8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 1/25No. L63915. April 24, 1985.*LORENZO M. TAADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, andMOVEMENTOFATTORNEYSFORBROTHERHOOD,INTEGRITYANDNATIONALISM,INC.[MABINI],petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity asExecutiveAssistanttothePresident,HON.JOAQUINVENUS,inhiscapacityasDeputyExecutiveAssistanttothePresident,MELQUIADESP.DELACRUZ,inhiscapacityasDirector,MalacaangRecordsOffice,andFLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureauof Printing, respondents._______________* EN BANC.2828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. TuveraMandamus;Privateindividualswhoseektoprocuretheenforcementofapublicduty(e.g.thepublicationintheOfficialGazetteofPresidentialDecrees,LOI,etc.)arerealpartiesininterestinmandamuscase.ThereasonsgivenbytheCourtinrecognizingaprivatecitizenslegalpersonalityintheaforementionedcaseapplysquarelytothepresentpetition.Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is apublic right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of theland.Ifpetitionerswerenotallowedtoinstitutethisproceeding,itwouldindeedbedifficulttoconceiveofanyotherpersontoinitiatethesame,consideringthattheSolicitorGeneral,thegovernmentofficergenerallyempoweredtorepresentthepeople,has entered his appearance for respondents in this case.Same; Statutes; FactthataPresidentialDecreeorLOIstatesitsdateofeffectivitydoesnotprecludetheirpublicationinthe8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 2/25OfficialGazetteastheyconstituteimportantlegislativeacts,particularlyinthepresentsituationwherethePresidentmayonhisownissuelaws.Theclearobjectoftheabovequotedprovisionistogivethegeneralpublicadequatenoticeofthevariouslawswhicharetoregulatetheiractionsandconductascitizens.Withoutsuchnoticeandpublication,therewouldbenobasisfortheapplicationofthemaximignorantialegisnonexcusat. It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwiseburden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had nonotice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.Same;Same;Same.PerhapsatnotimesincetheestablishmentofthePhilippineRepublichasthepublicationoflaws taken so vital significance than at this time when the peoplehavebestoweduponthePresidentapowerheretoforeenjoyedsolely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by themassmediaofthedebatesanddeliberationsintheBatasanPambansaandforthediligentones,readyaccesstothelegislativerecordsnosuchpublicityaccompaniesthelawmakingprocessofthePresident.Thus,withoutpublication,thepeople have no means of knowing what presidential decrees haveactually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informingthemselvesofthespecificcontentsandtextsofsuchdecrees.AstheSupremeCourtofSpainruled:Bajoladenoroinacingenrica de leyes, se comprenden tambin los reglamentos, Realesdecretos,Instrucciones,CircularesyRealesordinesdictadasdeconformidadconlasmismasporelGobiernoenusodesupotestad.Same;Same;C.A.638imposesadutyforpublicationofPresidential decrees and issuances as it uses the words shall be29VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 29Taada vs. Tuverapublished.TheveryfirstclauseofSection1ofCommonwealthAct 638 reads: There shall be published in the Official Gazette xxx.Thewordshallusedthereinimposesuponrespondentofficialsanimperativeduty.ThatdutymustbeenforcediftheConstitutionalrightofthepeopletobeinformedonmattersofpublic concern is to be given substance and reality. The law itselfmakesalistofwhatshouldbepublishedintheOfficialGazette.8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 3/25Suchlisting,toourmind,leavesrespondentswithnodiscretionwhatsoeverastowhatmustbeincludedorexcludedfromsuchpublication.Same;Same;Butadministrativeandexecutiveordersandthosewhichaffectonlyaparticularclassofpersonsneednotbepublished.Thepublicationofallpresidentialissuancesofapublicnatureorofgeneralapplicabilityismandatedbylaw.Obviously,presidentialdecreesthatprovideforfines,forfeituresorpenaltiesfortheirviolationorotherwiseimposeaburdenonthepeople,suchastaxandrevenuemeasures,fallwithinthiscategory.Otherpresidentialissuanceswhichapplyonlytoparticular persons or class of persons such as administrative andexecutiveordersneednotbepublishedontheassumptionthatthey have been circularized to all concerned.Same; Same; Due Process; Publication of Presidential decreesand issuances of general application is a matter of due process.Itisneedlesstoaddthatthepublicationofpresidentialissuancesofapublicnatureorofgeneralapplicabilityisarequirementofdueprocess.Itisaruleoflawthatbeforeapersonmaybebound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informedof its contents.Same;Same;Same;PresidentialDecreesandissuancesofgeneralapplicationwhichhavenotbeenpublishedshallhavenoforceandeffect.TheCourtthereforedeclaresthatpresidentialissuancesofgeneralapplication,whichhavenotbeenpublished,shall have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quiteapprehensiveaboutthepossibleunsettlingeffectthisdecisionmighthaveonactsdoneinrelianceofthevalidityofthosepresidentialdecreeswhichwerepublishedonlyduringthependency of this petition, have put the question as to whether theCourtsdeclarationofinvalidityapplytoP.D.swhichhadbeenenforced or implemented prior to their publication. The answer isalltoofamiliar.InsimilarsituationsinthepastthisCourthadtakenthepragmaticandrealisticcoursesetforthinChicotCounty Drainage District vs. Baxter Bank.3030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. TuveraSame;Same;Same;ImplementationofPresidentialDecreespriortotheirpublicationintheOfficialGazettemayhave8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 4/25consequenceswhichcannotbeignored.Similarly,theimplementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to theirpublication in the Official Gazette is an operative fact which mayhaveconsequenceswhichcannotbejustlyignored.Thepastcannotalwaysbeerasedbyanewjudicialdeclarationxxxthatanallinclusivestatementofaprincipleofabsoluteretroactiveinvalidity cannot be justified.Same;Same;Same;OnlyP.D.Nos.1019to1030,1278and1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been published. It is undisputedthatnoneofthemhasbeenimplemented.FromthereportsubmittedtotheCourtbytheClerkofCourt,itappearsthatofthepresidentialdecreessoughtbypetitionerstobepublishedinthe Official Gazette, only Presidential Decrees Nos. 1019 to 1030,inclusive.1278,and1937to1939,inclusive,havenotbeensopublished. Neither the subject matters nor the texts of these PDscanbeascertainedsincenocopiesthereofareavailable.Butwhatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that noneof these unpublished PDs has ever been implemented or enforcedby the government.FERNANDO, C.J., concurring with qualification:Statutes;DueProcess;Iamunabletoconcurinsofarastheopinion written by Justice Escolin would unqualifiedly impose therequirement of publication in the Official Gazette for unpublishedPresidential issuances to have a binding force and effect.It is ofcoursetruethatwithouttherequisitepublication,adueprocessquestion would arise if made to apply adversely to a party who isnot even aware of the existence of any legislative or executive acthavingtheforceandeffectoflaw.MypointisthatsuchpublicationrequiredneednotbeconfinedtotheOfficialGazette.Fromthepragmaticstandpoint,thereisanadvantagetobegained.Itconducestocertainty.Thatistobeadmitted.Itdoesnotfollow,however,thatfailuretodosowouldinallcasesandunder all circumstances result in a statute, presidential decree oranyotherexecutiveactofthesamecategorybeingbereftofanybindingforceandeffect.Tosoholdwould,forme,raiseaconstitutionalquestion.SuchapronouncementwouldlenditselftotheinterpretationthatsuchalegislativeorpresidentialactisbereftoftheattributeofeffectivityunlesspublishedintheOfficial Gazette. There is no such requirement in the ConstitutionasJusticePlanasoaptlypointedout.Itistruethatwhatisdecided now applies only to past presidential issuances.318/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 5/25VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 31Taada vs. TuveraNonetheless, this clarification is, to my mind, needed to avoid anypossiblemisconceptionastowhatisrequiredforanystatuteorpresidential act to be impressed with binding force or effectivity.Same; Same; The Civil Code rule on publication of statutes isonlyalegislativeenactmentanddoesnotandcannothavetheforceofaconstitutionalcommandAlaterexecutiveorlegislativeact can fix a different rule.Let me make clear therefore that myqualifiedconcurrencegoesnofurtherthantoaffirmthatpublicationisessentialtotheeffectivityofalegislativeorexecutive act of a general application. I am not in agreement withtheviewthatsuchpublicationmustbeintheOfficialGazette.The Civil Code itself in its Article 2 expressly recognizes that theruleastolawstakingeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletion of their publication in the Official Gazette is subject tothisexception,unlessitisotherwiseprovided.Moreover,theCivil Code is itself only a legislative enactment, Republic Act No.386.Itdoesnotandcannothavethejuridicalforceofaconstitutional command. A later legislative or executive act whichhastheforceandeffectoflawcanlegallyprovideforadifferentrule.Same; Same; I am unable to agree that decrees not publishedaredevoidofanylegalcharacter.NorcanIagreewiththerathersweepingconclusionintheopinionofJusticeEscolinthatpresidentialdecreesandexecutiveactsnotthuspreviouslypublishedintheOfficialGazettewouldbedevoidofanylegalcharacter.Thatwouldbe,inmyopinion,togotoofar.Itmaybefraught,asearliernoted,withundesirableconsequences.Ifindmyself therefore unable to yield assent to such a pronouncement.TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:Statutes; Unless laws are published there will no basis for therulethatignoranceofthelawexcusesnoonefromcompliancetherewith.Without official publication in the Official Gazette asrequiredbyArticle2oftheCivilCodeandtheRevisedAdministrative Code, there would be no basis nor justification forthecorollaryruleofArticle3oftheCivilCode(basedonconstructivenoticethattheprovisionsofthelawareascertainablefromthepublicandofficialrepositorywheretheyaredulypublished)thatIgnoranceofthelawexcusesnoone8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 6/25from compliance therewith.3232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. TuveraSame;RespondentstheorythataPresidentialDecreethatfixes its date of effectivity need not be published misreads Art. 2 oftheCivilCode.Respondentscontentionbasedonamisreadingof Article 2 of the Civil Code that only laws which are silent as totheireffectivity[date]needbepublishedintheOfficialGazettefortheireffectivityismanifestlyuntenable.TheplaintextandmeaningoftheCivilCodeisthatlawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided,i.e.adifferenteffectivity date is provided by the law itself. This proviso perforcerefers to a law that has been duly published pursuant to the basicconstitutionalrequirementsofdueprocess.Thebestexampleofthis is the Civil Code itself: the same Article 2 provides otherwisethatitshalltakeeffect[only]oneyear[not15days]aftersuchpublication. To sustain respondents misreading that most lawsor decrees specify the date of their effectivity and for this reason,publicationintheOfficialGazetteisnotnecessaryfortheireffectivitywouldbetonullifyandrendernugatorytheCivilCodesindispensableandessentialrequirementofpriorpublicationintheOfficialGazettebythesimpleexpedientofproviding for immediate effectivity or an earlier effectivity date inthelawitselfbeforethecompletionof15daysfollowingitspublicationwhichistheperiodgenerallyfixedbytheCivilCodefor its proper dissemination.MELENCIOHERRERA, J., concurring:Statutes; When a date of effectivity is mentioned in the Decree,but becomes effective only 15 days after publication in the Gazette,itwillnotmeanthattheDecreecanhaveretroactiveeffecttotheexpresseddateofeffectivity.Iagree.Therecannotbeanyquestion but that even if a decree provides for a date of effectivity,ithastobepublished.WhatIwouldliketostateinconnectionwiththatpropositionisthatwhenadateofeffectivityismentionedinthedecreebutthedecreebecomeseffectiveonlyfifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette, it willnot mean that the decree can have retroactive effect to the date of8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 7/25effectivitymentionedinthedecreeitself.Thereshouldbenoretroactivity if the retroactivity will run counter to constitutionalrights or shall destroy vested rights.PLANA, J., separate opinion:ConstitutionalLaw;Statutes;DueProcess;TheConstitutiondoes not require prior publication for laws to be effective and while33VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 33Taada vs. Tuveradueprocessrequirepriornotice,suchnoticeisnotnecessarilypublicationintheOfficialGazette.ThePhilippineConstitutiondoes not require the publication of laws as a prerequisite for theireffectivity,unlikesomeConstitutionselsewhere.Itmaybesaidthoughthattheguaranteeofdueprocessrequiresnoticeoflawstoaffectedpartiesbeforetheycanbeboundthereby;butsuchnoticeisnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclauseisnotthatprecise.Neitheristhepublication of laws in the Official Gazette required by any statuteas aprerequisitefortheireffectivity,ifsaidlawsalreadyprovidefor their effectivity date.Same; Same; Same; C.A. 638 does not require Official Gazettepublicationoflawsfortheireffectivity.CommonwealthActNo.638, in my opinion, does not support the proposition that for theireffectivity,lawsmustbepublishedintheOfficialGazette.Thesaid law is simply An Act to Provide for the Uniform Publicationand Distribution of the Official Gazette. Conformably therewith,itauthorizesthepublicationoftheOfficialGazette,determinesitsfrequency,providesforitssaleanddistribution,anddefinesthe authority of the Director of Printing in relation thereto. It alsoenumerateswhatshallbepublishedintheOfficialGazette,amongthem,importantlegislativeactsandresolutionsofapublicnatureoftheCongressofthePhilippinesandallexecutiveandadministrativeordersandproclamations,exceptsuchashavenogeneralapplicability.ItisnoteworthythatnotalllegislativeactsarerequiredtobepublishedintheOfficialGazette but only important ones of a public nature. Moreover,thesaidlawdoesnotprovidethatpublicationintheOfficialGazette is essential for the effectivity of laws. This is as it should8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 8/25a]b]be, for all statutes are equal and stand on the same footing. A law,especiallyanearlieroneofgeneralapplicationsuchasCommonwealthActNo.638,cannotnullifyorrestricttheoperationofasubsequentstatutethathasaprovisionofitsownas to when and how it will take effect. Only a higher law, which isthe Constitution, can assume that role.PETITION to review the decision of the ExecutiveAssistant to the President.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.ESCOL1N, J.:Invokingthepeoplesrighttobeinformedonmattersofpublic concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of3434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. Tuverathe1973PhilippineConstitution,1aswellastheprinciplethat laws to be valid and enforceable must be published intheOfficialGazetteorotherwiseeffectivelypromulgated,petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondentpublicofficialstopublish,and/orcausethepublicationintheOfficialGazetteofvariouspresidentialdecrees,lettersofinstructions,generalorders,proclamations,executiveorders, letter of implementation and administrative orders.Specifically, the publication of the following presidentialissuances is sought:Presidential Decrees Nos. 12, 22, 37, 38, 59, 64, 103,171,179,184,197,200,234,265,286,298,303,312,324,325,326,337,355,358,359,360,361,368,404,406,415,427,429,445,447,473,486,491,503,504,521,528,551,566,573,574,594,599,644,658,661,718,731,733,793,800,802,835,836,923,935,961,10171030,1050,10601061,1085,1143,1165,1166,1242,1246,1250,1278,1279,1300,1644,1772,1808,1810,18131817, 18191826, 18291840, 18421847.Letter of Instructions Nos.: 10, 39, 49, 72, 107, 108,116,130,136,141,150,153,155,161,173,180,187, 188, 192, 193, 199, 202, 204, 205, 209, 211213,8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 9/25c]d]e]f]215224,226228,231239,241245,248251,253261,263269,271273,275283,285289,291,293,297299, 301303, 309, 312315, 325, 327, 343, 346,349, 357, 358, 362, 367, 370, 382, 385, 386, 396397,405, 438440, 444445, 473, 486, 488, 498, 501. 399,527,561,576,587,594,599,600,602,609,610,611, 612, 615, 641, 642, 665, 702, 712713, 726, 837839,878879,881,882,939940,964,997,11491178, 11801278.General Orders Nos.: 14, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64 &65.ProclamationNos.:1126,1144,1147,1151,1196,1270,1281,13191526,1529,1532,1535,1538,15401547, 15501558, 15611588, 15901595, 15941600, 16061609, 16121628, 16301649, 16941695,16971701, 17051723, 17311734, 17371742, 1744,17461751, 1752, 1754, 1762, 17641787, 17891795,1797, 1800, 18021804, 18061807, 18121814, 1816,18251826, 1829, 18311832, 18351836, 1839_______________1 Section 6. The right of the people to information on matters of publicconcernshallberecognized,accesstoofficialrecords,andtodocumentsandpaperspertainingtoofficialacts,transactions,ordecisions,shallbeafforded the citizens subject to such limitation as may be provided by law.35VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 35Taada vs. Tuvera1840, 18431844, 18461847, 1849, 18531858, 1860,1866,1868,1870,18761889,1892,1900,1918,1923,1933,1952,1963,19651966,19681984,19862028, 20302044, 20462145, 21472161, 21632244.Executive Orders Nos.: 411, 413, 414, 427, 429454,457471,474492,494507,509510,522,524528,531532, 536, 538, 543544, 549, 551553, 560, 563,567568, 570, 574, 593, 594, 598604, 609, 611647,649677,679703,705707,712786,788852,854857.LettersofImplementationNos.:7,8,9,10,1122,8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 10/25g]2527, 39, 50, 51, 59, 76, 8081, 92, 94, 95, 107, 120,122, 123.Administrative Orders Nos.: 347, 348, 352354, 360378, 380433, 436439.Therespondents,throughtheSolicitorGeneral,wouldhavethiscasedismissedoutrightonthegroundthatpetitionershavenolegalpersonalityorstandingtobringtheinstantpetition.Theviewissubmittedthatintheabsence of any showing that petitioners are personally anddirectlyaffectedorprejudicedbytheallegednonpublicationofthepresidentialissuancesinquestion2saidpetitionersarewithouttherequisitelegalpersonalitytoinstitutethismandamusproceeding,theyarenotbeingaggrievedpartieswithinthemeaningofSection3,Rule65 of the Rules of Court, which we quote:SEC.3.PetitionforMandamus.Whenanytribunal,corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performanceofanactwhichthelawspecificallyenjoinsasadutyresultingfromanoffice,trust,orstation,orunlawfullyexcludesanotherfromtheuseandenjoymentofarightorofficetowhichsuchother is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw,thepersonaggrievedtherebymayfileaverifiedpetitioninthepropercourtallegingthefactswithcertaintyandprayingthatjudgmentberenderedcommandingthedefendant,immediatelyoratsomeotherspecifiedtime,todotheactrequiredtobedonetoprotecttherights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by thepetitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant._______________2 AntiChinese League vs. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012; Costas vs. Aldanese, 45Phil.345;Almariovs.CityMayor,16SCRA151;Paltingvs.SanJosePetroleum, 18 SCRA 924; Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392.3636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. TuveraUpontheotherhand,petitionersmaintainthatsincethesubject of the petition concerns a public right and its objectis to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 11/25show any specific interest for their petition to be given duecourse.Theissueposedisnotoneoffirstimpression.Asearlyasthe1910caseofSeverinovs.GovernorGeneral,3thisCourtheldthatwhilethegeneralruleisthatawritofmandamus would be granted to a private individual only inthosecaseswherehehassomeprivateorparticularinteresttobesubserved,orsomeparticularrighttobeprotected,independentofthatwhichheholdswiththepublic at large, and it is for the public officers exclusivelyto apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved[Mithchellvs.Boardmen,79M.e.,469,nevertheless,whenthequestionisoneofpublicrightandtheobjectofthemandamusistoprocuretheenforcementofapublicduty,thepeopleareregardedastherealpartyininterestandtherelatoratwhoseinstigationtheproceedingsareinstitutedneednotshowthathehasanylegalorspecialinterest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is acitizenandassuchinterestedintheexecutionofthelaws[High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3rd ed., sec. 431].Thus,insaidcase,thisCourtrecognizedtherelatorLopeSeverino,aprivateindividual,asaproperpartytothemandamusproceedingsbroughttocompeltheGovernorGeneraltocallaspecialelectionforthepositionofmunicipalpresidentinthetownofSilay,NegrosOccidental.SpeakingforthisCourt,Mr.JusticeGrantT.Trent said:Wearethereforeoftheopinionthattheweightofauthoritysupportsthepropositionthattherelatorisaproperpartytoproceedingsofthischaracterwhenapublicrightissoughttobeenforced. If the general rule in America were otherwise, we thinkthatitwouldnotbeapplicabletothecaseatbarforthereasonthat it is always dangerous to apply a general rule to a particularcasewithoutkeepinginmindthereasonfortherule,because,ifundertheparticularcircumstancesthereasonfortheruledoesnotexist,theruleitselfisnotapplicableandrelianceupontherule may well lead to error._______________3 16 Phil. 366, 378.37VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 378/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 12/25Taada vs. TuveraNo reason exists in the case at bar for applying the general ruleinsisteduponbycounselfortherespondent.ThecircumstanceswhichsurroundthiscasearedifferentfromthoseintheUnitedStates,inasmuchasiftherelatorisnotaproperpartytotheseproceedingsnootherpersoncouldbe,aswehaveseenthatitisnotthedutyofthelawofficeroftheGovernmenttoappearandrepresent the people in cases of this character.ThereasonsgivenbytheCourtinrecognizingaprivatecitizens legal personality in the aforementioned case applysquarelytothepresentpetition.Clearly,therightsoughttobeenforcedbypetitionershereinisapublicrightrecognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land.If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding,it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other personto initiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General,thegovernmentofficergenerallyempoweredtorepresentthepeople,hasenteredhisappearanceforrespondentsinthis case.RespondentsfurthercontendthatpublicationintheOfficialGazetteisnotasinequanonrequirementfortheeffectivityoflawswherethelawsthemselvesprovidefortheirowneffectivitydates.Itisthussubmittedthatsincethepresidentialissuancesinquestioncontainspecialprovisions as to the date they are to take effect, publicationintheOfficialGazetteisnotindispensablefortheireffectivity.ThepointstressedisanchoredonArticle2ofthe Civil Code:Art.2.Lawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it isotherwise provided, x x xTheinterpretationgivenbyrespondentisinaccordwiththisCourtsconstructionofsaidarticle.Inalonglineofdecisions,4thisCourthasruledthatpublicationintheOfficialGazetteisnecessaryinthosecaseswherethelegislationitselfdoesnotprovideforitseffectivitydatefor then the date of_______________4Camachovs.CourtofIndustrialRelations,80Phil.848;Mejiavs.Balolong,81Phil.486;RepublicofthePhilippinesvs.Encarnacion,878/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 13/25Phil. 843; PhilippineBloomingMills,Inc.vs.SocialSecuritySystem,17SCRA 1077; Askay vs. Cosalan, 46 Phil. 179.3838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. Tuverapublicationismaterialfordeterminingitsdateofeffectivity,whichisthefifteenthdayfollowingitspublicationbutnotwhenthelawitselfprovidesforthedate when it goes into effect.Respondentsargument,however,islogicallycorrectonlyinsofarasitequatestheeffectivityoflawswiththefact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutesapplicabletotheissueathand,theconclusioniseasilyreachedthatsaidArticle2doesnotprecludetherequirementofpublicationintheOfficialGazette,evenifthelawitselfprovidesforthedateofitseffectivity.Thus,Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as follows:Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] allimportant legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of tneCongressofthePhilippines;[2]allexecutiveandadministrativeordersandproclamations,exceptsuchashavenogeneralapplicability: [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the SupremeCourt and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courtsof sufficient importance to be so published; [4] such documents orclassesofdocumentsasmayberequiredsotobepublishedbylaw;and[5]suchdocumentsorclassesofdocumentsasthePresident of the Philippines shall determine from time to time tohavegeneralapplicabilityandlegaleffect,orwhichhemayauthorize so to be published. x x xThe clear object of the abovequoted provision is to give thegeneralpublicadequatenoticeofthevariouslawswhicharetoregulatetheiractionsandconductascitizens.Withoutsuchnoticeandpublication,therewouldbenobasis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis nonexcusat.Itwouldbetheheightofinjusticetopunishorotherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law ofwhich he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructiveone.PerhapsatnotimesincetheestablishmentofthePhilippineRepublichasthepublicationoflawstakenso8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 14/25vitalsignificancethatatthistimewhenthepeoplehavebestoweduponthePresidentapowerheretoforeenjoyedsolely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreastbythemassmediaofthedebatesanddeliberationsintheBatasan Pambansaand for39VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 39Taada vs. Tuverathediligentones,readyaccesstothelegislativerecordsnosuchpublicityaccompaniesthelawmakingprocessofthePresident.Thus,withoutpublication,thepeoplehavenomeansofknowingwhatpresidentialdecreeshaveactuallybeenpromulgated,muchlessadefinitewayofinformingthemselvesofthespecificcontentsandtextsofsuchdecrees.AstheSupremeCourtofSpainruled:Bajola denominacin genrica de leyes, se comprenden tambinlosreglamentos,Realesdecretos,Instrucciones,CircularesyRealesordinesdietadasdeconformidadconlasmismaspor el Gobierno en uso de su potestad.5TheveryfirstclauseofSection1ofCommonwealthAct638 reads: There shall be published in the Official Gazettexxx.Thewordshallusedthereinimposesuponrespondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must beenforcediftheConstitutionalrightofthepeopletobeinformedonmattersofpublicconcernistobegivensubstanceandreality.Thelawitselfmakesalistofwhatshould be published in the Official Gazette. Such listing, toourmind,leavesrespondentswithnodiscretionwhatsoeverastowhatmustbeincludedorexcludedfromsuch publication.The publication of all presidential issuances of a publicnatureorofgeneralapplicabilityismandatedbylaw.Obviously,presidentialdecreesthatprovideforfines,forfeituresorpenaltiesfortheirviolationorotherwiseimposeaburdenonthepeople,suchastaxandrevenuemeasures,fallwithinthiscategory.Otherpresidentialissuances which apply only to particular persons or class ofpersonssuchasadministrativeandexecutiveordersneednotbepublishedontheassumptionthattheyhavebeencircularized to all concerned.6It is needless to add that the publication of presidentialissuances of a public nature or of general applicability is8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 15/25a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that beforeapersonmaybeboundbylaw,hemustfirstbeofficiallyand specifically informed of its contents. As Justice Claudio_______________5 1 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., p. 146.6 People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; Balbuenaetal.vs.SecretaryofEducation, et al., 110 Phil. 150.4040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. TuveraTeehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC7:Inatimeofproliferatingdecrees,ordersandlettersofinstructionswhichallformpartofthelawoftheland,therequirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand that theOfficialGazetteastheofficialgovernmentrepositorypromulgateand publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructionssothatthepeoplemayknowwheretoobtaintheirofficialandspecific contents.The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances ofgeneralapplication,whichhavenotbeenpublished,shallhave no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quiteapprehensiveaboutthepossibleunsettlingeffectthisdecision might have on acts done in reliance of the validityofthosepresidentialdecreeswhichwerepublishedonlyduring the pendency of this petition, have put the questionas to whether the Courts declaration of invalidity apply toP.D.swhichhadbeenenforcedorimplementedpriortotheir publication. The answer is all too familiar. In similarsituationsinthepastthisCourthadtakenthepragmaticandrealisticcoursesetforthinChicotCountyDrainageDistrict vs. Baxter Bank8 to wit:ThecourtsbelowhaveproceededonthetheorythattheActofCongress,havingbeenfoundtobeunconstitutional,wasnotalaw; that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing noduties,andhenceaffordingnobasisforthechallengeddecree.Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442; Chicago,I.&L.Ry.Co. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566. It is quite clear, however, thatsuchbroadstatementsastotheeffectofadeterminationof8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 16/25unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actualexistenceofastatute,priortosuchadetermination,isanoperative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly beignored.Thepastcannotalwaysbeerasedbyanewjudicialdeclaration.Theeffectofthesubsequentrulingastoinvaliditymayhavetobeconsideredinvariousaspectswithrespecttoparticularconduct,privateandofficial.Questionsofrightsclaimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinationsdeemedtohavefinalityandacteduponaccordingly,ofpublicpolicyinthelightofthenaturebothofthestatuteandofitsprevious application, demand examination. These ques_______________7 82 SCRA 30, dissenting opinion.8 308 U.S. 371, 374.41VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 41Taada vs. Tuverationsareamongthemostdifficultofthosewhichhaveengagedthe attention of courts, state and federal, and it is manifest fromnumerousdecisionsthatanallinclusivestatementofaprincipleof absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.Consistently with the above principle, this Court in Ruttervs.Esteban9sustainedtherightofapartyundertheMoratorium Law, albeit said right had accrued in his favorbeforesaidlawwasdeclaredunconstitutionalbythisCourt.Similarly,theimplementation/enforcementofpresidentialdecreespriortotheirpublicationintheOfficialGazetteisanoperativefactwhichmayhaveconsequenceswhichcannotbejustlyignored.Thepastcannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration x x xthatanallinclusivestatementofaprincipleofabsoluteretroactive invalidity cannot be justified.FromthereportsubmittedtotheCourtbytheClerkofCourt, it appears that of the presidential decrees sought bypetitionerstobepublishedintheOfficialGazette,onlyPresidentialDecreesNos.1019to1030,inclusive,1278,and1937to1939,inclusive,havenotbeensopublished.10Neither the subject matters nor the texts of these PDs canbeascertainedsincenocopiesthereofareavailable.But8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 17/25whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed thatnone of these unpublished PDs has ever been implementedorenforcedbythegovernment.InPesiganvs.Angeles,11theCourt,throughJusticeRamonAquino,ruledthatpublicationisnecessarytoapprisethepublicofthecontents of [penal] regulations and make the said penaltiesbindingonthepersonsaffectedthereby.Thecogencyofthisholdingisapparentlyrecognizedbyrespondentofficialsconsideringthemanifestationintheircommentthat the government, as a matter of policy, refrains_______________9 93 Phil. 68.10 The report was prepared by the Clerk of Court after Acting DirectorFlorendo S. Pablo Jr. of the Government Printing Office, failed to respondtoherletterrequestregardingtherespectivedatesofpublicationintheOfficial Gazette of the presidential issuances listed therein. No report hasbeensubmittedbytheClerkofCourtastothepublicationornonpublication of other presidential issuances.11 129 SCRA 174.4242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. Tuverafrom prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the sameshall have been published in the Official Gazette or in someother publication, even though some criminal laws providethat they shall take effect immediately.WHEREFORE,theCourtherebyordersrespondentstopublish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidentialissuanceswhichareofgeneralapplication,andunlesssopublished, they shall have no binding force and effect.SO ORDERED.Relova, J., concur. Fernando,C.J.,concursinaseparateopinionexpressing the view that without publication, a due processquestion may arise but that such publication need not be intheOfficialGazette.Tothatextentheconcurswiththeopinion of Justice Plana.Teehankee, J., files a brief concurrence.Makasiar, J., concurs in the opinion of Chief Justice8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 18/251.Fernando.Aquino, J., no part.Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.Abad Santos, J., I concur in the separate opinion ofthe Chief Justice. MelencioHerrera,J.,seeseparateconcurringopinion.Plana, J., see separate opinion.Gutierrez, Jr., J., I concur insofar as publication isnecessarybutreservemyvoteastothenecessityofsuchpublication being in the Official Gazette.De la Fuente, J., Insofar as the opinion declares theunpublisheddecreesandissuancesofapublicnatureorgeneralapplicabilityineffective,untilduepublicationthereof. Cuevas,J.,IconcurintheopinionoftheChiefJustice and Justice Plana. Alampay,J.,IsubscribetotheopinionofChiefJustice Fernando and Justice Plana.43VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 43Taada vs. TuveraFERNANDO, C.J., concurring with qualification:ThereisonthewholeacceptanceonmypartoftheviewsexpressedintheablywrittenopinionofJusticeEscolin.Iamunable,however,toconcurinsofarasitwouldunqualifiedly impose the requirement of publication in theOfficial Gazette for unpublished presidential issuances tohave binding force and effect.I shall explain why.Itisofcoursetruethatwithouttherequisitepublication,adueprocessquestionwouldariseifmade to apply adversely to a party who is not evenawareoftheexistenceofanylegislativeorexecutive act having the force and effect of law. MypointisthatsuchpublicationrequiredneednotbeconfinedtotheOfficialGazette.Fromthepragmaticstandpoint,thereisanadvantagetobegained.Itconducestocertainty.Thatistoobeadmitted. It does not follow, however, that failure to8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 19/252.3.do so would in all cases and under all circumstancesresult in a statute, presidential decree or any otherexecutiveactofthesamecategorybeingbereftofanybindingforceandeffect.Tosoholdwould,forme,raiseaconstitutionalquestion.Suchapronouncementwouldlenditselftotheinterpretation that such a legislative or presidentialactisbereftoftheattributeofeffectivityunlesspublishedintheOfficialGazette.Thereisnosuchrequirement in the Constitution as Justice Plana soaptlypointedout.Itistruethatwhatisdecidednowappliesonlytopastpresidentialissuances.Nonetheless,thisclarificationis,tomymind,neededtoavoidanypossiblemisconceptionastowhat is required for any statute or presidential actto be impressed with binding force or effectivity.It is quite understandable then why I concur in theseparateopinionofJusticePlana.Itsfirstparagraphsetsforthwhattomeistheconstitutional doctrine applicable to this case. Thus:ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnotrequirethepublicationoflawsasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,unlikesomeConstitutionselsewhere.Itmaybesaidthoughthattheguaranteeofdueprocessrequiresnoticeoflawstoaffectedpartiesbefore they can be bound thereby; but such4444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. TuveranoticeisnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficial Gazette. The due process clause is not thatprecise.1Iamlikewiseinagreementwithitsclosing paragraph: In fine, I concur in the majoritydecisiontotheextentthatitrequiresnoticebeforelawsbecomeeffective,fornopersonshouldbeboundbyalawwithoutnotice.Thisiselementaryfairness.However,Ibegtodisagreeinsofarasitholds that such notice shall be by publication in theOfficial Gazette.2Itsuffices,aswasstatedbyJudgeLearnedHand,thatlawasthecommandofthegovernmentmust8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 20/25be ascertainable in some form if it is to be enforcedat all.3Itwouldindeedbetoreduceittothelevelofmerefutility,aspointedoutbyJusticeCardozo,if it is unknown and unknowable.4 Publication, torepeat, is thus essential. What I am not prepared tosubscribetoisthedoctrinethatitmustbeintheOfficialGazette.Tobesureoncepublishedthereinthereistheascertainablemodeofdeterminingtheexactdateofitseffectivity.Stillformethatdoesnot dispose of the question of what is the jural effectof past presidential decrees or executive acts not sopublished. For prior thereto, it could be that partiesawareoftheirexistencecouldhaveconductedthemselvesinaccordancewiththeirprovisions.IfnolegalconsequencescouldattachduetolackofpublicationintheOfficialGazette,thenseriousproblemscouldarise.PrevioustransactionsbasedonsuchPresidentialIssuancescouldbeopentoquestion.Mattersdeemedsettledcouldstillbeinquiredinto.Iamnotpreparedtoholdthatsuchaneffectiscontemplatedbyourdecision.Wheresuchpresidentialdecreeorexecutiveactismadethe basis of a criminal prosecution, then, of course,its ex post facto character becomes evident.5 In civilcases though, retroac_______________1SeparateOpinionofJusticePlana,firstparagraph.Hementionedinthis connection Article 7, Sec. 21 of the Wisconsin Constitution and Stateex rel. White v. Grand Superior Ct., 71 ALR 1354, citing the Constitutionof Indiana, U.S.A.2 Ibid, closing paragraph.3 Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty 104 (1960).4 Cardozo, The Growth of the Law, 3 (1924).5Cf.Nuezv.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.5058150617,January30,1982, 111 SCRA 433.45VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 45Taada vs. TuverativityassuchisnotconclusiveonthedueprocessaspectTheremuststillbeashowingof8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 21/254.5.arbitrariness.Moreover,wherethechallengedpresidentialdecreeorexecutiveactwasissuedunderthepolicepower,thenonimpairmentclauseoftheConstitutionmaynotalwaysbesuccessfullyinvoked.Theremuststillbethatprocessofbalancingtodeterminewhetherornotitcouldinsuchacasebetaintedbyinfirmity.6Intraditionalterminology,therecouldarisethenaquestionofunconstitutionalapplication.Thatisasfarasitgoes.Letmemakethereforethatmyqualifiedconcurrencegoesnofurtherthantoaffirmthatpublicationisessentialtotheeffectivityofalegislative or executive act of a general application.IamnotinagreementwiththeviewthatsuchpublicationmustbeintheOfficialGazette.TheCivil Code itself in its Article 2 expressly recognizesthattheruleastolawstakingeffectafterfifteendays following the completion of their publication intheOfficialGazetteissubjecttothisexception,unlessitisotherwiseprovided.Moreover,theCivilCodeisitselfonlyalegislativeenactment,RepublicActNo.386.Itdoesnotandcannothavethejuridicalforceofaconstitutionalcommand.Alater legislative or executive act which has the forceandeffectoflawcanlegallyprovideforadifferentrule.NorcanIagreewiththerathersweepingconclusionintheopinionofJusticeEscolinthatpresidentialdecreesandexecutiveactsnotthuspreviouslypublishedintheOfficialGazettewouldbedevoidofanylegalcharacter.Thatwouldbe,inmyopinion,togotoofar.Itmaybefraught,asearlier noted, with undesirable consequences. I findmyselfthereforeunabletoyieldassenttosuchapronouncement.IamauthorizedtostatethatJusticesMakasiar,AbadSantos,Cuevas,andAlampayconcurinthisseparateopinion._______________6 Cf.Alalayanv.NationalPowerCorporation, L24396,July29,1968,24 SCRA 172.8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 22/254646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. TuveraTEEHANKEE, J., concurring:IconcurwiththemainopinionofMr.JusticeEscolinandtheconcurringopinionofMme.JusticeHerrera.TheRuleofLawconnotesabodyofnormsandlawspublishedandascertainableandofequalapplicationtoallsimilarlycircumstanced and not subject to arbitrary change but onlyundercertainsetprocedures.TheCourthasconsistentlystressedthatitisanelementaryruleoffairplayandjusticethatareasonableopportunitytobeinformedmustbeaffordedtothepeoplewhoarecommandedtoobeybeforetheycanbepunishedforitsviolation,1citingthesettled principle based on due process enunciated in earliercasesthatbeforethepublicisboundbyitscontents,especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circularmustfirstbepublishedandthepeopleofficiallyandspecially informed of said contents and its penalties.WithoutofficialpublicationintheOfficialGazetteasrequiredbyArticle2oftheCivilCodeandtheRevisedAdministrativeCode,therewouldbenobasisnorjustificationforthecorollaryruleofArticle3oftheCivilCode(basedonconstructivenoticethattheprovisionsofthelawareascertainablefromthepublicandofficialrepositorywheretheyaredulypublished)thatIgnoranceof the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.RespondentscontentionbasedonamisreadingofArticle 2 of the Civil Code that only laws which are silentastotheireffectivity[date]needbepublishedintheOfficialGazettefortheireffectivityismanifestlyuntenable. The plain text and meaning of the Civil Code isthatlawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided,i.e.adifferenteffectivitydateisprovidedbythelawitself.Thisprovisoperforcereferstoalawthathasbeendulypublishedpursuanttothebasicconstitutionalrequirementsofdueprocess.ThebestexampleofthisistheCivilCodeitself:thesameArticle 2 provides otherwise that it shall take effect [only]one8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 23/25_______________1 People vs. de Dios, G.R. No. 11003,Aug.31,1959,perthelateChiefJustice Paras.47VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985 47Taada vs. Tuverayear[not15days]aftersuchpublication.2Tosustainrespondents misreading that most laws or decrees specifythe date of their effectivity and for this reason, publicationin the Official Gazette is not necessary for their effectivity3wouldbetonullifyandrendernugatorytheCivilCodesindispensableandessentialrequirementofpriorpublication in the Official Gazette by the simple expedientofprovidingforimmediateeffectivityoranearliereffectivity date in the law itself before the completion of 15days following its publication which is the period generallyfixed by the Civil Code for its proper dissemination.MELENCIOHERRERA, J., concurring:Iagree.Therecannotbeanyquestionbutthatevenifadecreeprovidesforadateofeffectivity,ithastobepublished.WhatIwouldliketostateinconnectionwiththatpropositionisthatwhenadateofeffectivityismentionedinthedecreebutthedecreebecomeseffectiveonlyfifteen(15)daysafteritspublicationintheOfficialGazette,itwillnotmeanthatthedecreecanhaveretroactive effect to the date of effectivity mentioned in thedecreeitself.Thereshouldbenoretroactivityiftheretroactivitywillruncountertoconstitutionalrightsorshall destroy vested rights.SEPARATE OPINIONPLANA, J.:ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnotrequirethepublicationoflawsasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,unlikesomeConstitutionselsewhere.**Itmaybesaidthough that the guarantee of due process requires notice oflaws to affected op8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 24/25_______________2 Notes in brackets supplied.3 Respondents comment, pp. 1415.**Seee.g.,WisconsinConstitution.Art.7,Sec.21:Thelegislatureshallprovidepublicationofallstatutelaws...andnogenerallawshallbeinforceuntilpublished.SeealsoStateexrel.Whitevs.GrandSuperior Ct., 71 ALR 1354, citing the Constitution of Indiana, U.S.A.4848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTaada vs. Tuveraparties before they can be bound thereby; but such notice isnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclauseisnotthatprecise.NeitheristhepublicationoflawsintheOfficial Gazetterequiredbyanystatuteasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,ifsaidlawsalready provide for their effectivity date.Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall takeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided. Two things may be said of this provision: Firstly,itobviouslydoesnotapplytoalawwithabuiltinprovision as to when it will take effect. Secondly, it clearlyrecognizesthateachlawmayprovidenotonlyadifferentperiod for reckoning its effectivity date but also a differentmodeofnotice.Thus,alawmayprescribethatitshallbepublished elsewhere than in the Official Gazette.CommonwealthActNo.638,inmyopinion,doesnotsupport the proposition that for their effectivity,lawsmustbe published in the Official Gazette. The said law is simplyAnActtoProvidefortheUniformPublicationandDistributionoftheOfficialGazette.Conformablytherewith,itauthorizesthepublicationoftheOfficialGazette, determines its frequency, provides for its sale anddistribution,anddefinestheauthorityoftheDirectorofPrinting in relation thereto. It also enumerates what shallbepublishedintheOfficialGazette,amongthem,importantlegislativeactsandresolutionsofapublicnatureoftheCongressofthePhilippinesandallexecutiveandadministrativeordersandproclamations,exceptsuchashavenogeneralapplicability.Itisnoteworthythatnotalllegislativeactsarerequiredtobe8/5/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 136http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014efdf273977783ba03000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest 25/25published in the Official Gazette but only important onesofapublicnature.Moreover,thesaidlawdoesnotprovide that publication in the Official Gazette is essentialfortheeffectivityoflaws.Thisisasitshouldbe,forallstatutesareequalandstandonthesamefooting.Alaw,especiallyanearlieroneofgeneralapplicationsuchasCommonwealthActNo.638,cannotnullifyorrestricttheoperation of a subsequent statute that has a provision of itsownastowhenandhowitwilltakeeffect.Onlyahigherlaw, which is the Constitution, can assume that role.49VOL. 136, APRIL 25, 1985 49In Re: Milagros SantiaIn fine, I concur in the majority decision to the extent thatitrequiresnoticebeforelawsbecomeeffective,fornopersonshouldbeboundbyalawwithoutnotice.Thisiselementaryfairness.However,IbegtodisagreeinsofarasitholdsthatsuchnoticeshallbebypublicationintheOfficial Gazette.Respondentsorderedtopublishallunpublishedpresidential issuances in the Official Gazette.o0o Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.