[G.R. NO.

145184 : March 14, 2008]

PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, represented by PRESIDENTIAL

COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT through ATTY. ORLANDO L. SALVADOR, Petitioner, 

v. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN; DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES' MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND OFFICERS AT THE TIME - RAFAEL SISON,
JOSEPH TENGCO, ALICE REYES, VICENTE PATERNO, JOSEPH EDRALIN, ROBERTO ONGPIN, VERDEN
DANGILAN, RODOLFO MANALO; BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS INTEGRATED CIRCUITS
PHILIPPINES, INC. QUERUBE MAKALINTAL,* AMBROSIO MAKALINTAL, VICENTE JAYME, ANTONIO
SANTIAGO, EDGAR QUINTO, HORACIO MAKALINTAL, ALFREDO DE LOS ANGELES, JOSE REY D. RUEDA,
RAMONCITO MODESTO, GERARDO LIMJUCO, Respondents.

President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13

creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest
Loans. By Memorandum Order No. 61, its functions were expanded
by including in its investigation, inventory and study all non-
performing loans, whether behest or non-behest. Committee
investigated the loan transactions between Integrated Circuits
Philippines (ICPI), and the Development Bank of the Philippines
(DBP). Committee determined that they bore the characteristics of a
behest loan as defined under Memorandum Order No. 61. Atty.
Salvador, representing the PCGG, filed a complaint for violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, against the Concerned
Concerned officers of DBP and ICPI. He alleged that ICPI applied for
an industrial loan (foreign currency loan) of US$1,352,400.00,
or P10,143,000.00, from DBP, that there was undue haste in the
approval of the loan and collateral except a promissory note and
comfort letter signed by DBP, and that ICPI was undeserving of the
concession given to it. Thus the approval of the loan constitutes a
violation of the said law. Ombudsman issued the assailed
memorandum, finding that the aforesaid Administrative and
Memorandum Orders both issued by the President in 1992 may not
be retroactively applied to the questioned transactions which took
place in 1980 because to do so would be tantamount to an ex post
facto law which is proscribed by the Constitution.
Issue: WoN the Administrative order and Memorandum order
cannot be applied retroactively.
Ruling: No. The Court does not agree that their retroactivity would
violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The
proscription of ex post facto laws is aimed against the
retrospectivity of penal laws. Penal laws are 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. Administrative Order No. 13 does not
mete out a penalty for the act of granting behest loans. It merely
creates the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact - Finding Committee on Behest
Loans and provides for its composition and functions. Memorandum
Order No. 61, on the other hand, simply provides the frame of
reference in determining the existence of behest loans. Not being
penal laws, Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order
No. 61 cannot be characterized as ex-post facto laws.