GR 135080

Facts: On October 8, 1992 then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creating the
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, Several loan accounts were referred to
the Committee for investigation, including the loan transactions between Metals Exploration Asia, Inc.
(MEA), now Philippine Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).

After examining and studying the documents relative to the loan transactions, the Committee
determined that they bore the characteristics of behest loans, as defined under Memorandum Order
No. 61 because the stockholders and officers of PEMI were known cronies of then President Ferdinand
Marcos; the loan was under-collateralized; and PEMI was undercapitalized at the time the loan was
granted.

Petitioner’s Argument: Atty. Salvador argued that the Committee (Respondents) violated Sec. 3(e) and
(g) of R.A. 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act.

Respondent’s Argument: They argues that the petition suffers from a procedural infirmity which
warrants its dismissal. They claimed that the Atty. Salvador representing PCGG availed of the wrong
remedy in elevating the case to the SC.

Issue: WON Administrative Order No. 13 And Memorandum Order No. 61 are ex-post facto Laws

Provision Subject to Statutory Construction:

Administrative Order No. 13

- creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans
Memorandum Order No. 61
- expanding the function of the Committee

Ruling: The constitutional doctrine that outlaws an ex post facto law generally prohibits the
retrospectively of penal laws. Penal laws are those acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and
establish penalties for their violations; or those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for
their punishment.

The subject administrative and memorandum orders do not come within the shadow of this definition.
Administrative Order 13 creates the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, and
provides for its composition and functions. Memorandum Order 61 merely provides a frame of
reference for determining behest loans. Not being penal laws, Administrative Order 13 and
Memorandum Order 61 cannot be characterized as ex post facto laws. There is therefore no basis for
the Ombudsman to rule that the subject administrative and memorandum orders are ex post facto.