Tañada vs.

Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985) 146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)

TAÑADA VS. TUVERA

136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985)

FACTS:

Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the principle that laws to be
valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel
respondent public officials to publish and/or cause to publish various presidential decrees, letters of instructions,
general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementations and administrative orders.

The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of the case, contending that
petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid and
enforceable.

HELD:

Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law
itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of this provision is to give the general public adequate
notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and
publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignoratia legis nominem excusat. It would be
the height of injustive to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law which he had no notice
whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the Official Gazette…. The word
“shall” therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the
constitutional right of the people to be informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance and validity.

The publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general applicability is a requirement of due process.
It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of
its contents. The Court declared that presidential issuances of general application which have not been published
have no force and effect.

TAÑADA VS. TUVERA

146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)

FACTS:

This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on April 24, 1985. Respondent argued that while
publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise” as when the decrees themselves
declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which are not as to their
publication;

2. Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general circulation.

HELD:

The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of
publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make
the law effective immediately upon approval, or in any other date, without its previous publication.

“Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking, all laws relate to
the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. A law without any bearing on the
public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act of the legislature. To
be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest eve if it might be directly applicable only to one individual,
or some of the people only, and not to the public as a whole.

All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their
effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the
law.

Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be made in the Official Gazette, and not elsewhere,
as a requirement for their effectivity. The Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to
repeal or modify it if it finds it impractical.

The publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as possible.

J. Cruz:
Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark,
deep secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless their
existence and contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full disclosure and give proper notice
to the people. The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot faint, parry or cut unless the naked blade is
drawn.

Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)

FACTS: Invoking the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in Section 6,
Article IV of the 1973 constitution, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to
publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette, of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions,
general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. The
respondents would have this case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality to bring this
petition. Petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to
compel public duty, they need not show any specific interest. Respondents further contend that publication in the
OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own
effectivity dates.

ISSUE: Whether or not publication in the Official Gazatte is an indispensable requirement for the effectivity of the
PDs, LOIs, general orders, EOs, etc. where the laws themselves provide for

their own effectivity dates.

RULING: Yes. It is the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern and corollarily access to official
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions,

or decisions, shall be afforded the citizens subject to such limitation as may be provided by law (Sec. 6 Art. IV,
1973 Constitution). Laws, to be valid and enforceable, must be published in the OG or otherwise effectively
promulgated. The fact that a PD or LOI states its date of effectivity does not preclude their publication in the OG as
they constitute important legislative acts. The publication of presidential issuances “of public nature” or “of general
applicability” is a requirement of due process. Before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially
informed of its contents.

Important Point: It illustrates how decrees and issuances issued by one man—Marcos—are in fact laws of general
application and provide for penalties. The constitution afforded Marcos both executive and legislative powers. The
generality of law (Civil Code, Art. 14) will never work without constructive notice. The ruling of this case provides
the publication constitutes the necessary constructive notice and is thus the cure for ignorance as an excuse.
Ignorance will not even mitigate the crime.

Lorenzo M. Tañada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and Movement

of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI),
petitioners, versus Hon. Juan C. Tuvera, in his capacity as Executive
Assistant to the President, Hon. Joaquin Venus, in his capacity
as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President, Melquiades P. de la Cruz,
etc., et al., respondents.
No. L-63915 December 29, 1986

Facts:

Due process was invoked by the petitioners in demanding the disclosure of a number
of presidential decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by law.
The government argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so
when it was “otherwise provided,” as when the decrees themselves declared that they
we to become effective and immediately upon their approval.

The petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general
applicability and those which are not, that publication means complete publication;
and that the publication must be made forthwith the Official Gazette.

Issue:

Whether or not the Presidential decrees are covered by the provisions of Article 2 of
the New Civil Code, on the necessity of publication for its effectivity.

Held:

The clause “unless otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not to the
requirement of publication itself. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the
legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen day period shall be
shortened or extended. The term “laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those
of general application, for strictly speaking all laws related to the people in general
albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly.

All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as
a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless
a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are
presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President.
Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is
to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation.

There is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be