Practice question
A valid later measure reduces the punishment for an earlier offense, and the only objection is that Article III, Section 22 categorically prohibits every benefit with retrospective effect. No separate statutory-retroactivity question is raised. Is that constitutional objection sufficient?
- No; the ex post facto prohibition does not itself forbid a favorable reduction merely because it concerns earlier conduct.
- Yes; the clause requires harsher punishment for every past act.
- Yes; every retrospective benefit is a bill of attainder.
- Yes; mercy is constitutionally impossible.
- No, because the clause contains no protection against adverse penal retroactivity.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 22: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Trillanes IV v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 241494, 256660 and 256078, April 3, 2024, main decision, ex post facto and attainder discussion: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/apr2024/gr_241494_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.