Laws & Jurisprudence
OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE
8:58 AM
This doctrine is an admission that the law is unconstitutional. (League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, Aug. 24, 2010)
Let
me quote part of the decision of the Supreme Court in the
above-cited case for your perusal
"The operative fact
doctrine is a rule of equity. As such, it must be applied as an exception to
the general rule that an unconstitutional law produces no effects. It can never
be invoked to validate as constitutional an unconstitutional act. In Planters
Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation,[3] the Court stated:
The
general rule is that an unconstitutional law is void. It produces no rights,
imposes no duties and affords no protection. It has no legal effect. It is, in
legal contemplation, inoperative as if it has not been passed. Being void,
Fertiphil is not required to pay the levy. All levies paid should be refunded
in accordance with the general civil code principle against unjust enrichment.
The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides:
ART.
7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or
non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the
contrary.
When
the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former
shall be void and the latter shall govern.
The
doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies
as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an
unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a
determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased
by a new judicial declaration.
The
doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an
undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied
to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the
accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality
in reliance upon a law creating it. (Emphasis supplied)
The
operative fact doctrine never validates or constitutionalizes an
unconstitutional law. Under the operative fact doctrine, the unconstitutional
law remains unconstitutional, but the effects of the unconstitutional law,
prior to its judicial declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a
matter of equity and fair play. In short, the operative fact doctrine affects
or modifies only the effects of the unconstitutional law, not the unconstitutional
law itself.
Thus,
applying the operative fact doctrine to the present case, the Cityhood Laws
remain unconstitutional because they violate Section 10, Article X of the
Constitution. However, the effects of the implementation of the Cityhood Laws
prior to the declaration of their nullity, such as the payment of salaries and
supplies by the “new cities” or their issuance of licenses or execution of
contracts, may be recognized as valid and effective. This does not mean that
the Cityhood Laws are valid for they remain void. Only the effects of the
implementation of these unconstitutional laws are left undisturbed as a matter
of equity and fair play to innocent people who may have relied on the presumed
validity of the Cityhood Laws prior to the Court’s declaration of their
unconstitutionality."
This doctrine might
apply to the decision of the Supreme Court declaring DAP unconstitutional
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments