TAADA VS.

TUVERA
136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985)
FACTS:
Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as
well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in
the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel respondent
public officials to publish and/or cause to publish various presidential decrees,
letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of
implementations and administrative orders.
The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of
the case, contending that petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or
statute becomes valid and enforceable.
HELD:
Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the
Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The
clear object of this provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the
various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without
such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the
maxim ignoratia legis nominem excusat. It would be the height of injustive to
punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law which he had
no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the
Official Gazette. The word shall therein imposes upon respondent officials an
imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the constitutional right of the
people to be informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance and
validity.
The publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general
applicability is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a
person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed
of its contents. The Court declared that presidential issuances of general
application which have not been published have no force and effect.

TAADA VS. TUVERA

146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
FACTS:
This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on April 24,
1985. Respondent argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was
not so when it was otherwise as when the decrees themselves declared that
they were to become effective immediately upon their approval.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and
laws which are not as to their publication;
2. Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general
circulation.
HELD:
The clause unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of effectivity and
not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted.
This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective
immediately upon approval, or in any other date, without its previous publication.
Laws should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for
strictly speaking, all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some
that do not apply to them directly. A law without any bearing on the public would
be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act
of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest
eve if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people
only, and not to the public as a whole.
All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be
published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after
publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to
inform the public of the content of the law.
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be made in the
Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity. The
Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to repeal or
modify it if it finds it impractical.

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

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

Pesigan v. Angeles Digest

GR L-64279
Civil law, when Laws take effect
Facts: Petitioners Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan, carabao dealers transported on
April 2. 1982, twenty-six (26) carabaos & a calf from Camarines Norte with
Batangas as its destination. They were provided with health certificates from the
provincial veterinarian and three (3) other permits attesting that the cattle was not
part of lose, stolen or questionable animals.
Despite this, the said cattle was confiscated by respondents Zenarosa and
Miranda, who were respectively the police station commander and provincial
veterianarian of Basud, Camarines Norte. The confiscation was on the basis of
said EO 626-A which was dated October 25, 1980 but was published in
theOfficial Gazette on June 14, 1982.
Executive Order 626-A provides, "that henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age,
sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one
province to another. The carabaos or carabeef transported in violation of this
Executive Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the
government to be distributed ... to deserving farmers through dispersal as the
Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos".

The Pesigans filed an action for replevin against herein respondents for the
recovery of the subject cattle but this could not be executed by the sheriff.
Subsequently, the judge dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. Hence,
the petitioners filed an appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court.
Issue: Whether or not Executive Order No. 626-A dated October 25, 1980,
providing for the confiscation and forfeiture by the government of cattle
transported from one province to another, can be enforced even before its
actual publication in the Official Gazette of June 14, 1982
HELD: NO
The Supreme Court held that EO 626-A is a penal regulation published more
than two months after the confiscation of the cattle or in June 14, 1982. Hence, it
became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in Article 2 of the Civil
Code. It should therefore not be enforced against the petitioners.
Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of the regulations
and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. (People v
Que Po). Justice and fairness dictate that the public must be informed of that
provision by means of publication in the Gazette before violators of the executive
order can be bound thereby.
Note: The word "laws" in Article 2 of the NCC also includes circulars and
regulations which prescribe penalties.

Laws Applicable:
FACTS:
February 4, 1979: Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino
Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house and asked him to go with them to
the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, they had a meeting with
Aniceto Dumalagan who told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed
because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should accompany
them. Otherwise, he would also be killed.
February 4, 1979 10:00 pm: All of them armed arrived at Palangpangan's
house and fired at Palangpangan's bedroom but there was no one in the room.
RTC: convicted Intod of attempted murder based on the testimony of the
witness
ISSUE: W/N Intod is guilty attempted murder since it is an impossible crime
under Art. 4 (2)
HELD: YES. petition is hereby GRANTED, the decision of respondent Court of

Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder is hereby MODIFIED.

sentences him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, together
with the accessory penalties provided by the law, and to pay the costs
Art. 4(2). CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. Criminal Responsibility shall be
incurred:
xxx xxx xxx
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons
or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he
and his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently impossible.
The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, recognizes in the
offender his formidability to punish criminal tendencies in Art. 4(2)
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would
not amount to a crime
Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where
1. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law
2. there is intention to perform the physical act
3. there is a performance of the intended physical act
4. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime
o Ex: The impossibility of killing a person already dead
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the
actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime
this case
o Ex: man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to
steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty
United States: where the offense sought to be committed is factually
impossible or accomplishment - attempt to commit a crime; legally impossible of
accomplishment - cannot be held liable for any crime