Olamit, Ara Princess O.

I - SR
July 31, 2015
Anti-Jaywalking Law
Legal Issues:
Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege Principle
Article 2 of the Civil Code - Effectivity of Laws
Article 3 of the Civil Code

Arguments:
In questioning if the person is criminally liable, it must first be identified (a) if such crime exists
and (b) if such person has truly committed it.
a. Existence of the crime be established
Under the Principle of Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege, it states that there is no crime
when there is no law punishing it. Thus, if a person is deemed to commit a wrongful act but if there is
no law existing to punish it, then such act is not considered to be a crime.
In the case at bar, such principle can be contemplated since the narrative offered by the client
talks about an act that is deemed punishable (jaywalking) by a certain law that was enacted (AntiJaywalking Law of 2005). Although a law is already enacted which provides for penalties to those who
commit jaywalking, the Nullum Crimen principle can still be applied in the present case since the
main issue of the case deals as to when the Anti-Jaywalking Law is effective and enforceable. This is
because a law would still be meaningless if it is deemed ineffective. Thus, the main issue of the case
is the effectivity date of the Anti-Jaywalking Law which will inevitably determine if the client is criminally
liable.
Under the Philippine laws, it is in the Civil Code (particularly Article 2) which provides for the
general rule of the effectivity of laws. As found in this Article, laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette, or in newspaper of general
circulation, unless it is otherwise provided. In the case at bar, the Anti-Jaywalking Law falls on the
exception of the general rule wherein Filipino legislators were given the discretion to provide for the
effectivity dates of the laws they enacted. In this case, the Anti-Jaywalking Law shall take effect
immediately after it was approved by the President without the need of publication. It is from this
effectivity date that the client was apprehended by the traffic enforcer because the former (as alleged
by the latter) had violated the already effective law on jaywalking. However, if I were to be the legal
counsel of the client, the substantial contention of such accusation is to be found in the case of

Tanada vs. Tuvera wherein the Supreme Court had ruled that a law wont be effective unless it is
completely published.
In the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera, the Supreme Court ruled that publication is an
indispensable requisite for the effectivity of laws. Thus, despite the discretion given
towards the legislators in providing for the effectivity dates of their legislative enactments, it is still
mandated that laws must be published for it to become effective. This is because if publication is to be
omitted, it would offend due process as well as jeopardise people upon being ignorant that a certain
law exists. This is in connection with the principle found in Article 3 of the Civil Code that
ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. With that, laws must first be
published for it to become effective. Thus, if a person was alleged of violating a law that was not
published (as found in this case) and subsequently found guilty, the provisions of the law wont still
apply towards the person since it is still not effective. This is because at that time, as rationalised in the
Nullum Crimen Principle, there is still no law punishing such wrongful act.
b. Commission of the crime be identified
Since it is already established from the preceding arguments that a person does not commit a
crime of violating the Anti-Jaywalking Law so long as it is not yet published, the conclusion of this case
or the proper contention of the legal counsel of the client is that the latter has not committed a crime.
The client is innocent because the Anti-Jaywalking Law is not yet effective when
he had allegedly violated the law.
However, if hypothetically the Anti-Jaywalking Law is already effective (or was already published)
on the time the client was found to be allegedly violating it, this is the time wherein the lawyer must
identify if the client truly had committed the crime.
In identifying if the client is guilty of the allegations, the circumstances surrounding his action
should be considered. In the case at bar, the client does not have the deliberate intent to commit the
offense. He had committed the act due to lack of foresight since he was about to be attacked by the
dog when he had decided to run and crossed the street outside of the pedestrian lane. The lack of
motive by the client to commit the wrongful act must be highlighted by the lawyer in defending the
client. It can also be invoked that the client has only acted upon it (jaywalking) as a self-defense for he
was about to be attacked by the dog. Lastly, on the part of the traffic enforcer, the lawyer can invoke
that the former have not followed the protocols of traffic enforcers towards violators of the AntiJaywalking Law. Of prime importance among these is to inform the apprehended person of his/her
violation and not to employ threats towards them - acts that were not performed by the traffic enforcer.
With this, the lawyer can conclude or put as a defense that the client has not truly violated the law and
is not criminally liable given the circumstances surrounding him.