SALVADOR V MAPA JR

G.R. No. 135080

November 28, 2007

Commenting on the petition, respondents argued that the petition suffers from a procedural infirmity
which warrants its dismissal. they claimed that the PCGG availed of the wrong remedy in elevating the
case to the SC.

The averments in the complaint, not the nomenclature given by the parties, determine the nature of the
action. In previous ruling, we have treated differently labeled actions as special civil actions for certiorari
under Rule 65 for reasons such as justice, equity, and fair play.

Further, where petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality, we had the occasion to state that the
Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law. The
Ombudsman therefore, acted in excess of its jurisdiction in declaring unconstitutional the subject
administrative and memorandum orders.

Issue: W/N Administrative Order 13 and Memorandum Order 61 are ex post facto laws

Ruling: NO.

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.