Legal Maxims

A. Lex prospicit non respicit

The Latin maxim which is translated as “the law looks forward not
backward” means that the law or statutes is formulated for the future not
for the past. There are exceptions in this maxim. These are the following :
(a) Ex post facto law (b) Impairment of contract (2) In case of remedial
statutes (3) In case of curative statutes (4) In case of laws interpreting
others (5) In case of laws creating new rights [Bona v. Briones (1918)] (6)
Penal Laws favorable to the accused

Thus this is evident in the case of Philippine Deposit Insurance

Corporation vs Stockholders of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., G.R.
No. 181556 December 14, 2009.

B. Lex injustia non est lex

Another Latin maxim which says, “an unjust law is no law”. This is a
famous quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas which refers to the natural
law itself. This is the standard maxim which is used throughout the world.
In this maxim the authority should be reminded that the law they make
should be good and just otherwise it is not legitimate. (Summa
Teologica)

C. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus

“Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish.” This
means that if there is no need for any distinction in a statute, it is as it is.
Thus this is the ruling in the case of EDUARDO LL. PLOPENIO represented by
GAVINO PLOPENIO versus DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
 D. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Ignorance of the law excuses no one. In this maxim, it presumed that every
citizen is aware of the laws of the state. Article 3 of the civil code has stated
and contained this maxim. However, this rule only refers to the existence of
a law, not to mistakes regarding its application or interpretation.

In other words, every person in Philippine jurisdiction is presumed to know

that a law regarding a particular conduct exists, even though in reality, he
has not read or even heard about the the law before. If a person violates a
law, even though in truth he does not know that such law exists, such
ignorance of its existence is not a valid legal defense and will not excuse
him from the legal consequences of the law’s violation. However, if a
person made a mistake borne out of a difficult question of law as to its
interpretation or application, such ignorance constitutes an excuse and is a
valid legal defense

E. Stare decisis et non quieta movere

In the case of CARMELO F. LAZATIN et al versus HON. ANIANO A.

DESIERTO as OMBUDSMAN et al G.R. no 147097, the maxim is being
used which means:

“ Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion

reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are
substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It
proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful
countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus,
where the same questions relating to the same event have been put
forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and
decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any
attempt to relitigate the same issue.”