Taada v.

Tuvera 136 SCRA 27

FACTS: Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public co
ncern as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be pub
lished in the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel
respondent public officials to publish and/or cause to publish various presiden
tial decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive
orders, letters of implementations and administrative orders. The Solicitor Gen
eral, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of the case, contend
ing 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 eff
ectivity. The clear object of this provision is to give the general public adeq
uate 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 t
he application of the maxim ignoratia legis nominem excusat. It would be the he
ight of injustive to punish or otherwise burden a
C2013 | PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | PROF. KATRINA LEGARDA | 2
citizen for the transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not ev
en a constructive one. The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: ther
e shall be published in the Official Gazette. The word ?shall? therein imposes up
on respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the c
onstitutional 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 applica
bility is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a perso
n may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of
its contents. The Court declared that presidential issuances of general applica
tion which have not been published have no force and effect.
What is the difference between common and civil law?
Jul 16th 2013, 23:50 by S.B.
Timekeeper
ROYALISTS are eagerly awaiting the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridges fi
rst child. If a girl, she will be the first daughter to be able to accede to the
throne ahead of any younger brothers. That is thanks to a law enacted in 2011 t
hat changed the rules of royal succession. The previous law that sons took prece
dence over older sisters was never written down, but was instead part of English
common law, the basis of the countrys legal system. But just what is common law,
and how does it differ from the civil-law system used in some other countries?
Common law is a peculiarly English development. Before the Norman conquest, diff
erent rules and customs applied in different regions of the country. But after 1
066 monarchs began to unite both the country and its laws using the kings court.
Justices created a common law by drawing on customs across the country and rulin
gs by monarchs. These rules developed organically and were rarely written down.
By contrast, European rulers drew on Roman law, and in particular a compilation
of rules issued by the emperor Justinian in the 6th century that was rediscovere
d in 11th-century Italy. With the Enlightenment of the 18th century, rulers in v
arious continental countries sought to produce comprehensive legal codes.
Today the difference between common and civil legal traditions lies in the main
source of law. Although common-law systems make extensive use of statutes, judic
ial cases are regarded as the most important source of law, which gives judges a
n active role in developing rules. For example, the elements needed to prove the
crime of murder are contained in case law rather than defined by statute. To en
sure consistency, courts abide by precedents set by higher courts examining the
same issue. In civil-law systems, by contrast, codes and statutes are designed t
o cover all eventualities and judges have a more limited role of applying the la
w to the case in hand. Past judgments are no more than loose guides. When it com
es to court cases, judges in civil-law systems tend towards being investigators,
while their peers in common-law systems act as arbiters between parties that pr
esent their arguments.
Civil-law systems are more widespread than common-law systems: the CIA World Fac
tbook puts the numbers at 150 and 80 countries respectively. Common-law systems
are found only in countries that are former English colonies or have been influe
nced by the Anglo-Saxon tradition, such as Australia, India, Canada and the Unit
ed States. Legal minds in civil-law jurisdictions like to think that their syste
m is more stable and fairer than common-law systems, because laws are stated exp
licitly and are easier to discern. But English lawyers take pride in the flexibi
lity of their system, because it can quickly adapt to circumstance without the n
eed for Parliament to enact legislation. In reality, many systems are now a mixt
ure of the two traditions, giving them the best of both legal worlds.
- See more at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economi
st-explains-10#sthash.kGwELhyd.dpuf
\