CHAPTER 19

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES

PUBLICATION

Article 2 of the Civil Code (as amended by Executive Order

No. 200) provides:
Article 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication either in
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise
provided...
Rules on the effectivity and interpretation of laws may also be
found in Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, which provides:

CHAPTER5

Operation and Effect of Laws

SECTION 18. When Laws Take Effect. - Laws shall
take effect after fifteen (15) days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette
or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless it is
otherwise provided.

SECTION 19. Prospectivity. Laws shall have

prospective effect unless the contrary is expressly
provided.
SECTION 20. Interpretation of Laws and Administratioe
or
Issuances. -

In the interpretation of a
law

Executive Order No. 292 (1987).

 PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES | 439

administrative issuance pronmulgated in all the official

languages, the English text shall control, unless
otherwise specifically provided. In case of ambiguity,
omission or mistake, the other texts may be consulted.

SECTION 21. No Implied Revival of Repealed Lau.

When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is
itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not be
thereby revived unless expressly so provided.

SECTION 22. Revival of Law Impliedly Repealed.-

When a law which impliedly repeals a prior law is
itself repealed, the prior law shall thereby be revived,
unless the repealing law provides otherwise.

SECTION 23. Ignorance of the Law. - Ignorance of the

law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

Publication is a basic requirement of procedural due process.

Publication informs the public of the contents of the laws which govern
them and regulate their activities.2 Article 2 of the Civil Code, as

Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, Inc. v. Energy Regulatory

2012. The Administrative Code of
1987
Commission, G.R. No.192117, September 18,
(Chapter 2, Book VI) also provides:
Section 3. Filing. - (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the
Philippines Law Center, three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted
which are not
on the date of effectivity of this Code,
by it. Rules in force
filed within three (3) months shall not thereafter be the basis of any

sanction against any party or persons.

ection 4. Effectivity. - In addition to other rule-making requirements
each rule shall become
provided by law not inconsistent with this Book,
ettective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above provided
unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases or
minent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence ot
the rule. The
must expressed in a statement accompanying
be
rules
to make emergency
8ency shall take appropriate measures
nown to persons who may be affected by
them.
or filed with
the Office of the
issuances which are not published
ninistrative
Onal Administrative Register are ineffective and may not be en 1
Classification Board, G.R. No. 148579,
Febrina V Movie and Television Review and every 8overnnene
,2007. and regulations adopted by
To be clear, not all rules
y a r e to be filed with the IIP Iaw Center. Only those of general or ot permane
 440 LEGAL METHOD EsSENTIALS 3.0

amended by Section 1 of Executive Order No. 200, states that

shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion ws

Dublication either in the Official Gazette or in a their
newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise
provided" Section
18, Chapter 5, Book I of Executive Order No. 292 or the
Administrarative
Code of 1987 similarly provides that "[|Jaws shall take effect
after fiftoon
(15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless it
is otherwisa
provided."3

The Administrative Code of 1987

explains what matters shall
be published in the Official Gazette:

CHAPTER 6

Official Gazette
SECTION 24. Contents. - There shall be published in
the Official Gazette all
legislative acts and resolutions
of a public nature; all executive and
administrative
issuances of general application; decisions or abstracts
of decisions of the
Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals, or other courts of similar rank, as may be
deemed by the said courts of sufficient importance to
be so published; such documents or classes of
documents may be required so to be published by
as

law; and such documents or classes of documents as

the President shall determine from time to time to
have general application or which he may authorize
so to be published.

The publication of any law, resolution or other official

documents in the Official Gazette shall be prima jue
evidence of its
authority.

character are to be filed. See The

nent Service Insurance

System v.Velasco, G.R. No. Board of Trustees of the

Gove
ASSOCIation of
170463, February 2, 2011. Regulatory

Commission, G.R. Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives,

No. 192117, n *
September 18, 2012.
 PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES
|441

The publication of materials in the online version of the

Offio Gazette is not intended to satisty the publication requirements

found in
the Civil Code and the Administrative Code. The online
Official Gazette provides:
version of the
Please note that the posting of laws and issuances in
this website is for information dissemination. The
effectivity of laws, regulations, and issuances start 15
days, unless otherwise provided in the document,
after their publication in the Official Gazette print
version or in two newspapers of general circulation as
mandated by the Administrative Code of 1987 and
Executive Order No. 200, s. 1987.

EXCEPTIONS TO PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT

The following are exceptions to the requirement of publication.

1. An interpretative regulation does not require publication

in order to be effective. The applicability of an

"needs nothing further than its

interpretative regulation
bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than
what the law itself has already prescribed." It "add[s]
substantial
nothing to the law" and "does not affect the
rights of any person."
A regulation that is merely internal in nature does not
2.
for its effectivity. It seeks to regulate
require publication
of the administrative agency and
not
only the personnel
the general public.
A letter of instruction issued by an administrative agency
3.
rules or guidelines to be
followed by
Concerning duties does not
subordinates in the performance of their
be effective.
require publication in order to

Id.
 442 | LEGAL METHOd
EssENTIALS 3.0

In Tañada vs. Tuvera,5 the

Supreme Court held that:
T]he clause "unless it is
to the date of otherwise
effectivity and not to theprovided" refers
publication itself, which cannot requirement of
omitted. Thisclause does not
in
any event be
mean that
may make the law the
effective legislator
approval, or on any other date immediately
upon
publication. without its
previous
Publication is
legislature may indispensable
in
every case,
in its
discretion provide that thebut the
fifteen-day period shall be shortened or usual
A extended...
handwritten annotation by
published in the Official Gazette President Marcos that
has no force and effect. was not

PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF
LAWS
Statutes
prospective
are
they being the formulation
and
not retroactive in
their
of rules for the operation,
the legal maxim lex
de futuro,
future, not the
past. Hence,
the future, the judex de praeterito the law
provides for
-

Civil
judge for the past, which is articulated in Article 4 of the
Code: "Laws shall have
retroactive effect, unless the contrary 1s
no
provided." The for the rule is the
reason
legislation to be tendency of retroactive
unjust and oppressive on account of its liabilty to
unsettle vested
rights or disturb the legal effect of prior
transactions

G.R. No. L-63915, December 29,1986.

Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio
Masigasig, Inc. v. Military
pine
Office, Department of National Defense, G.R. Shrine e
veterans Affairs 5. 2013. In
No.
18/0 h
the Supreme Court held that under the Administrative Code, "[t]he put
cation of
any law, resolution or other official documents in the Officiala ahle intent
be prima
orfacie
he
evidence of its authority." Courts may not speculate as to the probable inte
word appears
d r r e apart from the words appearing in the law and cannot rule tnat nat "a
in the
law when,
n
evidently, there is none."
re Petition for Assistance nin the Liquidation of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank, Ine

No. 181556, December 14, 2009.

 PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES 443
|

Retroactivity of laws is a matter of civil law, not of

constitutional law, as its governing law is the Civil Code, not the
Constitution. Article 4 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall have
no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided. The application of
the Civil Code is of course self-explanatory: laws enacted by Congress
may permissibly provide that they shall have retroactive effect. The
Civil Code established a statutory norm, not a constitutional standard.

The closest that the issue of retroactivity of laws can get to a

genuine constitutional issue is if a law's retroactive application will
impair vested rights. Otherwise stated, if a right has already vested in
an individual and a subsequent law effectively takes it away, a genuine
due process issue may arise. What should be involved, however, is a
vested right to life, liberty or property, as these are the ones that may be
considered protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.

Since the retroactive application of a law usually divests rights

that have already become vested, the rule in statutory construction is
that all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective
operation "unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give
them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily
implied from the language used." In Civil Service Commission v. Pililla
Water District,10 the Supreme Court pointed out that Republic Act No.
286 amended Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 198 and now
provides that the General Manager of a water district shall not be
removed from office except for a cause and after due process. That law,
owever, cannot be retroactively applied to preclude the Board of
from the time the
rectors terminating its General
Manager at
governing law was still the Presidential Decree.
Contracts are protected by the principle that laws are

8erally construed as having only prospective operation. Only laws

g at the time of the execution of a contract are applicable
T O and not later statutes, unless the latter are specifically
d e d to have retroactive effect. A later law, which
enlarges

Ommission onElections Co, et al, G.R. No. 186616, November 20, 2009
Quirog v. Aumentado, .R. No. 163443, November 11, 2008.
v.

G.R. No.
190147, March 5, 2013.
 EsSENTIALS
3.0
METHOD

444 |LEGAL

the
intent of the parties to
o the
manner
changes ho

abridges,
or in any
the
contract
itself and
cannot
given
impairs constitutional
prohibition
on
necessarily the
contract
without violating
effect
retroactive
contracts."

of
impairment
against

COURT DECISIONS
SUPREME
TO
APPLICATION
OF RULE
also subject to Article 4 of the
decisions are
Court effect
Supreme no retroactive
shall have
that "laws
which provides Court adopts a new
Civil Code, Whern the
is provided." to
unless the contrary and should not apply
prospectively
should be applied and acted on the faith
doctrine, it old doctrine
on the
had relied
of the law they interpret,
are
parties who as part
decisions, of statutes.
thereof.2 Judicial
the prospective application
rule on
does not: (1)
covered by the
permissible if the decision
however,
Retroactivity is, a different view;
or (3) r e v e r s e an
doctrine; (2) adopt
overrule a previous
o l d construction.13

ADMINISTRATIVE
RULINGS
APPLICATION OF RULE TO
The
Administrative rulings also have prospective application.
Court ofAppeals:
cited the following examples in Co v.
Supreme Court the
Broadcasting Corporation
o. Court of Tax Appeals,15
that in ABS-CBN Commissioner of Internal
ruling of the
Court held that a circular
or

adversely to a taxpayer,
be retroactive effect
Revenue may not given that Civil
Civil Service Commission,16 it was ruled
and in Romualdez v. 1989
series of
Memorandum Circular No. 29,
Service Commission
to permanen
cannot be given retrospective
effect so as to entitle
had expireu
whose temporary appointment
appointment an employee
before the Circular was issued.

4, 2000.
Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Court
v. G.R. No. 126120, December
of Appeals,
"Spouses Gauvain v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97973, January 2/, 1 4
2014.
No.187801, September 13,
Farming Corporation, G.R.
4G.R. AMS
No. 100776, October 28, 1993.
G.R. No. 52306, October 12, 1981.
G.R. Nos. 94878-94881, May 15, 1991.
 PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES | 445

APPLICATION OF LAws
RETROACTIVE
The foregoing principles recognize certain exceptions. One
A law enacted in the exercise of police
power to
involves police power.
certain activities or transactions could be given
regulate or govern
effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or
contracts.
retroactive
is applicable not only to future contracts, but
Police power legislation
of contracts or
equally to those already in existence. Non-impairment
vested rights clauses will have to yield to the superior and legitimate

exercise by police power to promote the health, morals,

the state of

peace, education, good

order, safety, and general welfare of the people.
Moreover, statutes in exercise of
valid police power must be read into
e v e r y c o n t r a c t . 17

retroactive
their nature, curative statutes may be given
By
Act No. 7641 has
effect, unless it will impair vested rights. Republic
services to an
retroactive effect to include in its coverage the employees'
in the
employer rendered prior to its effectivity. applies employees
It to

at the time the law took effect and

who are eligible
employ of employers
for benefits under that statute.18

command.19
Penal laws operate retroactively by legislative
laws shall
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "[p]enal
have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor
the person guilty of a
if clearly favorable
felony, who is not a habitual criminal." A penal law,
to the accused, applies retroactively.20 With the enactment of Republic
Death Penalty in the
Act No. 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
no longer be
Philippines) on 2006 the death penalty could
June 24,
because it is
mposed. The law may then be applied retroactively

December 4, 2000.
rtgas& Co. Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126120, Commission, G.R. No.
1416/3,
Labor Relations
nuel L. Quezon University v. National validate legal proceedings
in a prior law or
e r 17, 2001. Curative statutes cure defects with certain legal requirements. 1hey
of conformity
areo l d otherwise be void for wantsuperfluities, and curb certain evils. They make vand
to supply defects, abridge
H ended invalid. Their function
was
is to give validity
y Detore the enactmernt of the statute, have been
to ao laws, as if existing laws
would have been invalid under existing NLRC,
COml:e tnat curative statutes are
retroactive. See Narzoles v.

heir very essence

G.R. No. Dy
141959, September 29, 2000.
eople v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 121906, April 5, 2000.
2
ple Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. 130800, June 29, 1999
v.
 EsSENTIALS 3.0
446 LEGAL METHOD
|

favorable to the accused.2 In another case, the Supreme Courtexnlain

ed
that while the crime of illegal possessiorn ot firearms was committed On
June 13, 1993, the Court applied Republic Act No. 8294
retroactivelv
because it considers the use of an unlicensed firearm in the
killing of thoe
victim as a mere aggravating circumstance. The
change in the law was
advantageous to the accused-appellant.2

Social legislation sometimes applies

fulfillment of certain conditions.
retroactively only upon
Republic Act No. 7641 has a
conditional retroactive application. It can
the claimant for retirement benefits was
only apply retroactively if: (1)
still in the
employer at the time the statute took effect employ of the
claimant had complied with the (January 7, 1993); and (2) the
requirements for eligibility for such
retirement benefits under the statute. In Universal Robina
Corp.v. Caballeda,23 the Court said: Sugar Milling
R.A. 7641 is
has been enacted
undoubtedly social legislation. The law
a

labor protection measure

as a
a curative and as
statute that- absent a
devised retirement plan
by, an
agreement with,
from, an employer can
or a
grant voluntary
respond,
-

in
the
financial well-being of part at least, to
workers
twilight years soon following their life ofduring their
should be little doubt 1labor. There
about the fact that the law can
apply to
labor contracts still
statute has taken existing the time the
at
effect, and that its benefits
reckoned not can be
only from the date of the
enactment but law's
retroactively
employment contracts to the time
said
have started.24

21
People v. Buado,
People v. Samonte,Jr.,G.R.
G.R. No.
2

No.
170634, January 8, 2013.
G.R. No.
156644, July 28, 2008.126048, September 29, 2000.
cases
Construction
of
Rufina Patis
Corporation Factory Alusitain v.
14,
1999), and National Labor (G.R. No. 146202, July 14, 2004), JV
v.

Labor
not Relations Philippine Scout Veterans Relations Comm
apply
nmission (G.R. No. 126888, r
Commission (G.R. No. 115019,Security
urity and
the law Investigation Agency ine but did v. Wational

employedretroactively April 14, 1997)

Was still
at the because of the
the reiterated
time of the Or absence of the first
condition, that the claimai"
effectivity of Republic Act No.condito
41.
70
 PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES | 447

the case of Subido, Jr. v. Honorable

On the other hand,
ifferentiated curative and procedural statu
Sandiganbayan25 diff from
and applied it retroactively. In the case, former
nal laws
p e n a l

of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, Bayani

Commissioner for
former Special Agent Rene Parina were charged
Subido, Jr., and
before the Sandiganbayan. Both the accused posited
arbitrary detention
had no jurisdiction over their persons since at
that the Sandiganbayan
action was instituted, Subido was already a
the time the criminal
while Parina's salary grade was below Salary Grade
private individual,
the Court to apply Republic Act No. 7975
27. Subido and Parina urged
prospectively,asserting that it was a penal law.
that
The Court clarified that Republic Act No. 7975 provides
is the time of
the reckoning point for the assumption of jurisdiction
committed
the commission of the crime. When the accused allegedly
the offense charged, Subido was still the Commissioner. Therefore,
While Parina
he fell under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
was admittedly below Salary Grade 27,
he still fell under the

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan since he was being charged

as a

co-conspirator of principal accused Subido, who was above Salary

7975 is
Grade 27. The Court further declared that Republic Act No.
not a penal law, which must be applied prospectively. Republic Act
No. 7975 is a procedural law amending the Sandiganbayan's
and other procedural matters. It is also
Jurisdiction, mode of appeal,
a curative law. As both a procedural and curative statute, the Court
held that Republic Act No. 7975 can be applied retroactively without

impairing vested and contractual rights.

The Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines5 took
override the
cirect on
February 4, 1977, and it cannot retroactively
Civil Code. This is clear from the Code itself:

Art. 186. (1). Effect of code on past acts. Acts

of this Code shall
executed prior to the effectivity
be governed by the laws in force at the time of their

as otherw1se
Aecution, and nothing herein except

°G.R. No.
122641,
January 20, 1997.
Presidential Decree No. 1083
(1971)
 3.0
448 | LEGAL METHOD EssENTIALS

specifically provided, shall affect their validity o r

legality or operate to extinguish any right acquired
or liability incurred thereby.

The Court explained that the provision is consistent with the

principle that all laws operate prospectively, unless the contrary
appears or is clearly, plainly and unequivocally expressed or necessarily
implied. Article 186 enunciates the general rule of the Muslim Code to
have its provisions applied prospectively, and implicitly upholds the
force and effect of a pre-existing law, specifically, the Civil Code, with
respect to civil acts that took place before the Muslim Code's
enactment.7 An example of the retroactive application of the Muslim
Code is Article 186 (2), which provides:
A marriage contracted by Muslim male prior to
a

the effectivity of this Code in accordance with non-

Muslim law shall be considered as one contracted
under Muslim law provided the
spouses register
their mutual desire to this effect.

THE RULES OF COURT

Rules of procedure
apply even to actions already pending at
the time of their
promulgation. The fact that procedural statutes may
somehow affect the
litigants' rights does not preclude their retroactive
application to pending actions. The retroactive application or
procedural laws does not violate
any right of a person who may feel
that he is
adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally objectionable.
1ne
reason for this is
that, as a general rule, no vested
nor arise
from, right may attach to
procedural laws.28
The 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure
retroactive effect if it will should not be givven
result in great injustice. In one case, the
petitioner followed the
procedural rule then existing, as well as the **

"Julliano-Llave v.
Republic of the
Cheng v.
Spouses Sy, G.R. No. Philippines, G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 201
Commission, G.R. No. 141530, 174238, Tuly 7. 2009, See also Republic v. Nationai tennial
March 18, 2003.
 PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF STATUTES | 449

arisions of this Court governing the reckoning date of the period of

redemption,
when he redeemed the subject lot. Unfortunately, the rule
the 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure, which if applied
uaS changed by
retroactively would deny the petitioner the right to redeem the lot. The
"[i]t is difficult to reconcile the retroactive application of
Court said that
rule with the rule of fairness."29
this procedural
Another example of the retroactive effectivity of procedural

rules is Zulueta v. Asia Brewery.3 Asia Brewery complaint before

filed a

Court against its former dealer, Perla Zulueta,

the Iloilo Regional Trial
filed a later complaint with the Makati
for breach of contract. Zulueta
for collection of a sum of
Regional Trial Court against Asia Brewery
ordered consolidated by the Makati Court but
money. The cases were
Asia Brewery filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals
for Asia Brewery,
againstthis consolidation. The appellate court found
the date of filing of the
but Zulueta criticized it on the ground that
petitionfor certiorari was made beyond the 60-day reglamentary period
provided for in the new Rules of Procedure.
Zulueta anent the issue of
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
It is true that the case
retroactivity of the 60-day reglamentary period. into
Was already pending before the courts
when the new Rules came
to 60 days did
etfect. The reduction of the 90-day reglamentary period
that the 90-
not cause the impairment of any right. The Court explained
of courts and parties
day period was merely a discretionary prerogative
have no entitlement to it as a matter of right.
The Court reiterated the
Fule that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be applied
at the time of their effectivity.
retroactively on actions undetermined
The case of Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals
reiterated the doctrine. In that case, a complaint for expropriation
Centennial
filed by the National
Eainst Fe Manuel and Metrobank
was
or
dismissed on the grouna
ommission. However, this complaint was was filed before the
Certiorari
o f cause of action. A Petition for been filed out of
but this for
was dismissed having
OrAPpeals,

lan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136368, January 16, 2004.

G.R. No. 138137, March 8, 2001.
G.R. No. 141530, March 18, 2003.
 450 | LEGAL METHOD EssENTIALS 3.0

time. The appellate court ruled that the petition should have been
ed
60 receipt of the assailed decision, order or resolution of
days after the
the court a quo pursuant to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil
Procedure. At the time when the matter was
brought before the
Supreme Court, the rule was amended under Administrative Matter
No. 00-2-03-SC, wherein the
60-day period was reckoned from the
receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration.

The Court found no error in the dismissal

of the earlier
since the appellate court did so in petition
accordance with the procedural rules
effective at that time. However, in
Court granted the instant
light of the recent amendment, the
petition. The Court ruled that the
is
procedural or remedial in character and that "it does notamendment
create new
or remove vested
rights but only operates in furtherance of the
or confirmation of
rights already existing." The Court remedy
procedural laws may be explained that
retroactively
undetermined at the time of their applied actions pending and
to

of recent cases passage. It then made an enumeration

wherein it ordered the retroactive
2-03-SC. It finally resolved that application of A.M. 00-
the petition before the
was filed on
time. appellate court