SBU COL logo
Prospective and Retroactive Statutes
Paper: US Letter (Not sure if anong paper size)
Atty. Monica Anne T. Yap1, Martha Divina L. Careng2, Karen Danielle R. Malong2, Joy Louise Margins: 1 inch top, bottom, left, right
T. Evidente2, Audry Medsel Jann B. Santos2
First Page erves as cover page
1
Professor, College of Law, San Beda University. 2Student, STCON/1L, College of Law, San Beda University

CONTENTS

I. In General
A. Prospective and Retroactive Statutes
B. Law Operate Prospectively
C. Presumption Against Retroactivity
D. Words or Phrases Indicating Prospectivity
E. Retroactive Statutes

II. Statutes Given Prospective Effect

A. Penal Statutes
B. Ex Post Facto Law
C. Bill of Attainder
D. Penal Laws Applied Retroactively
E. Statutes Substantive in Nature
F. Effects on Pending Actions
G. Qualification of Rule
H. Statutes Affecting Vested Rights
I. Statutes Affecting Obligation of Contract
J. Illustration of Rule
K. Repealing and Amendatory Acts

III. Statutes Given Retroactive Effect

A. Laws Not Retroactive: Exception
B. Procedural Rules
C. Exceptions to the Rule
D. Curative Statutes
E. Limitations of Rule
F. Police Power Legislations
G. Statutes Relation to Prescription
H. Apparently Conflicting Decisions on Prescription
I. Prescription in Criminal and Civil Cases
J. Statutes Relating to Appeals

IV. Assigned Cases

A. Hagonoy Water District vs National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 81490, August 31, 1988
B. Filoteo, Jr. vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October 16, 1996
C. Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, G.R. No.s 9219192, July 30, 1991

V. References
 I. IN GENERAL

A. Prospective and Retroactive Statutes

When we talk about whether statutes are prospective or retroactive, we look at the aspect of it by application
(among other aspects are by form – is it negative or positive? ; by operation – is it declaratory, curative,
mandatory?)

Considerations with regards to retroactive and prospective touches on the matter of time. Prospective oper-
ates upon facts and transactions that occur after the statutes takes effect – it looks and applies to the future.
Retroactive, on the other hand, imposes new duties, new penalties, new processes, new disabilities – basi-
cally, it introduces new conditions applicable to those transactions made in the past.

To illustrate, in Laceste vs Santos, Clemente Laceste was the co-accused of Nicolas Lachica with the crime
of raping Magdalena de Ocampo. Between the two accused, Lachica was relieved from criminal prosecu-
tion when he married the victim; but Laceste continued to serve his sentence which was not affected by the
former’s marriage. The petitioner, Laceste, prays that the court set him at liberty through the writ of habeas
corpus, pleading that there is no sufficient ground for continuing his imprisonment any longer. Under Art
344 of the Revised Penal Code states “In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the
marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty
already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the coprincipals,
accomplices, and accessories after the fact of the abovementioned crimes.” The issue raised was whether
or not the provision of Art 344 applies to the petitioner. The Supreme Court ruled A new law has a pro-
spective effect; however, penal laws that are in favor of a guilty person, who is not a habitual criminal shall
be given retroactive effect. Art 22 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is applicable to the petitioner.

B. Law Operate Prospectively

No court will hold a statute to be retroactive unless the legislature intended to give them a retroactive effect
when expressly declared or necessarily implied from the language used.

To illustrate, in Segovia vs. Noel, Vicente Segovia was appointed Justice of the peace of Dumanjug, Cebu.
He continuously occupied his position until having passed 65 milestones. He was ordered by the Secretary
of Justice to vacate his office; and was replaced by Pedro Noel. Segovia, later on, instituted a friendly quo
warranto proceedings in the First Instance of Cebu to inquire into the right of Pedro Naval to occupy the
office of Justice od the peace, to oust the latter therefrom, and to procure reinstatement as justice of the
peace of Dumanjug. To counter, Noel interposed a demurrer on the ground that it did not alleged facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action because Act 3107 – which provides, that justice of the peace and
auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the age of 65 – was
constitutional and Mr. Segovia, being 65 years old has automatically ceased to be justice of the peace.
Petitioner avers that Section 1 of Act 3107, which amends section 203 of the Administrative Code, is un-
constitutional in that impairs the contractual right of the petitioner to an office. Section 206 of the Admin-
istrative Code provides that “a justice of the peace having the requisite legal qualifications shall hold office
during good behavior unless his office be lawfully abolished or merged in the jurisdiction of some other
justice,” was left unchanged by Act 3107. The issue raised was whether the contended portion of Act 3107
should be given retroactive effect. The Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of provisions
 V. REFERENCES

Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction. Manila: Rex Book Store (2009)

Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corp vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No L-54305, available at
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_l_54305_1990.html (last visited October 20, 2019)

Billones v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-17566, available at http://www.chanro-

bles.com/cralaw/1965julydecisions.php?id=264 (last visited October 19, 2019)

Buyco vs Philippine National Bank, G.R. No L-14406, available at https://www.lawphil.net/judju-

ris/juri1961/jun1961/gr_l-14406_1961.html (last visited October 20, 2019)

Corales v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-44063, available at http://www.chanro-

bles.com/cralaw/1982marchdecisions.php?id=103(last visited October 19, 2019)

Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, available at https://lawphil.net/judju-

ris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_120295_1996.html#rnt45 (last visited October 20, 2019)

People vs Zeta, G.R. No. L-7140, December 22, 1955, available at https://www.lawphil.net/judju-
ris/juri1955/dec1955/gr_l-7140_1955.html (last visited October 20, 2019)
Pres. Decree No. 725 (1975)

Tan, Jr. vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No 136368, available at http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/juris-

prudence2002/jan2002/gr_136368_2002.php (last visited October 20, 2019)