Preliminary Full Kris

7/25/2019 Preliminary Full Kris

1/59

1

No. L-63915. April 24, 1985.*LORENZO M. TAADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, andMOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD,INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI],petitioners, vs.HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity asExecutive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN

VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to thePresident, MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacityas Director, Malacaang Records Office, and FLORENDO S.PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing,respondents.

_______________

*EN BANC.

28

28 SUPREME COURTREPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

Mandamus; Private individuals who seek to procure the

enforcement of a public duty (e.g. the publication in the Official

Gazette of Presidential Decrees, LOI, etc.) are real parties in

interest in mandamus case.The reasons given by the Court inrecognizing a private citizens legal personality in theaforementioned case apply squarely to the present petition.

Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is apublic right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of theland. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding, itwould indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person to initiatethe same, considering that the Solicitor General, the governmentofficer generally empowered to represent the people, has enteredhis appearance for respondents in this case.

Same; Statutes; Fact that a Presidential Decree or LOI states

its date of effectivity does not preclude their publication in the

Official Gazette as they constitute important legislative acts,

particularly in the present situation where the President may on his

own issue laws.The clear object of the above-quoted provision isto give the general public adequate notice of the various lawswhich are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens.Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis forthe application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. It

would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden acitizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no noticewhatsoever, not even a constructive one.

Same; Same; Same.Perhaps at no time since theestablishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication oflaws taken so vital significance than at this time when the peoplehave bestowed upon the President a power heretofore enjoyedsolely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by themass media of the debates and deliberations in the BatasanPambansaand for the diligent ones, ready access to thelegislative recordsno such publicity accompanies the law-makingprocess of the President. Thus, without publication, the peoplehave no means of knowing what presidential decrees have actuallybeen promulgated, much less a definite way of informingthemselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. Asthe Supreme Court of Spain ruled: Bajo la denoroinacin genricade leyes, se comprenden tambin los reglamentos, Reales decretos,Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordines dictadas de conformidadcon las mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su potestad.

Same; Same; C.A. 638 imposes a duty for publication of

Presidential decrees and issuances as it uses the words shall be29VOL. 136, APRIL 24,

1985 9

Taada vs. Tuvera

published.The very first clause of Section 1 ofCommonwealth Act 638 reads: There shall be published in the

Official Gazette x x x. The word shall used therein imposes upon

respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960027001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960027001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960027001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960027001


2/59

2

enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed onmatters of public concern is to be given substance and reality. Thelaw itself makes a list of what should be published in the OfficialGazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves respondents with nodiscretion whatsoever as to what must be included or excludedfrom such publication.

Same; Same; But administrative and executive orders andthose which affect only a particular class of persons need not be

published.The publication of all presidential issuances of a

public nature or of general applicability is mandated by law.Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures orpenalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden on thepeople, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within thiscategory. Other presidential issuances which apply only toparticular persons or class of persons such as administrative andexecutive orders need not be published on the assumption thatthey have been circularized to all concerned.

Same; Same; Due Process;Publication of Presidential decrees

and issuances of general application is a matter of due process.Itis needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances of

a public nature or of general applicability is a requirement of

due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be boundby law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of itscontents.

Same; Same; Same;Presidential Decrees and issuances of

general application which have not been published shall have no

force and effect.The Court therefore declares that presidentialissuances of general application, which have not been published,shall have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quiteapprehensive about the possible unsettling effect this decisionmight have on acts done in reliance of the validity of thosepresidential decrees which were published only during thependency of this petition, have put the question as to whether theCourts declaration of invalidity apply to P.D.s which had been

enforced or implemented prior to their publication. The answer is

all too familiar. In similar situations in the past this Court hadtaken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot CountyDrainage District vs. Baxter Bank.

30

0

SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. TuveraSame; Same; Same;Implementation of Presidential Decrees

prior to their publication in the Official Gazette may have

consequences which cannot be ignored.Similarly, theimplementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to theirpublication in the Official Gazette is an operativefact which mayhave consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past cannotalways be erased by a new judicial declaration x x x that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invaliditycannot be justified.

Same; Same; Same; Only P.D. Nos. 1019 to 1030, 1278 and

1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been published. It is undisputed

that none of them has been implemented.From the reportsubmitted to the Court by the Clerk of Court, it appears that of thepresidential decrees sought by petitioners to be published in theOfficial Gazette, only Presidential Decrees Nos. 1019 to 1030,inclusive. 1278, and 1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been sopublished. Neither the subject matters nor the texts of these PDscan be ascertained since no copies thereof are available. But

whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that none ofthese unpublished PDs has ever been implemented or enforced bythe government.

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring with qualification:

Statutes; Due Process; I am unable to concur insofar as the

opinion written by Justice Escolin would unqualifiedly impose the

requirement of publication in the Official Gazette for unpublished

Presidential issuances to have a binding force and effect.It is of


3/59

3

course true that without the requisite publication, a due processquestion would arise if made to apply adversely to a party who isnot even aware of the existence of any legislative or executive acthaving the force and effect of law. My point is that suchpublication required need not be confined to the Official Gazette.From the pragmatic standpoint, there is an advantage to be

gained. It conduces to certainty. That is to be admitted. It does notfollow, however, that failure to do so would in all cases and underall circumstances result in a statute, presidential decree or anyother executive act of the same category being bereft of anybinding force and effect. To so hold would, for me, raise aconstitutional question. Such a pronouncement would lend itself tothe interpretation that such a legislative or presidential act isbereft of the attribute of effectivity unless published in the OfficialGazette. There is no such requirement in the Constitution asJustice Plana so aptly pointed out. It is true that what is decidednow applies only to past presidential issuances.

31VOL. 136, APRIL 24,

1985 1

Taada vs. Tuvera

Nonetheless, this clarification is, to my mind, needed to avoidany possible misconception as to what is required for any statuteor presidential act to be impressed with binding force or effectivity.

Same; Same; The Civil Code rule on publication of statutes is

only a legislative enactment and does not and cannot have the force

of a constitutional command A later executive or legislative act can

fix a different rule.Let me make clear therefore that my qualifiedconcurrence goes no further than to affirm that publication isessential to the effectivity of a legislative or executive act of ageneral application. I am not in agreement with the view that suchpublication must be in the Official Gazette. The Civil Code itself inits Article 2 expressly recognizes that the rule as to laws takingeffect after fifteen days following the completion of their

publication in the Official Gazette is subject to this exception,

unless it is otherwise provided. Moreover, the Civil Code is itself

only a legislative enactment, Republic Act No. 386. It does not andcannot have the juridical force of a constitutional command. Alater legislative or executive act which has the force and effect oflaw can legally provide for a different rule.

Same; Same; I am unable to agree that decrees not published

are devoid of any legal character.Nor can I agree with the rathersweeping conclusion in the opinion of Justice Escolin thatpresidential decrees and executive acts not thus previouslypublished in the Official Gazette would be devoid of any legalcharacter. That would be, in my opinion, to go too far. It may befraught, as earlier noted, with undesirable consequences. I findmyself therefore unable to yield assent to such a pronouncement.

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

Statutes; Unless laws are published there will no basis for therule that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance

therewith.Without official publication in the Official Gazette asrequired by Article 2 of the Civil Code and the Revised

Administrative Code, there would be no basis nor justification forthe corollary rule of Article 3 of the Civil Code (based onconstructive notice that the provisions of the law are ascertainablefrom the public and official repository where they are dulypublished) that Ignorance of the law excuses no one from

compliance therewith.32

2

SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

Same; Respondents theory that a Presidential Decree that fixes

its date of effectivity need not be published misreads Art. 2 of the

Civil Code.Respondents contention based on a misreading of

Article 2 of the Civil Code that only laws which are silent as to

their effectivity [date] need be published in the Official Gazette for


4/59

4

their effectivity is manifestly untenable. The plain text and

meaning of the Civil Code is that laws shall take effect after

fifteen days following the completion of their publication in theOfficial Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided, i.e. a differenteffectivity date is provided by the law itself. This proviso perforcerefers to a law that has been duly published pursuant to the basic

constitutional requirements of due process. The best example ofthis is the Civil Code itself: the same Article 2 provides otherwisethat it shall take effect [only] one year [not 15 days] after such

publication. To sustain respondents misreading that most laws

or decrees specify the date of their effectivity and for this reason,publication in the Official Gazette is not necessary for theireffectivity would be to nullify and render nugatory the Civil

Codes indispensable and essential requirement ofpriorpublicationin the Official Gazette by the simple expedient of providing forimmediate effectivity or an earlier effectivity date in the lawitself beforethe completion of 15 days following its publicationwhich is the period generally fixed by the Civil Code for its properdissemination.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring:

Statutes; When a date of effectivity is mentioned in the Decree,

but becomes effective only 15 days after publication in the Gazette,

it will not mean that the Decree can have retroactive effect to the

expressed date of effectivity.I agree. There cannot be any questionbut that even if a decree provides for a date of effectivity, it has tobe published. What I would like to state in connection with thatproposition is that when a date of effectivity is mentioned in thedecree but the decree becomes effective only fifteen (15) days afterits publication in the Official Gazette, it will not mean that thedecree can have retroactive effect to the date of effectivitymentioned in the decree itself. There should be no retroactivity ifthe retroactivity will run counter to constitutional rights or shalldestroy vested rights.

PLANA, J., separate opinion:

Constitutional Law; Statutes;Due Process; The Constitution

does not require prior publication for laws to be effective and while33VOL. 136, APRIL 24,

1985 3

Taada vs. Tuvera

due process require prior notice, such notice is not necessarily

publication in the Official Gazette.The Philippine Constitutiondoes not require the publication of laws as a prerequisite for theireffectivity, unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. It may be saidthough that the guarantee of due process requires notice of laws toaffected parties before they can be bound thereby; but such noticeis not necessarily by publication in the Official Gazette. The dueprocess clause is not that precise. Neither is the publication of laws

in the Official Gazetterequired by any statute as a prerequisite fortheir effectivity, if said laws already provide for their effectivitydate.

Same; Same; Same; C.A. 638 does not require Official Gazette

publication of laws for their effectivity.Commonwealth Act No.638, in my opinion, does not support the proposition thatfor theireffectivity,laws must be published in the Official Gazette. The saidlaw is simply An Act to Provide for the Uniform Publication andDistribution of the Official Gazette. Conformably therewith, it

authorizes the publication of the Official Gazette, determines itsfrequency, provides for its sale and distribution, and defines theauthority of the Director of Printing in relation thereto. It alsoenumerates what shall be published in the Official Gazette, amongthem, importantlegislative acts and resolutions of a public natureof the Congress of the Philippines and all executive and

administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have nogeneral applicability. It is noteworthy that not all legislative acts

are required to be published in the Official Gazette but only

important ones of a public nature. Moreover, the said law does


5/59

5

not provide that publication in the Official Gazette is essential forthe effectivity of laws. This is as it should be, for all statutes areequal and stand on the same footing. A law, especially an earlierone of general application such as Commonwealth Act No. 638,cannot nullify or restrict the operation of a subsequent statute thathas a provision of its own as to when and how it will take effect.

Only a higher law, which is the Constitution, can assume that role.

PETITION to review the decision of the Executive Assistantto the President.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

ESCOL1N, J.:

Invoking the peoples right to be informed on matters of

public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of3434 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

the 1973 Philippine Constitution,1as well as the principlethat laws to be valid and enforceable must be published inthe Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated,petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondentpublic officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in theOfficial Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters ofinstructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders,letter of implementation and administrative orders.

Specifically, the publication of the following presidentialissuances is sought:

1.a]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, 1017-1030, 1050, 1060-1061,1085, 1143, 1165, 1166, 1242, 1246, 1250, 1278, 1279,1300, 1644, 1772, 1808, 1810, 1813-1817, 1819-1826, 1829-1840, 1842-1847.

2.

b]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, 211-213, 215-224, 226-228,231-239, 241-245, 248-251, 253-261, 263-269, 271-273,275-283, 285-289, 291, 293, 297-299, 301-303, 309, 312-315, 325, 327, 343, 346, 349, 357, 358, 362, 367, 370, 382,385, 386, 396-397, 405, 438-440, 444-445, 473, 486, 488,498, 501. 399, 527, 561, 576, 587, 594, 599, 600, 602, 609,610, 611, 612, 615, 641, 642, 665, 702, 712-713, 726, 837-839, 878-879, 881, 882, 939-940, 964, 997, 1149-1178,1180-1278.

3.c]General Orders Nos.: 14, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64 & 65.4.d]Proclamation Nos.: 1126, 1144, 1147, 1151, 1196, 1270,

1281, 1319-1526, 1529, 1532, 1535, 1538, 1540-1547, 1550-1558, 1561-1588, 1590-1595, 1594-1600, 1606-1609, 1612-1628, 1630-1649, 1694-1695, 1697-1701, 1705-1723, 1731-1734, 1737-1742, 1744, 1746-1751, 1752, 1754, 1762, 1764-1787, 1789-1795, 1797, 1800, 1802-1804, 1806-1807, 1812-1814, 1816, 1825-1826, 1829, 1831-1832, 1835-1836, 1839-

_______________

1Section 6. The right of thepeople to information on matters of public

concern shall be recognized, 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 pr ovided by law.

35VOL. 136, APRIL 24,

1985

35


6/59

6

Taada vs. Tuvera

1.1840, 1843-1844, 1846-1847, 1849, 1853-1858, 1860, 1866,1868, 1870, 1876-1889, 1892, 1900, 1918, 1923, 1933,1952, 1963, 1965-1966, 1968-1984, 1986-2028, 2030-2044,2046-2145, 2147-2161, 2163-2244.

2.

e]Executive Orders Nos.: 411, 413, 414, 427, 429-454, 457-471, 474-492, 494-507, 509-510, 522, 524-528, 531-532,536, 538, 543-544, 549, 551-553, 560, 563, 567-568, 570,574, 593, 594, 598-604, 609, 611-647, 649-677, 679-703,705-707, 712-786, 788-852, 854-857.

3.f]Letters of Implementation Nos.: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11-22, 25-27,39, 50, 51, 59, 76, 80-81, 92, 94, 95, 107, 120, 122, 123.

4.g]Administrative Orders Nos.: 347, 348, 352-354, 360-378,380-433, 436-439.

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would havethis case dismissed outright on the ground that petitionershave no legal personality or standing to bring the instantpetition. The view is submitted that in the absence of anyshowing that petitioners are personally and directly affectedor prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of thepresidential issuances in question2said petitioners arewithout the requisite legal personality to institute thismandamus proceeding, they are not being aggrieved parties

within the meaning of Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules ofCourt, which we quote:SEC. 3.Petition for Mandamus.When any tribunal, corporation,board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an actwhich the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from anoffice, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from theuse and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other isentitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedyin the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may

file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with

certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding thedefendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do theact required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, andto pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of thewrongful acts of the defendant.

_______________

2 Anti-Chinese League vs. Felix,77 Phil. 1012; Costas vs. Aldanese, 45

Phil. 345; Almario vs. City Mayor, 16 SCRA 151; Palting vs. San Jose

Petroleum, 18 SCRA 924; Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392.

3636 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the

subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object isto compel the performance of a public duty, they need notshow any specific interest for their petition to be given duecourse.

The issue posed is not one of first impression. As early asthe 1910 case of Severino vs. Governor General,3this Courtheld that while the general rule is that a writ of mandamus

would be granted to a private individual only in those caseswhere he has some private or particular interest to be

subserved, or some particular right to be protected,independent of that which he holds with the public at large,and it is for the public officers exclusively to apply for the

writ when public rights are to be subserved [Mithchell vs.Boardmen, 79 M.e., 469, nevertheless, when the question is

one of public right and the object of the mandamus is toprocure the enforcement of a public duty, the people areregarded as the real party in interest and the relator atwhose instigation the proceedings are instituted need notshow that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960035001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960035001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960036001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960036001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960036001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960036001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960035001


7/59

7

being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as suchinterested in the execution of the laws [High, ExtraordinaryLegal Remedies, 3rd ed., sec. 431].

Thus, in said case, this Court recognized the relator LopeSeverino, a private individual, as a proper party to themandamus proceedings brought to compel the Governor

General to call a special election for the position of municipalpresident in the town of Silay, Negros Occidental. Speakingfor this Court, Mr. Justice Grant T. Trent said:We are therefore of the opinion that the weight of authority

supports the proposition that the relator is a proper party toproceedings of this character when a public right is sought to beenforced. If the general rule in America were otherwise, we thinkthat it would not be applicable to the case at bar for the reasonthat it is always dangerous to apply a general rule to a particular

case without keeping in mind the reason for the rule, because, ifunder the particular circumstances the reason for the rule does notexist, the rule itself is not applicable and reliance upon the rulemay well lead to error.

_______________

316 Phil. 366, 378.

37VOL. 136, APRIL 24,

1985

37

Taada vs. Tuvera

No reason exists in the case at bar for applying the general rule

insisted upon by counsel for the respondent. The circumstanceswhich surround this case are different from those in the UnitedStates, inasmuch as if the relator is not a proper party to theseproceedings no other person could be, as we have seen that it is notthe duty of the law officer of the Government to appear andrepresent the people in cases of this character.

The reasons given by the Court in recognizing a privatecitizens legal personality in the aforementioned case applysquarely to the present petition. Clearly, the right sought tobe enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognizedby no less than the fundamental law of the land. Ifpetitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding, it

would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person toinitiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General, thegovernment officer generally empowered to represent thepeople, has entered his appearance for respondents in thiscase.

Respondents further contend that publication in theOfficial Gazette is not asine qua non requirement for theeffectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide fortheir own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since thepresidential issuances in question contain special provisionsas to the date they are to take effect, publication in theOfficial Gazette is not indispensable for their effectivity. Thepoint stressed is anchored on Article 2 of the Civil Code:Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the

completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it isotherwise provided, x x xThe interpretation given by respondent is in accord with thisCourts construction of said article. In a long line ofdecisions,4this Court has ruled that publication in the

Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where thelegislation itself does not provide for its effectivity dateforthen the date of

_______________

4Camacho vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 80 Phil. 848; Mejia vs.

Balolong, 81 Phil. 486; Republic of the Philippines vs. Encarnacion, 87 Phil.

843; Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. vs. Social Security System, 17 SCRA

1077; Askay vs. Cosalan, 46 Phil. 179.


8/59

8

3838 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

publication is material for determining its date of effectivity,which is the fifteenth day following its publicationbut not

when the law itself provides for the date when it goes intoeffect.Respondents argument, however, is logically correct only

insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws with the fact ofpublication. Considered in the light of other statutesapplicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easilyreached that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirementof publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itselfprovides for the date of its effectivity. Thus, Section 1 ofCommonwealth Act 638 provides as follows:Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all

important legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of tneCongress of the Philippines; [2] all executive and administrativeorders and proclamations, except such as have no generalapplicability: [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the SupremeCourt and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts ofsufficient importance to be so published; [4] such documents orclasses of documents as may be required so to be published by law;and [5] such documents or classes of documents as the President of

the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have generalapplicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to bepublished. x x xThe clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give thegeneral public adequate notice of the various laws which areto regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Withoutsuch notice and publication, there would be no basis for theapplication of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. It

would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise

burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which hehad no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

Perhaps at no time since the establishment of thePhilippine Republic has the publication of laws taken so vitalsignificance that at this time when the people have bestowedupon the President a power heretofore enjoyed solely by the

legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the massmedia of the debates and deliberations in the BatasanPambansaand for

39VOL. 136, APRIL 24,

1985

39

Taada vs. Tuvera

the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative recordsnosuch publicity accompanies the law-making process of thePresident. Thus, without publication, the people have nomeans of knowing what presidential decrees have actuallybeen promulgated, much less a definite way of informingthemselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees.As the Supreme Court of Spain ruled: Bajo la denominacin

genrica de leyes, se comprenden tambin los reglamentos,Reales decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordinesdietadas de conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno enuso de su potestad.5

The very first clause of Section 1 of Commonwealth Act

638 reads: There shall be published in the Official Gazette xx x. The word shall used therein imposes upon respondent

officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced ifthe Constitutional right of the people to be informed onmatters of public concern is to be given substance andreality. The law itself makes a list of what should bepublished in the Official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind,leaves respondents with no discretion whatsoever as to whatmust be included or excluded from such publication.


9/59

9

The publication of all presidential issuances of a public

nature or of general applicability is mandated by law.

Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines,forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise imposea burden on the people, such as tax and revenue measures,fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which

apply only to particular persons or class of persons such asadministrative and executive orders need not be published onthe assumption that they have been circularized to allconcerned.6

It is needless to add that the publication of presidentialissuances of a public nature or of general applicability is a

requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before aperson may be bound by law, he must first be officially andspecifically informed of its contents. As Justice Claudio

_______________

51 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., p. 146.

6 People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; Balbuena et al. vs. Secretary of

Education, et al., 110 Phil. 150.

4040 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

Teehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC7

:In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letters ofinstructions which all form part of the law of the land, therequirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand that theOfficial Gazette as the official government repository promulgateand publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructions sothat the people may know where to obtain their official and specificcontents.The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances ofgeneral application, which have not been published, shall

have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quiteapprehensive about the possible unsettling effect thisdecision might have on acts done in reliance of the validity ofthose presidential decrees which were published only duringthe pendency of this petition, have put the question as towhether the Courts declaration of invalidity apply to P.D.s

which had been enforced or implemented prior to theirpublication. The answer is all too familiar. In similarsituations in the past this Court had taken the pragmaticand realistic course set forth in Chicot County DrainageDistrict vs. Baxter Bank8to wit:The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act ofCongress, having been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law;that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing noduties, and hence affording no basis for the challengeddecree. 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,that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination ofunconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actualexistence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is anoperative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly beignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicialdeclaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invaliditymay have to be considered in various aspectswith respect toparticular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights claimed

to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed tohave finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in thelight of the nature both of the statute and of its previousapplication, demand examination. These ques-

_______________

782 SCRA 30, dissenting opinion.

8308 U.S. 371, 374.

41
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960039002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960039002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960039002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960040001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960040001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960040002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960040002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960040002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960040001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960039002


10/59

10

VOL. 136, APRIL 24,

1985

41

Taada vs. Tuvera

tions are among the most difficult of those which have engaged theattention of courts, state and federal, and it is manifest fromnumerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of

absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.Consistently with the above principle, this Court in Ruttervs. Esteban9sustained the right of a party under theMoratorium Law, albeit said right had accrued in his favorbefore said law was declared unconstitutional by this Court.

Similarly, the implementation/enforcement of presidentialdecrees prior to their publication in the Official Gazette isan operative fact which may have consequences whichcannot be justly ignored. The past cannot always be erasedby a new judicial declaration x x x that an all-inclusivestatement of a principle of absolute retroactive invaliditycannot be justified.

From the report submitted to the Court by the Clerk ofCourt, it appears that of the presidential decrees sought bypetitioners to be published in the Official Gazette, onlyPresidential Decrees Nos. 1019 to 1030, inclusive, 1278, and1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been so published.10Neitherthe subject matters nor the texts of these PDs can beascertained since no copies thereof are available. But

whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed thatnone of these unpublished PDs has ever been implemented orenforced by the government. In Pesigan vs. Angeles,11theCourt, through Justice Ramon Aquino, ruled thatpublication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents

of [penal] regulations and make the said penalties binding onthe persons affected thereby. The cogency of this holding is

apparently recognized by respondent officials considering themanifestation in their comment that the government, as a

matter of policy, refrains

_______________

993 Phil. 68.

10 The report was prepared by the Clerk of Court after Acting Director

Florendo S. Pablo Jr. of the Government Printing Office, failed to respond to

her letter-request regarding the respective dates of publication in the Official

Gazette of the presidential issuances listed therein. No report has been

submitted by the Clerk of Court as to the publication or non-publication of

other presidential issuances.11129 SCRA 174.

4242 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

from prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the sameshall have been published in the Official Gazette or in some

other publication, even though some criminal laws providethat they shall take effect immediately.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents topublish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidentialissuances which are of general application, and unless sopublished, they shall have no binding force and effect.

SO ORDERED.Relova, J.,concur.Fernando, C.J.,concurs in a separate opinion

expressing the view that without publication, a due processquestion may arise but that such publication need not be inthe Official Gazette. To that extent he concurs with theopinion of Justice Plana.

Teehankee, J.,files a brief concurrence.Makasiar, J.,concurs in the opinion of Chief Justice

Fernando.Aquino, J.,no part.Concepcion, Jr., J.,on leave.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960041001


11/59

11

Abad Santos, J., I concur in the separate opinion ofthe Chief Justice.

Melencio-Herrera, J., see separate concurring opinion.Plana, J., see separate opinion.Gutierrez, Jr., J., I concur insofar as publication is

necessary but reserve my vote as to the necessity of such

publication being in the Official Gazette.De la Fuente, J., Insofar as the opinion declares theunpublished decrees and issuances of a public nature orgeneral applicability ineffective, until due publicationthereof.

Cuevas, J., I concur in the opinion of the Chief Justiceand Justice Plana.

Alampay, J.,I subscribe to the opinion of ChiefJustice Fernando and Justice Plana.

43VOL. 136, APRIL 24,

1985

43

Taada vs. Tuvera

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring with qualification:

There is on the whole acceptance on my part of the viewsexpressed in the ably written opinion of Justice Escolin. I amunable, however, to concur insofar as it would unqualifiedly

impose the requirement of publication in the Official Gazettefor unpublished presidential issuances to have bindingforce and effect.

I shall explain why.

1.1.It is of course true that without the requisite publication,a due process question would arise if made to applyadversely to a party who is not even aware of the existenceof any legislative or executive act having the force andeffect of law. My point is that such publication required

need not be confined to the Official Gazette. From thepragmatic standpoint, there is an advantage to be gained.It conduces to certainty. That is too be admitted. It doesnot follow, however, that failure to do so would in all casesand under all circumstances result in a statute,presidential decree or any other executive act of the same

category being bereft of any binding force and effect. To sohold would, for me, raise a constitutional question. Such apronouncement would lend itself to the interpretation thatsuch a legislative or presidential act is bereft of theattribute of effectivity unless published in the OfficialGazette. There is no such requirement in the Constitutionas Justice Plana so aptly pointed out. It is true that whatis decided now applies only to past presidential

issuances. Nonetheless, this clarification is, to my mind,

needed to avoid any possible misconception as to what is

required for any statute or presidential act to beimpressed with binding force or effectivity.

2.2.It is quite understandable then why I concur in theseparate opinion of Justice Plana. Its first paragraph setsforth what to me is the constitutional doctrine applicableto this case. Thus: The Philippine Constitution does not

require the publication of laws as a prerequisite for theireffectivity, unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. It may besaid though that the guarantee of due process requires

notice of laws to affected parties before they can be boundthereby; but such

4444 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

1.notice is not necessarily by publication in the Official

Gazette. The due process clause is not that precise.1

I am


12/59

12

likewise in agreement with its closing paragraph: In fine,

I concur in the majority decision to the extent that itrequires notice before laws become effective, for no personshould be bound by a law without notice. This iselementary fairness. However, I beg to disagree insofar asit holds that such notice shall be by publication in the

Official Gazette.2

2.3.It suffices, as was stated by Judge Learned Hand, thatlaw as the command of the government must be

ascertainable in some form if it is to be enforced at all.3Itwould indeed be to reduce it to the level of mere futility, aspointed out by Justice Cardozo, if it is unknown and

unknowable.4Publication, to repeat, is thus essential.What I am not prepared to subscribe to is the doctrine thatit must be in the Official Gazette. To be sure oncepublished therein there is the ascertainable mode of

determining the exact date of its effectivity. Still for methat does not dispose of the question of what is the juraleffect of past presidential decrees or executive acts not sopublished. For prior thereto, it could be that parties awareof their existence could have conducted themselves inaccordance with their provisions. If no legal consequencescould attach due to lack of publication in the OfficialGazette, then serious problems could arise. Previoustransactions based on such Presidential Issuances could

be open to question. Matters deemed settled could still beinquired into. I am not prepared to hold that such an effectis contemplated by our decision. Where such presidentialdecree or executive act is made the basis of a criminalprosecution, then, of course, its ex post factocharacterbecomes evident.5In civil cases though, retroac-

_______________

1Separate Opinion of Justice Plana, first paragraph. He mentioned in this

connection Article 7, Sec. 21 of the Wisconsin Constitution and State ex rel.

White v. Grand Superior Ct., 71 ALR 1354, citing the Constitution of Indiana,

U.S.A.2Ibid, closing paragraph.

3Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty 104 (1960).4

Cardozo, The Growth of the Law, 3 (1924).5Cf. Nuez v. Sandiganbayan,G.R. No. 50581-50617, January 30,

1982, 111 SCRA 433.

45VOL. 136, APRIL 24,

1985

45

Taada vs. Tuvera

1.tivity as such is not conclusive on the due process aspectThere must still be a showing of arbitrariness. Moreover,

where the challenged presidential decree or executive actwas issued under the police power, the non-impairmentclause of the Constitution may not always be successfullyinvoked. There must still be that process of balancing todetermine whether or not it could in such a case be taintedby infirmity.6In traditional terminology, there could arisethen a question of unconstitutional application. That is asfar as it goes.

2.4.Let me make therefore that my qualified concurrence goes

no further than to affirm that publication is essential tothe effectivity of a legislative or executive act of a generalapplication. I am not in agreement with the view that suchpublication must be in the Official Gazette. The Civil Codeitself in its Article 2 expressly recognizes that the rule asto laws taking effect after fifteen days following thecompletion of their publication in the Official Gazette issubject to this exception, unless it is otherwise provided.

Moreover, the Civil Code is itself only a legislative

enactment, Republic Act No. 386. It does not and cannot
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044004http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044004http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044005http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044005http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044005http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960045001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960045001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960045001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960045001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044005http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044004http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960044002


13/59

13

have the juridical force of a constitutional command. Alater legislative or executive act which has the force andeffect of law can legally provide for a different rule.

3.5.Nor can I agree with the rather sweeping conclusion inthe opinion of Justice Escolin that presidential decreesand executive acts not thus previously published in theOfficial Gazette would be devoid of any legal character.That would be, in my opinion, to go too far. It may befraught, as earlier noted, with undesirable consequences. Ifind myself therefore unable to yield assent to such apronouncement.

I am authorized to state that Justices Makasiar, AbadSantos, Cuevas, and Alampay concur in this separateopinion.

_______________

6Cf. Alalayan v. National Power Corporation, L-24396, July 29, 1968,24

SCRA 172.

4646 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

I concur with the main opinion of Mr. Justice Escolin and theconcurring opinion of Mme. Justice Herrera. The Rule of Lawconnotes a body of norms and laws published andascertainable and of equal application to all similarlycircumstanced and not subject to arbitrary change but onlyunder certain set procedures. The Court has consistentlystressed that it is an elementary rule of fair play and justice

that a reasonable opportunity to be informed must be

afforded to the people who are commanded to obey beforethey can be punished for its violation,1citing the settledprinciple based on due process enunciated in earlier casesthat before the public is bound by its contents, especially its

penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first bepublished and the people officially and specially informed ofsaid contents and its penalties.

Without official publication in the Official Gazette asrequired by Article 2 of the Civil Code and the RevisedAdministrative Code, there would be no basis norjustification for the corollary rule of Article 3 of the CivilCode (based on constructive notice that the provisions of thelaw are ascertainable from the public and official repositorywhere they are duly published) that Ignorance of the law

excuses no one from compliance therewith.Respondents contention based on a misreading of Article

2 of the Civil Code that only laws which are silent as to theireffectivity [date] need be published in the Official Gazette fortheir effectivity is manifestly untenable. The plain text and

meaning of the Civil Code is that laws shall take effect after

fifteen days following the completion of their publication inthe Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided, i.e. adifferent effectivity date is provided by the law itself. Thisproviso perforce refers to a law that has been duly publishedpursuant to the basic constitutional requirements of due

process. The best example of this is the Civil Code itself: thesame Article 2 provides otherwise that it shall take effect

[only] one

_______________

1 People vs. de Dios, G.R. No. 11003, Aug. 31, 1959, per the late Chief

Justice Paras.

47VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 47


14/59

14

1985

Taada vs. Tuvera

year [not 15 days] after such publication.2To sustainrespondents misreading that most laws or decrees specify

the date of their effectivity and for this reason, publication inthe Official Gazette is not necessary for their

effectivity3

would be to nullify and render nugatory the CivilCodes indispensable and essential requirementofpriorpublication in the Official Gazette by the simpleexpedient of providing for immediate effectivity or an earliereffectivity 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.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring:

I agree. There cannot be any question but that even if adecree provides for a date of effectivity, it has to bepublished. What I would like to state in connection with thatproposition is that when a date of effectivity is mentioned inthe decree but the decree becomes effective only fifteen (15)days after its publication in the Official Gazette, it will notmean that the decree can have retroactive effect to the dateof effectivity mentioned in the decree itself. There should beno retroactivity if the retroactivity will run counter to

constitutional rights or shall destroy vested rights.SEPARATE OPINION

PLANA, J.:

The Philippine Constitution does not require the publicationof laws as a prerequisite for their effectivity, unlike someConstitutions elsewhere.**It may be said though that theguarantee of due process requires notice of laws to affectedop

_______________

2Notes in brackets supplied.

3Respondents comment, pp. 14-15.**See e.g., Wisconsin Constitution. Art. 7, Sec. 21: The legislature shall

provide publication of all statute laws . . . and no general law shall be in force

until published. See also State ex rel. White vs. Grand Superior Ct., 71 ALR

1354, citing the Constitution of Indiana, U.S.A.

4848 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

parties before they can be bound thereby; but such notice isnot necessarily by publication in the Official Gazette. Thedue process clause is not that precise. Neither is thepublication of laws in the Official Gazetterequired by any

statute as a prerequisite for their effectivity,if said lawsalready provide for their effectivity date.

Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall take

effect after fifteen days following the completion of theirpublication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise

provided. Two things may be said of this provision: Firstly,

it obviously does not apply to a law with a built-in provisionas to when it will take effect. Secondly, it clearly recognizesthat each law may provide not only a different period for

reckoning its effectivity date but also a different mode ofnotice. Thus, a law may prescribe that it shall be publishedelsewhere than in the Official Gazette.

Commonwealth Act No. 638, in my opinion, does notsupport the proposition thatfor their effectivity,laws must bepublished in the Official Gazette. The said law is simply An

Act to Provide for the Uniform Publication and Distributionof the Official Gazette. Conformably therewith, it authorizes

the publication of the Official Gazette, determines its

frequency, provides for its sale and distribution, and defines
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd026360b2e8d22000a0094004f00ee/p/AKT670/?username=Guest#p136scra8960047001


15/59

15

the authority of the Director of Printing in relation thereto. Italso enumerates what shall be published in the OfficialGazette, among them, importantlegislative acts andresolutions of a public nature of the Congress of thePhilippines and all executive and administrative orders

and proclamations, except such as have no generalapplicability. It is noteworthy that not all legislative acts are

required to be published in the Official Gazette but onlyimportant ones of a public nature. Moreover, the said law

does not provide that publication in the Official Gazette isessential for the effectivity of laws. This is as it should be, forall statutes are equal and stand on the same footing. A law,especially an earlier one of general application such asCommonwealth Act No. 638, cannot nullify or restrict theoperation of a subsequent statute that has a provision of itsown as to when and how it will take effect. Only a higher

law, which is the Constitution, can assume that role.49VOL. 136, APRIL 25,

1985

49

In Re: Milagros Santia

In fine, I concur in the majority decision to the extent that itrequires notice before laws become effective, for no personshould be bound by a law without notice. This is elementaryfairness. However, I beg to disagree insofar as it holds that

such notice shall be by publication in the Official Gazette.Respondents ordered to publish all unpublished

presidential issuances in the Official Gazette.

o0o


16/59

16

No. L-63915. December 29, 1986.*LORENZO M. TAADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, andMOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD,INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI),petitioners, vs.HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity asExecutive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUINVENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to thePresident, MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, ETC., ET AL.,respondents.

Statutes; Words and Phrases;The clause "unless it is otherwise

provided" in Art 2 of the NCC refers to the effectivity of laws and

not to the requirement of publication.After a careful study of thisprovision and of the arguments of the parties, both on the originalpetition and on the instant motion, we have come to theconclusion, and so hold, that the clause "unless it is otherwiseprovided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the

requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event beomitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may makethe law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date,without its previous publication.

Same; Same; The prior publication of laws before they become

effective cannot be dispensed with.lt is not correct to say thatunder the disputed clause publication may be dispensed withaltogether. The reason is that such omission would offend dueprocess insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws

that are supposed to govern it. Surely, if the legislature couldvalidly provide that a law shall become effective immediately uponits approval notwithstanding the lack of publication (or after anunreasonably short period after publication), it is not unlikely thatpersons not aware of

________________

*EN BANC.

447

VOL. 146,

DECEMBER 29, 1986 47

Taada vs. Tuvera

it would be prejudiced as a result; and they would be so notbecause of a failure to comply with it but simply because they didnot know of its existence. Significantly, this is not true only of

penal laws as is commonly supposed. One can think of many non-penal measures, like a law on prescription, which must also becommunicated to the persons they may affect before they can beginto operate.

Same; Same; For purposes of the prior publication requirement

for effectivity, the term "laws" refer not only to those of general

application, but also to laws of local application, private laws;

administrative rules enforcing a statute; city charters. Central

Bank circulars to "fill-in the details of the Central Bank Act; but

not mere interpretative rules regulating and providing guidelines

for purposes of internal operations only.The term "laws" shouldrefer to all laws and not only to those of general application, forstrictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeitthere are some that do not apply to them directly. An example is alaw granting citizenship to a particular individual, like a relativeof President Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. Itsurely cannot be said that such a law does not affect the publicalthough it unquestionably does not apply directly to all thepeople. The subject of such law is a matter of public interest which

any member of the body politic may question in the politicalforums or, if he is a proper party, even in the courts of justice. Infact, a law without any bearing on the public would be invalid asan intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultravires act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariablyaffect the public interest even if it might be directly applicable onlyto one individual, or some of the people only, and not to the publicas a whole.

Same; Same; Same.We hold therefore that allstatutes,

including those of local application and private laws, shall be
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960446001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960446001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960446001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960446001


17/59

17

published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall beginfifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date isfixed by the legislature.

Same; Same;Same.Covered by this rule are presidentialdecrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in theexercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validlydelegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred bythe Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must alsobe published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existinglaw pursuant also to a valid delegation.

448

48

SUPREME COURT

REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

Same; Same; Same.Interpretative regulations and those

merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel ofthe administrative agency and not the public, need not bepublished. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters ofinstructions issued by administrative superiors concerning therules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in theperformance of their duties.

Same; Same; Same.Accordingly, even the charter of a citymust be published notwithstanding that it applies to only a portionof the national territory and directy affects only the inhabitants of

that place. All presidential decrees must be published, includingeven, say, those naming a public place after a favored individual orexempting him from certain prohibitions or requirements. Thecirculars issued by the Monetary Board must be published if theyare meant not merely to interpret but to "fill in the details" of theCentral Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce.

Same; Same; Local Governments; Internal instructions issued

by an administrative agency are not covered by the rule on prior

publication. Also not covered are municipal ordinances which are

governed by the Local Government Code.However, no publication

is required of the instructions issued by, say, the Minister of SocialWelfare on the case studies to be made in petitions for adoption orthe rules laid down by the head of a government agency on theassignments or workload of his personnel or the wearing of officeuniforms. Parenthetically, municipal ordinances are not covered bythis rule but by the Local Government Code.

Same; Same; Publication of statutes must be in full or it is no

publication at all.We agree that the publication must be in fullor it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the publicof the contents of the laws. As correctly pointed out by thepetitioners, the mere mention of the number of the presidentialdecree, the title of such decree, its whereabouts (e.g., "withSecretary Tuvera"), the supposed date of effectivity, and in a meresupplement of the Official Gazette cannot satisfy the publicationrequirement. This is not even substantial compliance. This was themanner, incidentally, in which the General Appropriations Act for

FY 1975, a presidential decree undeniably of general applicabilityand interest, was "published" by the Marcos administration. Theevident purpose was to withhold rather than disclose informationon this vital law.

449VOL. 146,

DECEMBER 29, 1986 49

Taada vs. Tuvera

Same; Same; Prior publication of statutes for purposes of

effectivity must be made in full in the Official Gazette and notelsewhere.At any rate, this Court is not called upon to rule uponthe wisdom of a law or to repeal or modify it if we find itimpractical. That is not our function. That function belongs to thelegislature. Our task is merely to interpret and apply the law asconceived and approved by the political departments of thegovernment in accordance with the prescribed procedure.Consequently, we have no choice but to pronounce that under

Article 2 of the Civil Code, the publication of laws must be made in

the Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a requirement for their


18/59

18

effectivity after fifteen days from such publication or after adifferent period provided by the legislature.

Same; Same; Laws must be published as soon as possible.

We also hold that the publication must be made forthwith, or atleast as soon as possible, to give effect to the law pursuant to thesaid Article 2. There is that possibility, of course, although notsuggested by the parties that a law could be renderedunenforceable by a mere refusal of the executive, for whateverreason, to cause its publication as required. This is a matter,however, that we do not need to examine at this time.

FERNAN, J., concurring:

Statutes; The requirement of prior publication seeks to prevent

abuses by the lawmakers and ensure the people's right to

information.The categorical statement by this Court on the need

f or publication bef ore any law may be made effective seeks toprevent abuses on the part of the lawmakers and, at the sametime, ensures to the people their constitutional right to due processand to information on matters of public concern.

FELICIANO, J., concurring:

Constitutional Law; Statutes;To interpret Art 2, NCC literally

so as to authorize a statute to be effective upon its promulgation

without publication is to make it collide with the due process

clause.A statute which by its terms provides for its coming intoeffect immediately upon approval thereof, is properly interpretedas coming into effect immediately upon publication thereof in theOfficial Gazette as provided in Article 2 of the Civil Code. Suchstatute, in other words, should not be regarded as purportingliterally to come

450

50

SUPREME COURT

REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

into effect immediately upon its approval or enactment andwithout need of publication. For so to interpret such statute wouldbe to collide with the constitutional obstacle posed by the dueprocess clause. The enforcement of prescriptions which are both

unknown to and unknowable by those subjected to the statute, hasbeen throughout history a common tool of tyrannical governments.Such application and enforcement constitutes at bottom a negationof the fundamental principle of legality in the relations between agovernment and its people.

Same; Same; Specification by law that the Official Gazette

shall be the organ where statutes must be published before they take

effect may be amended to authorize publication in other

newspapers.At the same time, it is clear that the requirement ofpublication of a statute in the Official Gazette, as distinguished

from any other medium such as a newspaper of generalcirculation, is embodied in a statutory norm and is not aconstitutional command. The statutory norm is set out in Article 2of the Civil Code and is supported and reinforced by Section 1 ofCommonwealth Act No. 638 and Section 35 of the Revised

Administrative Code. A specification of the Official Gazette as theprescribed medium of publication may therefore be changed.

Article 2 of the Civil Code could, without creating a constitutionalproblem, be amended by a subsequent statute providing, for

instance, for publication either in the Official Gazette or in anewspaper of general circulation in the country. Until such anamendatory statute is in fact enacted. Article 2 of the Civil Codemust be obeyed and publication effected in the Official Gazette andnot in any other medium.R E S O L U T I O N

CRUZ, J.:


19/59

19

Due process was invoked by the petitioners in demanding thedisclosure of a number of presidential decrees which theyclaimed had not been published as required by law. Thegovernment argued that while publication was necessary asa rule, it was not so when it was "otherwise provided," aswhen the decrees themselves declared that they were tobecome effective immediately upon their approval. In thedecision of this case on April 24, 1985, the Court affirmed thenecessity for the publication of some of these decrees,declaring in the

451VOL. 146, DECEMBER

29, 1986

451

Taada vs. Tuvera

dispositive portion as follows:"WHEREFORE the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in

the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances whichare of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding f orce and eff ect.''The petitioners are now before us again, this time to move forreconsideration/clarification of that decision.1Specifically,they ask the f ollowing questions:

1.1.What is meant by '' law of public nature'' or "generalapplicability"?

2.2.Must a distinction be made between laws of generalapplicability and laws which are not?

3.3.What is meant by "publication"?4.4.Where is the publication to be made?5.5.When is the publication to be made?

Resolving their own doubts, the petitioners suggest thatthere should be no distinction between laws of generalapplicability and those which are not; that publication means

complete publication; and that the publication must be madeforthwith in the Official Gazette.2

In the Comment3required of the then Solicitor General, heclaimed first that the motion was a request for an advisoryopinion and should therefore be dismissed, and, on themerits, that the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" inArticle 2 of the Civil Code meant that the publicationrequired therein was not always imperative; that publication,when necessary, did not have to be made in the OfficialGazette; and that in any case the subject decision wasconcurred in only by three justices and consequently notbinding. This elicited a Reply4refuting these arguments.Came next the February Revolution and the Court requiredthe new Solicitor General to file a Rejoinder in view of thesupervening events, under Rule 3, Sec-

________________

1Rollo, pp. 242-250.

2Ibid,pp. 244-248.3Id.,pp. 271-280.

4Id., pp. 288-299.

452452 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

tion 18, of the Rules of Court. Responding, he submitted thatissuances intended only for the internal administration of agovernment agency or f or particular persons did not have tobe published; that publication when necessary must be in fulland in the Official Gazette; and that, however, the decisionunder reconsideration was not binding because it was notsupported by eight members of this Court.5
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451004http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960452001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960452001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960452001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960452001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451004http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451003http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960451001


20/59

20

The subject of contention is Article 2 of the Civil Codeproviding as follows:"ART. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following thecompletion of their publication in the Official Gazette,unless it isotherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after suchpublication."After a careful study of this provision and of the argumentsof the parties, both on the original petition and on the instantmotion, we have come to the conclusion, and so hold, that theclause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date ofeffectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself,which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does notmean that the legislature may make the law effectiveimmediately upon approval, or on any other date, without itsprevious publication.

Publication is indispensable in every case, but the

legislature may in its discretion provide that the usualfifteenday period shall be shortened or extended. Anexample, as pointed out by the present Chief Justice in hisseparate concurrence in the original decision,6is the CivilCode which did not become effective after fifteen days fromits publication in the Official Gazette but "one year after suchpublication." The general rule did not apply because it was"otherwise provided."

It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause

publication may be dispensed with altogether. The reason isthat such omission would offend due process insofar as itwould deny the public knowledge of the laws that aresupposed

________________

5Id.,pp. 320-322.

6136 SCRA 27, 46.

453

VOL. 146, DECEMBER

29, 1986

453

Taada vs. Tuvera

to govern it. Surely, if the legislature could validly providethat a law shall become effective immediately upon itsapproval notwithstanding the lack of publication (or after anunreasonably short period after publication), it is notunlikely that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as aresult; and they would be so not because of a failure tocomply with it but simply because they did not know of itsexistence. Significantly, this is not true only of penal laws asis commonly supposed. One can think of many non-penalmeasures, like a law on prescription, which must also becommunicated to the persons they may af fect bef ore theycan begin to operate.

We note at this point the conclusive presumption that

every person knows the law, which of course presupposesthat the law has been published if the presumption is to haveany legal justification at all. It is no less important toremember that Section 6 of the Bill of Rights recognizes "theright of the people to information on matters of publicconcern," and this certainly applies to, among others, andindeed especially, the legislative enactments of thegovernment.

The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to

those of general application, for strictly speaking all lawsrelate to the people in general albeit there are some that donot apply to them directly. An example is a law grantingcitizenship to a particular individual, like a relative ofPresident Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. Itsurely cannot be said that such a law does not affect thepublic although it unquestionably does not apply directly toall the people. The subject of such law is a matter of publicinterest which any member of the body politic may question

in the political forums or, if he is a proper party, even in the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960452002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960452002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960452002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960452002


21/59

21

courts of justice. In fact, a law without any bearing on thepublic would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as classlegislation or as an ultra vires act of the legislature. To bevalid, the law must invariably affect the public interest evenif it might be directly applicable only to one individual, orsome of the people only, and not to the public as a whole.

We hold therefore that allstatutes, including those of localapplication and private laws, shall be published as acondition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen daysafter

454454 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera

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 in theexercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validlydelegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferredby the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulationsmust also be published if their purpose is to enforce orimplement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation.

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in

nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of theadministrative agency and not the public, need not bepublished. Neither is publication required of the so-calledletters of instructions issued by administrative superiorsconcerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by theirsubordinates in the performance of their duties.

Accordingly, even the charter of a city must be publishednotwithstanding that it applies to only a portion of thenational territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of

that place. All presidential decrees must be published,

including even, say, those naming a public place after afavored individual or exempting him from certainprohibitions or requirements, The circulars issued by theMonetary Board must be published if they are meant notmerely to interpret but to "fill in the details" of the CentralBank Act which that body is supposed to enf orce.

However, no publication is required of the instructionsissued by, say, the Minister of Social Welfare on the casestudies to be made in petitions for adoption or the rules laiddown by the head of a government agency on theassignments or workload of his personnel or the wearing ofoffice uniforms. Parenthetically, municipal ordinances arenot covered by this rule but by the Local Government Code.

We agree that the publication must be in full or it is nopublication at all since its purpose is to inf orm the public ofthe contents of the laws, As correctly pointed out by the

petitioners, the mere mention of the number of thepresidential decree, the title of such decree, its whereabouts(e.g., "with Secretary Tuvera"), the supposed date ofeffectivity, and in a

455VOL. 146, DECEMBER

29, 1986

455

Taada vs. Tuvera

mere supplement of the Official Gazette cannot satisfy the

publication requirement. This is not even substantialcompliance. This was the manner, incidentally, in which theGeneral Appropriations Act for FY 1975, a presidentialdecree undeniably of general applicability and interest, was"published" by the Marcos administration.7The evidentpurpose was to withhold rather than disclose information onthis vital law.

Coming now to the original decision, it is true that onlyfour justices were categorically for publication in the Official

Gazette8

and that six others felt that publication could be
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960455001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960455001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960455001http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960455002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960455002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960455002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960455002http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001507dd31eb29d6fe563000a0094004f00ee/p/AKK685/?username=Guest#p146scra8960455001


22/59

22

made elsewhere as long as the people were sufficientlyinformed.9One reserved his vote10and another merelyacknowledged the need for due publication withoutindicating where it should be made.11It is therefore necessaryfor the present membership of this Court to arrive at a clearconsensus on this matter and to lay down a binding decisionsupported by the necessary vote.

There is much to be said of the view that the publicationneed not be made in the Official Gazette, considering itserratic releases and limited readership. Undoubtedly,newspapers o

Preliminary Full Kris

Documents

Transcript of Preliminary Full Kris