Taada vs.

Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985) 146

SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)

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.

Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union vs Benjamin Vega

In 1985, the Central Bank of the Philippines filed a petition for assistance in the liquidation
of the Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB), in the RTC of Manila, Branch 39. Thereafter, the
PVB Employees Union filed claim for accrued and unpaid employee wages and benefits.

On January 2, 1992, R.A. 7169 (An Act to Rehabilitate the PVB) was signed into law by
then Pres. Corazon Aquino and was published in the Official Gazette on February 24, 1992.
This law sought the rehabilitation of the PVB which means that Congress mandated that the
PVB be not dissolved.
However, the liquidation judge, Judge Benjamin Vega, did not immediately stop the
liquidation proceeding. In fact he went on with it.
When questioned, Vega argued that R.A. 7169 did not immediately take effect and that it
only took effect 15 days after publication in the Official Gazette or on March 10, 1992.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Benjamin Vega is correct.
HELD: No. R.A. 7169 provides in its effectivity clause that:
Sec. 10. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
As a rule, laws take effect after 15 days following completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. However, the
legislature has the authority to provide for exceptions as indicated in the clause unless
otherwise provided. Hence, it is clear that the legislature intended to make the law effective
immediately upon its approval. It is undisputed that R.A. No. 7169 was signed into law by
President Corazon C. Aquino on January 2, 1992. Therefore, said law became effective on
said date.
Assuming for the sake of argument that publication is necessary for the effectivity of R.A.
No. 7169, then it became legally effective on February 24, 1992, the date when the same
was published iin the Official Gazette, and not on March 10, 1992.

People vs Que Po Lay

ACTS:

The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US dollars, US

checks and US money orders amounting to about $7000 but failed to sell the
same to the Central Bank as required under Circular No. 20.
Circular No. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was published in the Official
Gazette only on Nov. 1951 after the act or omission imputed to Que Po Lay.
Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower court finding him guilty of
violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with Sec 34 of RA 265
sentencing him to suffer 6 months imprisonment, pay fine of P1,000 with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
ISSUE: Whether or not publication of Circular 20 in the Official Gazette is
needed for it to become effective and subject violators to corresponding
penalties.
HELD:
It was held by the Supreme Court, in an en banc decision, that as a rule, circular
and regulations of the Central Bank in question prescribing a penalty for its
violation should be published before becoming effective. This is based on the
theory that before the public is bound by its contents especially its penal
provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be published for the people to
be officially and specifically informed of such contents including its penalties.
Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and acquit the
appellant, with costs de oficio.

Yaokasin v Commissioner Digest

GR No. 84111, December 22, 1989

Facts: The Philippine Coast Guard seized 9000 sacks of refined sugar owned by petitioner Yaokasin, which
were then being unloaded from the M/V Tacloban, and turned them over to the custody of the Bureau of
Customs. On June 7, 1988, the District Collector of Customs ordered the release of the cargo to the petitioner
but this order was subsequently reversed on June 15, 1988. The reversal was by virtue ofCustoms
Memorandum Order (CMO) 20-87 in implementation of the Integrated Reorganization Plan under P.D. 1,

which provides that in protest and seizure cases where the decision is adverse to the government, the
Commissioner of Customs has the power of automatic review.
Petitioner objected to the enforcement of Sec. 12 of the Plan and CMO 20-87 contending that these were not
published in the Official Gazette. The Plan which was part of P.D. 1 was however published in the Official
Gazette.
Issue: W/n circular orders such as CMO 20-87 need to be published in the OG to take effect
NO.
Article 2 of the Civil Code does not apply to circulars like CMO 20-87 which is an administrative order of the
Commissioner of Customs addressed to his subordinates, the custom collectors. Said issuance requiring
collectors of customs to comply strictly with Section 12 of he Plan, is addressed only to particular persons or a
class of persons (the customs collectors), hence no general applicability. As held in Tanada v. Tuvera, It need
not be published, on the assumption that it has been circularized to all concerned.
Moreover, Commonwealth Act. 638 provides an enumeration of what shall be published in the Official
Gazette. It provides that besides legislative acts, resolutions of public nature of Congress, executive,
administrative orders and proclamations shall be published except when these have no general applicability.
Bagatsing v. Ramirez
G.R. No. L-41631 (December 17, 1976)
FACTS:
The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, An Ordinance Regulating the
Operation of Public Markets and Prescribing Fees for the Rentals of Stalls and Providing Penalties
for Violation thereof and for other Purposes. Respondent were seeking the declaration of nullity of
the Ordinance for the reason that a) the publication requirement under the Revised Charter of the
City of Manila has not been complied with, b) the Market Committee was not given any participation
in the enactment, c) Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has been violated, and d)
the ordinance would violate P.D. 7 prescribing the collection of fees and charges on livestock and
animal products.
ISSUE:
What law shall govern the publication of tax ordinance enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila, the
Revised City Charter or the Local Tax Code.
HELD:
The fact that one is a special law and the other a general law creates the presumption that the
special law is to be considered an exception to the general. The Revised Charter of Manila speaks
of ordinance in general whereas the Local Tax Code relates to ordinances levying or imposing
taxes, fees or other charges in particular. In regard therefore, the Local Tax Code controls.
Email This