Lapse of Laws
Laws may lapse (i.e., end by itself in view of the expiration of the period
during which it was supposed to be effective) without the necessity of any
repeal as exemplifi ed by the law granting the President, Emergency
Powers (Rodriguez v. Nat. Treasurer, 45 O.G. 4412) or the annual
appropriations law.
Problem:
A committed an offense, but before the time of trial, the offense was no
longer considered an offense by the law. Should A still be punished?
ANSWER: It depends.
(a) If there has been a complete repeal, he should not be punished
anymore. (People v. Tamayo, 61 Phil. 225).
(b) It is otherwise if the law merely lapsed, like for example, the Import
Control Law. (Ang Beng v. Com. of Immigration, GR L-9621, Jan. 30, 1957).
Here, the penalty can still be imposed.
Effect if the Repealing Law is Itself Repealed
(a) When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the
law fi rst repealed shall not be thereby revived, unless expressly so
provided. (Sec. 14, Rev. Adm. Code).
EXAMPLE: Law A is expressly repealed by Law B. If Law B is itself repealed
by Law C, is Law A revived? No, unless Law C expressly so provides.
(b) When a law which repeals a prior law, not expressly but by implication,
is itself repealed, the repeal of the repealing law revives the prior law,
unless the language of the repealing statute provides otherwise. (U.S. v.
Soliman, 36 Phil. 5).
EXAMPLE: Law A is impliedly repealed by Law B. Law B is later repealed by
Law C. Is Law A revived? Yes, unless Law C provides otherwise.
Non-Observance of the Law
Disuse, custom, or practice to the contrary does not repeal a law. Thus,
although hardly enforced nowadays, an article of the Revised Penal Code
still prohibits betting on the results of a basketball game, or any other
sports contest. (Art. 197, Rev. Penal Code).
Executive Fiat Cannot Correct a Mistake in the Law
A mistake in the law or in legislation cannot be corrected by executive fiat
but by another legislation. Thus, in Largado v. Masaganda (L-17624, June
30, 1962), the Supreme Court ruled that an opinion of the Secretary of
Justice to the effect that inferior courts had jurisdiction over guardianship
cases between Aug. 1, 1959 and June 17, 1961, when RA 2613 providing
the contrary was in force, cannot be legally given application.
Unconstitutional Laws, Treaties, Administrative or Executive Orders
a) Rule under the 1935 Constitution
To declare a law or a treaty unconstitutional, eight Justices of the
Supreme Court out of eleven must so declare. (Sec. 9, Judiciary
Act of 1948). A simple majority (six Justices out of eleven) would
suffice to declare an executive or administrative order
unconstitutional. (Sec. 9, Judiciary Act of 1948). This simple
majority would likewise be sufficient to hold a municipal
ordinance unconstitutional.
(b) Rule under the 1973 Constitution
The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and
fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in two divisions.
(Sec. 2[3], Art. X).
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or
law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc, and no
treaty, executive agreement or law may be declared unconstitutional with-
out the concurrence of at least ten Members. All other cases, which under
its rules are required to be heard en banc, shall be decided with the
concurrence of at least eight Members. (Sec. 2[2], Art. X).
Cases heard by a division shall be decided with the concurrence of at least
five Members but if such required number is not obtained, the case shall
be decided en banc:
Provided, That no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a
decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed
except by the Court sitting en banc. (Sec. 2[3], Art. X)
(c) Rule under the 1987 Constitution
The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of
three, five, or seven members. Any vacancy shall be fi lled within ninety
days from the occurrence thereof. (Sec. 4[1], Art. VIII).
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court
en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to
be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations shall be decided with the
concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
(Sec. 4[2], Art. VIII).
Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case,
without the concurrence of at least three of such members. When the
required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc:
Provided, That no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a
decision rendered en banc or in division, may be modifi ed or reversed
except by the Court sitting en banc. (Sec. 4[3], Art. VIII).
The Supreme Court shall have the following pow-
ers:
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law
or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments or orders of lower
courts in:
All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(Sec. 5[2-a], Art. VIII).
Supremacy of the Constitution
According to the Code Commission, the last paragraph of Art. 7 (re
administrative or executive acts) “asserts the supremacy of law and the
Constitution over administrative or executive acts. Though, this is an
undisputed theory, it is wise to formulate it as a clear-cut legal provision by
way of a constant reminder to not a few public offi cials. The disregard
of this principle is one of the main sources of abuse of power by
administrative offi cials.” (Report of the Code Commission). It must be
stated, however, that generally, rules and regulations are imperative
because Congress cannot conceivably provide for all necessary details in
the enforcement of a particular law.
[NOTE: The Secretary of Finance can revoke a circular issued by his
predecessor based on an erroneous construction of the law, because the
construction of a statute by those administering it is not binding on their
successors. An administrative officer cannot change a congressional law by
a wrong interpretation of it. Departmental regulations must be in harmony
with legal provisions. The regulations by themselves should NOT be
allowed to enlarge or extend the law
No Collateral Attack
It is well-settled that the constitutionality of a law or executive order may
not be collaterally attacked. They shall, therefore, be deemed valid unless
declared null and void by a competent court. The constitutionality of a law
may not be made to depend on the effects of a conclusion based on a
stipulation of facts entered into by the parties. Otherwise, the law would
be constitutional in certain cases and unconstitutional in others.
Examples of Constitutional Laws
(a) A statute providing that a school teacher who is a member of an
organization which advocates the overthrow of the government by force is
disqualified from continued employment in the public schools, is
constitutional and does not violate either freedom of speech or assembly
or due process of law.
(b) The law on the installation of road safety signs and devices is
constitutional because it is recommended under the 1968 Vienna
Convention on road signs and signals. The Philippines is a signatory to said
Convention. Besides, our country adopts the generally accepted principles
of international law as part of the law of the land.
(c) A provision of the Share Tenancy Act which authorizes the tenant to
change the share tenancy to that of leasehold tenancy is constitutional,
having been inserted in the law to give the tenant an opportunity to
improve his lowly lot. The police power has been exercised here to remedy
an acute socio-economic problem existing in the country, especially in the
rice-producing provinces of Central Luzon.
(d) RA 809 which regulates the relations among persons engaged in the
sugar industry in the interest of police power and social justice.
(e) Secs. 4 and 34 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844),
generally abolishing agricultural share tenancy and compelling the
landowner and tenant to enter into the leasehold system, are
CONSTITUTIONAL, as a valid exercise of police power. (Eduarda S. Vda. de
Genuino v. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al., L-25035, Feb. 26,
1968).
Some Grounds for Declaring a Law Unconstitutional
(a) The enactment of the law may not be within the legislative powers of
the lawmaking body.
(b) Arbitrary methods may have been established.
(c) The purpose or effect violates the Constitution or its basic principles.
Effect of a Law That Has Been Declared Unconstitutional
While it is true that generally an unconstitutional law confers no right,
creates no office, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed
under it, there are instances when the operation and effects of the
declaration of its unconstitutionality may be relaxed or qualified because
the actual existence of the law prior to such declaration is an operative fact
and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. Thus, it has
been held that although the Moratorium Law was eventually declared
unconstitutional, it suspended the period of prescription for actions to
enforce the obligations covered by the moratorium.
No Power of Executive Department to Promulgate Even By Means of a
Treaty, Rules for Admission to the Practice of Law
The “Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions”
between the Philippines and Spain, while it recognized the validity of
college and university degrees in either country, could NOT have been
intended to modify the rules governing admission to the practice of law in
the Philippines (such as the bar examination requisite) for the reason that
the Executive Department may not encroach upon the constitutional
prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the
practice of law in the Philippines — the power to repeal, alter, or
supplement such rules being reserved only to Congress of the Philippines.
Indeed, the Treaty was designed to govern Filipino citizens desiring to
practice their profession in Spain vis-á-vis the citizens of Spain desiring to
practice their profession in the Philippines. Thus, Spanish lawyers desiring
to practice law in the Philippines must still TAKE and PASS our bar
examinations. (In re: Garcia, Aug. 15, 1961).
Operative Fact’ Doctrine
This is when a legislative or executive act, prior to its being declared as
unconstitutional by the courts, is valid and must be complied with.
As the new Civil Code puts it: “When the courts declare a law to be
inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter
shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders, and regulations shall
be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution.”
(Art. 7, new Civil Code). It is understandable why it should be so, the
Constitution being supreme and paramount. Any legislative or executive
act contrary to its terms cannot survive.