7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

TodayisTuesday,July14,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L63915April24,1985
LORENZOM.TAADA,ABRAHAMF.SARMIENTO,andMOVEMENTOFATTORNEYSFORBROTHERHOOD,
INTEGRITYANDNATIONALISM,INC.[MABINI],petitioners,
vs.
HON.JUANC.TUVERA,inhiscapacityasExecutiveAssistanttothePresident,HON.JOAQUINVENUS,in
hiscapacityasDeputyExecutiveAssistanttothePresident,MELQUIADESP.DELACRUZ,inhiscapacity
asDirector,MalacaangRecordsOffice,andFLORENDOS.PABLO,inhiscapacityasDirector,Bureauof
Printing,respondents.

ESCOLIN,J.:
Invokingthepeople'srighttobeinformedonmattersofpublicconcern,arightrecognizedinSection6,ArticleIVof
the1973PhilippineConstitution, 1aswellastheprinciplethatlawstobevalidandenforceablemustbepublishedinthe
Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public
officialstopublish,and/orcausethepublicationintheOfficialGazetteofvariouspresidentialdecrees,lettersofinstructions,
generalorders,proclamations,executiveorders,letterofimplementationandadministrativeorders.

Specifically,thepublicationofthefollowingpresidentialissuancesissought:
a]PresidentialDecreesNos.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, 10171030, 1050, 10601061, 1085, 1143, 1165, 1166, 1242, 1246,
1250,1278,1279,1300,1644,1772,1808,1810,18131817,18191826,18291840,18421847.
b]LetterofInstructionsNos.:10,39,49,72,107,108,116,130,136,141,150,153,155,161,173,
180,187,188,192,193,199,202,204,205,209,211213,215224,226228,231239,241245,248,
251,253261,263269,271273,275283,285289,291,293,297299,301303,309,312315,325,
327, 343, 346, 349, 357, 358, 362, 367, 370, 382, 385, 386, 396397, 405, 438440, 444 445, 473,
486,488,498,501,399,527,561,576,587,594,599,600,602,609,610,611,612,615,641,642,
665,702,712713,726,837839,878879,881,882,939940,964,997,11491178,11801278.
c]GeneralOrdersNos.:14,52,58,59,60,62,63,64&65.
d]ProclamationNos.:1126,1144,1147,1151,1196,1270,1281,13191526,1529,1532,1535,1538,
15401547,15501558,15611588,15901595,15941600,16061609,16121628,16301649,1694
1695,16971701,17051723,17311734,17371742,1744,17461751,1752,1754,1762,17641787,
17891795,1797,1800,18021804,18061807,18121814,1816,18251826,1829,18311832,1835
1836, 18391840, 18431844, 18461847, 1849, 18531858, 1860, 1866, 1868, 1870, 18761889,
1892, 1900, 1918, 1923, 1933, 1952, 1963, 19651966, 19681984, 19862028, 20302044, 2046
2145,21472161,21632244.
e]Executive Orders Nos.: 411, 413, 414, 427, 429454, 457 471, 474492, 494507, 509510, 522,
524528,531532,536,538,543544,549,551553,560,563,567568,570,574,593,594,598604,
609,611647,649677,679703,705707,712786,788852,854857.
f]LettersofImplementationNos.:7,8,9,10,1122,2527,39,50,51,59,76,8081,92,94,95,107,
120,122,123.
g]AdministrativeOrdersNos.:347,348,352354,360378,380433,436439.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

1/10

7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the ground that
petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition. The view is submitted that in the
absence of any showing that petitioners are personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged non
publication of the presidential issuances in question 2 said petitioners are without the requisite legal personality to
institutethismandamusproceeding,theyarenotbeing"aggrievedparties"withinthemeaningofSection3,Rule65ofthe
RulesofCourt,whichwequote:

SEC.3.PetitionforMandamus.Whenanytribunal,corporation,boardorpersonunlawfullyneglects
theperformanceofanactwhichthelawspecificallyenjoinsasadutyresultingfromanoffice,trust,or
station,orunlawfullyexcludesanotherfromtheuseardenjoymentofarightorofficetowhichsuch
other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law,thepersonaggrievedtherebymayfileaverifiedpetitioninthepropercourtallegingthefactswith
certaintyandprayingthatjudgmentberenderedcommandingthedefendant,immediatelyoratsome
otherspecifiedtime,todotheactrequiredtobedonetoProtecttherightsofthepetitioner,andtopay
thedamagessustainedbythepetitionerbyreasonofthewrongfulactsofthedefendant.
Upontheotherhand,petitionersmaintainthatsincethesubjectofthepetitionconcernsapublicrightanditsobject
istocompeltheperformanceofapublicduty,theyneednotshowanyspecificinterestfortheirpetitiontobegiven
duecourse.
Theissueposedisnotoneoffirstimpression.Asearlyasthe1910caseofSeverinovs.GovernorGeneral, 3this
Courtheldthatwhilethegeneralruleisthat"awritofmandamuswouldbegrantedtoaprivateindividualonlyinthosecases
wherehehassomeprivateorparticularinteresttobesubserved,orsomeparticularrighttobeprotected,independentofthat
whichheholdswiththepublicatlarge,"and"itisforthepublicofficersexclusivelytoapplyforthewritwhenpublicrightsare
to be subserved [Mithchell vs. Boardmen, 79 M.e., 469]," nevertheless, "when the question is one of public right and the
objectofthemandamusistoprocuretheenforcementofapublicduty,thepeopleareregardedastherealpartyininterest
andtherelatoratwhoseinstigationtheproceedingsareinstitutedneednotshowthathehasanylegalorspecialinterestin
the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws [High,
ExtraordinaryLegalRemedies,3rded.,sec.431].

Thus, in said case, this Court recognized the relator Lope Severino, a private individual, as a proper party to the
mandamus proceedings brought to compel the Governor General to call a special election for the position of
municipalpresidentinthetownofSilay,NegrosOccidental.SpeakingforthisCourt,Mr.JusticeGrantT.Trentsaid:
Wearethereforeoftheopinionthattheweightofauthoritysupportsthepropositionthattherelatorisa
properpartytoproceedingsofthischaracterwhenapublicrightissoughttobeenforced.Ifthegeneral
rule in America were otherwise, we think that it would not be applicable to the case at bar for the
reason'thatitisalwaysdangeroustoapplyageneralruletoaparticularcasewithoutkeepinginmind
thereasonfortherule,because,ifundertheparticularcircumstancesthereasonfortheruledoesnot
exist,theruleitselfisnotapplicableandrelianceupontherulemaywellleadtoerror'
No reason exists in the case at bar for applying the general rule insisted upon by counsel for the
respondent.ThecircumstanceswhichsurroundthiscasearedifferentfromthoseintheUnitedStates,
inasmuchasiftherelatorisnotaproperpartytotheseproceedingsnootherpersoncouldbe,aswe
have seen that it is not the duty of the law officer of the Government to appear and represent the
peopleincasesofthischaracter.
ThereasonsgivenbytheCourtinrecognizingaprivatecitizen'slegalpersonalityintheaforementionedcaseapply
squarely to the present petition. Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right
recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this
proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person to initiate the same, considering that the
SolicitorGeneral,thegovernmentofficergenerallyempoweredtorepresentthepeople,hasenteredhisappearance
forrespondentsinthiscase.
Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the
effectivityoflawswherethelawsthemselvesprovidefortheirowneffectivitydates.Itisthussubmittedthatsince
thepresidentialissuancesinquestioncontainspecialprovisionsastothedatetheyaretotakeeffect,publicationin
theOfficialGazetteisnotindispensablefortheireffectivity.ThepointstressedisanchoredonArticle2oftheCivil
Code:
Art.2.LawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficial
Gazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided,...
The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of
decisions,4 this Court has ruled that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation
itselfdoesnotprovideforitseffectivitydateforthenthedateofpublicationismaterialfordeterminingitsdateofeffectivity,
whichisthefifteenthdayfollowingitspublicationbutnotwhenthelawitselfprovidesforthedatewhenitgoesintoeffect.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

2/10

7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

Respondents'argument,however,islogicallycorrectonlyinsofarasitequatestheeffectivityoflawswiththefactof
publication.Consideredinthelightofotherstatutesapplicabletotheissueathand,theconclusioniseasilyreached
that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself
providesforthedateofitseffectivity.Thus,Section1ofCommonwealthAct638providesasfollows:
Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all important legisiative acts and
resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the Philippines [2] all executive and administrative
orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability [3] decisions or abstracts of
decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of
sufficient importance to be so published [4] such documents or classes of documents as may be
requiredsotobepublishedbylawand[5]suchdocumentsorclassesofdocumentsasthePresident
of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general applicability and legal effect, or
whichhemayauthorizesotobepublished....
The clear object of the abovequoted provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws
whicharetoregulatetheiractionsandconductascitizens.Withoutsuchnoticeandpublication,therewouldbeno
basisfortheapplicationofthemaxim"ignorantialegisnonexcusat."Itwouldbetheheightofinjusticetopunishor
otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a
constructiveone.
Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of laws taken so vital
significancethatatthistimewhenthepeoplehavebestoweduponthePresidentapowerheretoforeenjoyedsolely
by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the
Batasan Pambansaand for the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative recordsno such publicity
accompanies the lawmaking process of the President. Thus, without publication, the people have no means of
knowing what presidential decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing
themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. As the Supreme Court of Spain ruled: "Bajo la
denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones,
CircularesyRealesordinesdictadasdeconformidadconlasmismasporelGobiernoenusodesupotestad.5
TheveryfirstclauseofSectionIofCommonwealthAct638reads:"ThereshallbepublishedintheOfficialGazette
... ." The word "shall" used therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be
enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern is to be given
substanceandreality.ThelawitselfmakesalistofwhatshouldbepublishedintheOfficialGazette.Suchlisting,to
our mind, leaves respondents with no discretion whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from such
publication.
The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law.
Obviously,presidentialdecreesthatprovideforfines,forfeituresorpenaltiesfortheirviolationorotherwiseimposea
burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances
whichapplyonlytoparticularpersonsorclassofpersonssuchasadministrativeandexecutiveordersneednotbe
publishedontheassumptionthattheyhavebeencircularizedtoallconcerned.6
Itisneedlesstoaddthatthepublicationofpresidentialissuances"ofapublicnature"or"ofgeneralapplicability"isa
requirementofdueprocess.Itisaruleoflawthatbeforeapersonmaybeboundbylaw,hemustfirstbeofficially
andspecificallyinformedofitscontents.AsJusticeClaudioTeehankeesaidinPeraltavs.COMELEC7:
Inatimeofproliferatingdecrees,ordersandlettersofinstructionswhichallformpartofthelawofthe
land, the requirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand that the Official Gazette as the
official government repository promulgate and publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and
instructionssothatthepeoplemayknowwheretoobtaintheirofficialandspecificcontents.
The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application, which have not been published,
shallhavenoforceandeffect.SomemembersoftheCourt,quiteapprehensiveaboutthepossibleunsettlingeffect
thisdecisionmighthaveonactsdoneinrelianceofthevalidityofthosepresidentialdecreeswhichwerepublished
only during the pendency of this petition, have put the question as to whether the Court's declaration of invalidity
applytoP.D.swhichhadbeenenforcedorimplementedpriortotheirpublication.Theanswerisalltoofamiliar.In
similar situations in the past this Court had taken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot County
DrainageDistrictvs.BaxterBank8towit:
The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having been found to be
unconstitutional,wasnotalawthatitwasinoperative,conferringnorightsandimposingnoduties,and
hence affording no basis for the challenged decree. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442
Chicago, 1. & L. Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566. It is quite clear, however, that such broad
statementsastotheeffectofadeterminationofunconstitutionalitymustbetakenwithqualifications.
The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an operative fact and may have
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

3/10

7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial
declaration.Theeffectofthesubsequentrulingastoinvaliditymayhavetobeconsideredinvarious
aspectswith respect to particular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights claimed to have
becomevested,ofstatus,ofpriordeterminationsdeemedtohavefinalityandacteduponaccordingly,
of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand
examination.Thesequestionsareamongthemostdifficultofthosewhichhaveengagedtheattention
ofcourts,stateandfederalanditismanifestfromnumerousdecisionsthatanallinclusivestatementof
aprincipleofabsoluteretroactiveinvaliditycannotbejustified.
Consistently with the above principle, this Court in Rutter vs. Esteban 9 sustained the right of a party under the
MoratoriumLaw,albeitsaidrighthadaccruedinhisfavorbeforesaidlawwasdeclaredunconstitutionalbythisCourt.

Similarly,theimplementation/enforcementofpresidentialdecreespriortotheirpublicationintheOfficialGazetteis
"anoperativefactwhichmayhaveconsequenceswhichcannotbejustlyignored.Thepastcannotalwaysbeerased
byanewjudicialdeclaration...thatanallinclusivestatementofaprincipleofabsoluteretroactiveinvaliditycannot
bejustified."
FromthereportsubmittedtotheCourtbytheClerkofCourt,itappearsthatofthepresidentialdecreessoughtby
petitionerstobepublishedintheOfficialGazette,onlyPresidentialDecreesNos.1019to1030,inclusive,1278,and
1937to1939,inclusive,havenotbeensopublished. 10NeitherthesubjectmattersnorthetextsofthesePDscanbe
ascertained since no copies thereof are available. But whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that none of
theseunpublishedPDshaseverbeenimplementedorenforcedbythegovernment.InPesiganvs.Angeles, 11theCourt,
throughJusticeRamonAquino,ruledthat"publicationisnecessarytoapprisethepublicofthecontentsof[penal]regulations
andmakethesaidpenaltiesbindingonthepersonsaffectedthereby."Thecogencyofthisholdingisapparentlyrecognized
byrespondentofficialsconsideringthemanifestationintheircommentthat"thegovernment,asamatterofpolicy,refrains
fromprosecutingviolationsofcriminallawsuntilthesameshallhavebeenpublishedintheOfficialGazetteorinsomeother
publication,eventhoughsomecriminallawsprovidethattheyshalltakeeffectimmediately.

WHEREFORE,theCourtherebyordersrespondentstopublishintheOfficialGazetteallunpublishedpresidential
issuanceswhichareofgeneralapplication,andunlesssopublished,theyshallhavenobindingforceandeffect.
SOORDERED.
Relova,J.,concurs.
Aquino,J.,tooknopart.
Concepcion,Jr.,J.,isonleave.

SeparateOpinions

FERNANDO,C.J.,concurring(withqualification):
ThereisonthewholeacceptanceonmypartoftheviewsexpressedintheablywrittenopinionofJusticeEscolin.I
amunable,however,toconcurinsofarasitwouldunqualifiedlyimposetherequirementofpublicationintheOfficial
Gazetteforunpublished"presidentialissuances"tohavebindingforceandeffect.
Ishallexplainwhy.
1. It is of course true that without the requisite publication, a due process question would arise if made to apply
adverselytoapartywhoisnotevenawareoftheexistenceofanylegislativeorexecutiveacthavingtheforceand
effect of law. My point is that such publication required need not be confined to the Official Gazette. From the
pragmaticstandpoint,thereisanadvantagetobegained.Itconducestocertainty.Thatistoobeadmitted.Itdoes
not follow, however, that failure to do so would in all cases and under all circumstances result in a statute,
presidentialdecreeoranyotherexecutiveactofthesamecategorybeingbereftofanybindingforceandeffect.To
soholdwould,forme,raiseaconstitutionalquestion.Suchapronouncementwouldlenditselftotheinterpretation
that such a legislative or presidential act is bereft of the attribute of effectivity unless published in the Official
Gazette.ThereisnosuchrequirementintheConstitutionasJusticePlanasoaptlypointedout.Itistruethatwhatis
decidednowappliesonlytopast"presidentialissuances".Nonetheless,thisclarificationis,tomymind,neededto
avoid any possible misconception as to what is required for any statute or presidential act to be impressed with
bindingforceoreffectivity.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

4/10

7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

2.ItisquiteunderstandablethenwhyIconcurintheseparateopinionofJusticePlana.Itsfirstparagraphsetsforth
whattomeistheconstitutionaldoctrineapplicabletothiscase.Thus:"ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnotrequire
the publication of laws as a prerequisite for their effectivity, unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. It may be said
though that the guarantee of due process requires notice of laws to affected Parties before they can be bound
therebybutsuchnoticeisnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclauseisnotthat
precise.1Iamlikewiseinagreementwithitsclosingparagraph:"Infine,Iconcurinthemajoritydecisiontotheextentthatit
requires notice before laws become effective, for no person should be bound by a law without notice. This is elementary
fairness.However,IbegtodisagreeinsofarasitholdsthatsuchnoticeshallbebypublicationintheOfficialGazette.2

3. It suffices, as was stated by Judge Learned Hand, that law as the command of the government "must be
ascertainableinsomeformifitistobeenforcedatall. 3Itwouldindeedbetoreduceittothelevelofmerefutility,as
pointedoutbyJusticeCardozo,"ifitisunknownandunknowable. 4Publication,torepeat,isthusessential.WhatIamnot
preparedtosubscribetoisthedoctrinethatitmustbeintheOfficialGazette.Tobesureoncepublishedthereinthereisthe
ascertainablemodeofdeterminingtheexactdateofitseffectivity.Stillformethatdoesnotdisposeofthequestionofwhatis
thejuraleffectofpastpresidentialdecreesorexecutiveactsnotsopublished.Forpriorthereto,itcouldbethatpartiesaware
of their existence could have conducted themselves in accordance with their provisions. If no legal consequences could
attachduetolackofpublicationintheOfficialGazette,thenseriousproblemscouldarise.Previoustransactionsbasedon
such "Presidential Issuances" could be open to question. Matters deemed settled could still be inquired into. I am not
prepared to hold that such an effect is contemplated by our decision. Where such presidential decree or executive act is
made the basis of a criminal prosecution, then, of course, its ex post facto character becomes evident. 5 In civil cases
though, retroactivity as such is not conclusive on the due process aspect. There must still be a showing of arbitrariness.
Moreover,wherethechallengedpresidentialdecreeorexecutiveactwasissuedunderthepolicepower,thenonimpairment
clauseoftheConstitutionmaynotalwaysbesuccessfullyinvoked.Theremuststillbethatprocessofbalancingtodetermine
whetherornotitcouldinsuchacasebetaintedbyinfirmity.6Intraditionalterminology,therecouldarisethenaquestionof
unconstitutionalapplication.Thatisasfarasitgoes.

4.Letmemakethereforethatmyqualifiedconcurrencegoesnofurtherthantoaffirmthatpublicationisessentialto
theeffectivityofalegislativeorexecutiveactofageneralapplication.Iamnotinagreementwiththeviewthatsuch
publicationmustbeintheOfficialGazette.TheCivilCodeitselfinitsArticle2expresslyrecognizesthattheruleas
tolawstakingeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazetteissubjectto
this exception, "unless it is otherwise provided." Moreover, the Civil Code is itself only a legislative enactment,
RepublicActNo.386.Itdoesnotandcannothavethejuridicalforceofaconstitutionalcommand.Alaterlegislative
orexecutiveactwhichhastheforceandeffectoflawcanlegallyprovideforadifferentrule.
5.Nor can I agree with the rather sweeping conclusion in the opinion of Justice Escolin that presidential decrees
andexecutiveactsnotthuspreviouslypublishedintheOfficialGazettewouldbedevoidofanylegalcharacter.That
would be, in my opinion, to go too far. It may be fraught, as earlier noted, with undesirable consequences. I find
myselfthereforeunabletoyieldassenttosuchapronouncement.
IamauthorizedtostatethatJusticesMakasiar,AbadSantos,Cuevas,andAlampayconcurinthisseparateopinion.
Makasiar,AbadSantos,CuevasandAlampay,JJ.,concur.

TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:
IconcurwiththemainopinionofMr.JusticeEscolinandtheconcurringopinionofMme.JusticeHerrera.TheRule
of Law connotes a body of norms and laws published and ascertainable and of equal application to all similarly
circumstancesandnotsubjecttoarbitrarychangebutonlyundercertainsetprocedures.TheCourthasconsistently
stressedthat"itisanelementaryruleoffairplayandjusticethatareasonableopportunitytobeinformedmustbe
affordedtothepeoplewhoarecommandedtoobeybeforetheycanbepunishedforitsviolation,1citingthesettled
principle based on due process enunciated in earlier cases that "before the public is bound by its contents, especially its
penalprovisions,alaw,regulationorcircularmustfirstbepublishedandthepeopleofficiallyandspeciallyinformedofsaid
contentsanditspenalties.

Without official publication in the Official Gazette as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code and the Revised
Administrative Code, there would be no basis nor justification for the corollary rule of Article 3 of the Civil Code
(basedonconstructivenoticethattheprovisionsofthelawareascertainablefromthepublicandofficialrepository
wheretheyaredulypublished)that"Ignoranceofthelawexcusesnoonefromcompliancetherewith.
Respondents'contentionbasedonamisreadingofArticle2oftheCivilCodethat"onlylawswhicharesilentasto
theireffectivity[date]needbepublishedintheOfficialGazettefortheireffectivity"ismanifestlyuntenable.Theplain
textandmeaningoftheCivilCodeisthat"lawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheir
publicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided,"i.e.adifferenteffectivitydateisprovidedbythe
law itself. This proviso perforce refers to a law that has been duly published pursuant to the basic constitutional
requirementsofdueprocess.ThebestexampleofthisistheCivilCodeitself:thesameArticle2providesotherwise
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

5/10

7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

thatit"shalltakeeffect[only]oneyear[not15days]aftersuchpublication. 2Tosustainrespondents'misreadingthat
"most laws or decrees specify the date of their effectivity and for this reason, publication in the Official Gazette is not
necessary for their effectivity 3 would be to nullify and render nugatory the Civil Code's indispensable and essential
requirement of prior publication in the Official Gazette by the simple expedient of providing for immediate effectivity or an
earliereffectivitydateinthelawitselfbeforethecompletionof15daysfollowingitspublicationwhichistheperiodgenerally
fixedbytheCivilCodeforitsproperdissemination.

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.,concurring:
I agree. There cannot be any question but that even if a decree provides for a date of effectivity, it has to be
published. What I would like to state in connection with that proposition is that when a date of effectivity is
mentionedinthedecreebutthedecreebecomeseffectiveonlyfifteen(15)daysafteritspublicationintheOfficial
Gazette,itwillnotmeanthatthedecreecanhaveretroactiveeffecttothedateofeffectivitymentionedinthedecree
itself. There should be no retroactivity if the retroactivity will run counter to constitutional rights or shall destroy
vestedrights.

PLANA,J.,concurring(withqualification):
ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnotrequirethepublicationoflawsasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,unlikesome
Constitutionselsewhere.*Itmaybesaidthoughthattheguaranteeofdueprocessrequiresnoticeoflawstoaffectedpartiesbeforetheycanbebound
therebybutsuchnoticeisnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclauseisnotthatprecise.Neitheristhepublicationoflawsinthe
OfficialGazetterequiredbyanystatuteasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,ifsaidlawsalreadyprovidefortheireffectivitydate.

Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided"Twothingsmaybesaidofthisprovision:Firstly,
it obviously does not apply to a law with a builtin provision as to when it will take effect. Secondly, it clearly
recognizesthateachlawmayprovidenotonlyadifferentperiodforreckoningitseffectivitydatebutalsoadifferent
modeofnotice.Thus,alawmayprescribethatitshallbepublishedelsewherethanintheOfficialGazette.
CommonwealthActNo.638,inmyopinion,doesnotsupportthepropositionthatfortheireffectivity,lawsmustbe
published in the Official Gazette. The said law is simply "An Act to Provide for the Uniform Publication and
Distribution of the Official Gazette." Conformably therewith, it authorizes the publication of the Official Gazette,
determinesitsfrequency,providesforitssaleanddistribution,anddefinestheauthorityoftheDirectorofPrintingin
relation thereto. It also enumerates what shall be published in the Official Gazette, among them, "important
legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines" and "all executive and
administrativeordersandproclamations,exceptsuchashavenogeneralapplicability."Itisnoteworthythatnotall
legislative acts are required to be published in the Official Gazette but only "important" ones "of a public nature."
Moreover,thesaidlawdoesnotprovidethatpublicationintheOfficialGazetteisessentialfortheeffectivityoflaws.
Thisisasitshouldbe,forallstatutesareequalandstandonthesamefooting.Alaw,especiallyanearlieroneof
general application such as Commonwealth Act No. 638, cannot nullify or restrict the operation of a subsequent
statute that has a provision of its own as to when and how it will take effect. Only a higher law, which is the
Constitution,canassumethatrole.
In fine, I concur in the majority decision to the extent that it requires notice before laws become effective, for no
personshouldbeboundbyalawwithoutnotice.Thisiselementaryfairness.However,Ibegtodisagreeinsofarasit
holdsthatsuchnoticeshallbebypublicationintheOfficialGazette.
CuevasandAlampay,JJ.,concur.

GUTIERREZ,Jr.,J.,concurring:
Iconcurinsofaraspublicationisnecessarybutreservemyvoteastothenecessityofsuchpublicationbeinginthe
OfficialGazette.

DELAFUENTE,J.,concurring:
I concur insofar as the opinion declares the unpublished decrees and issuances of a public nature or general
applicabilityineffective,untilduepublicationthereof.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

6/10

7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

SeparateOpinions
FERNANDO,C.J.,concurring(withqualification):
ThereisonthewholeacceptanceonmypartoftheviewsexpressedintheablywrittenopinionofJusticeEscolin.I
amunable,however,toconcurinsofarasitwouldunqualifiedlyimposetherequirementofpublicationintheOfficial
Gazetteforunpublished"presidentialissuances"tohavebindingforceandeffect.
Ishallexplainwhy.
1.Itisofcoursetruethatwithouttherequisitepublication,adueprocessquestionwouldariseifmadetoapply
adverselytoapartywhoisnotevenawareoftheexistenceofanylegislativeorexecutiveacthavingtheforceand
effectoflaw.MypointisthatsuchpublicationrequiredneednotbeconfinedtotheOfficialGazette.Fromthe
pragmaticstandpoint,thereisanadvantagetobegained.Itconducestocertainty.Thatistoobeadmitted.Itdoes
notfollow,however,thatfailuretodosowouldinallcasesandunderallcircumstancesresultinastatute,
presidentialdecreeoranyotherexecutiveactofthesamecategorybeingbereftofanybindingforceandeffect.To
soholdwould,forme,raiseaconstitutionalquestion.Suchapronouncementwouldlenditselftotheinterpretation
thatsuchalegislativeorpresidentialactisbereftoftheattributeofeffectivityunlesspublishedintheOfficial
Gazette.ThereisnosuchrequirementintheConstitutionasJusticePlanasoaptlypointedout.Itistruethatwhatis
decidednowappliesonlytopast"presidentialissuances".Nonetheless,thisclarificationis,tomymind,neededto
avoidanypossiblemisconceptionastowhatisrequiredforanystatuteorpresidentialacttobeimpressedwith
bindingforceoreffectivity.
2.ItisquiteunderstandablethenwhyIconcurintheseparateopinionofJusticePlana.Itsfirstparagraphsetsforth
whattomeistheconstitutionaldoctrineapplicabletothiscase.Thus:"ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnotrequire
thepublicationoflawsasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,unlikesomeConstitutionselsewhere.Itmaybesaid
thoughthattheguaranteeofdueprocessrequiresnoticeoflawstoaffectedPartiesbeforetheycanbebound
therebybutsuchnoticeisnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclauseisnotthat
precise.1Iamlikewiseinagreementwithitsclosingparagraph:"Infine,Iconcurinthemajoritydecisiontotheextentthatit
requiresnoticebeforelawsbecomeeffective,fornopersonshouldbeboundbyalawwithoutnotice.Thisiselementary
fairness.However,IbegtodisagreeinsofarasitholdsthatsuchnoticeshallbebypublicationintheOfficialGazette.2

3.Itsuffices,aswasstatedbyJudgeLearnedHand,thatlawasthecommandofthegovernment"mustbe
ascertainableinsomeformifitistobeenforcedatall.3Itwouldindeedbetoreduceittothelevelofmerefutility,as
pointedoutbyJusticeCardozo,"ifitisunknownandunknowable.4Publication,torepeat,isthusessential.WhatIamnot
preparedtosubscribetoisthedoctrinethatitmustbeintheOfficialGazette.Tobesureoncepublishedthereinthereisthe
ascertainablemodeofdeterminingtheexactdateofitseffectivity.Stillformethatdoesnotdisposeofthequestionofwhatis
thejuraleffectofpastpresidentialdecreesorexecutiveactsnotsopublished.Forpriorthereto,itcouldbethatpartiesaware
oftheirexistencecouldhaveconductedthemselvesinaccordancewiththeirprovisions.Ifnolegalconsequencescould
attachduetolackofpublicationintheOfficialGazette,thenseriousproblemscouldarise.Previoustransactionsbasedon
such"PresidentialIssuances"couldbeopentoquestion.Mattersdeemedsettledcouldstillbeinquiredinto.Iamnot
preparedtoholdthatsuchaneffectiscontemplatedbyourdecision.Wheresuchpresidentialdecreeorexecutiveactis
madethebasisofacriminalprosecution,then,ofcourse,itsexpostfactocharacterbecomesevident.5Incivilcases
though,retroactivityassuchisnotconclusiveonthedueprocessaspect.Theremuststillbeashowingofarbitrariness.
Moreover,wherethechallengedpresidentialdecreeorexecutiveactwasissuedunderthepolicepower,thenonimpairment
clauseoftheConstitutionmaynotalwaysbesuccessfullyinvoked.Theremuststillbethatprocessofbalancingtodetermine
whetherornotitcouldinsuchacasebetaintedbyinfirmity.6Intraditionalterminology,therecouldarisethenaquestionof
unconstitutionalapplication.Thatisasfarasitgoes.

4.Letmemakethereforethatmyqualifiedconcurrencegoesnofurtherthantoaffirmthatpublicationisessentialto
theeffectivityofalegislativeorexecutiveactofageneralapplication.Iamnotinagreementwiththeviewthatsuch
publicationmustbeintheOfficialGazette.TheCivilCodeitselfinitsArticle2expresslyrecognizesthattheruleas
tolawstakingeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazetteissubjectto
thisexception,"unlessitisotherwiseprovided."Moreover,theCivilCodeisitselfonlyalegislativeenactment,
RepublicActNo.386.Itdoesnotandcannothavethejuridicalforceofaconstitutionalcommand.Alaterlegislative
orexecutiveactwhichhastheforceandeffectoflawcanlegallyprovideforadifferentrule.
5.NorcanIagreewiththerathersweepingconclusionintheopinionofJusticeEscolinthatpresidentialdecrees
andexecutiveactsnotthuspreviouslypublishedintheOfficialGazettewouldbedevoidofanylegalcharacter.That
wouldbe,inmyopinion,togotoofar.Itmaybefraught,asearliernoted,withundesirableconsequences.Ifind
myselfthereforeunabletoyieldassenttosuchapronouncement.
IamauthorizedtostatethatJusticesMakasiar,AbadSantos,Cuevas,andAlampayconcurinthisseparateopinion.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

7/10

7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

Makasiar,AbadSantos,CuevasandAlampay,JJ.,concur.

TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:
IconcurwiththemainopinionofMr.JusticeEscolinandtheconcurringopinionofMme.JusticeHerrera.TheRule
ofLawconnotesabodyofnormsandlawspublishedandascertainableandofequalapplicationtoallsimilarly
circumstancesandnotsubjecttoarbitrarychangebutonlyundercertainsetprocedures.TheCourthasconsistently
stressedthat"itisanelementaryruleoffairplayandjusticethatareasonableopportunitytobeinformedmustbe
affordedtothepeoplewhoarecommandedtoobeybeforetheycanbepunishedforitsviolation,1citingthesettled
principlebasedondueprocessenunciatedinearliercasesthat"beforethepublicisboundbyitscontents,especiallyits
penalprovisions,alaw,regulationorcircularmustfirstbepublishedandthepeopleofficiallyandspeciallyinformedofsaid
contentsanditspenalties.

WithoutofficialpublicationintheOfficialGazetteasrequiredbyArticle2oftheCivilCodeandtheRevised
AdministrativeCode,therewouldbenobasisnorjustificationforthecorollaryruleofArticle3oftheCivilCode
(basedonconstructivenoticethattheprovisionsofthelawareascertainablefromthepublicandofficialrepository
wheretheyaredulypublished)that"Ignoranceofthelawexcusesnoonefromcompliancetherewith.
Respondents'contentionbasedonamisreadingofArticle2oftheCivilCodethat"onlylawswhicharesilentasto
theireffectivity[date]needbepublishedintheOfficialGazettefortheireffectivity"ismanifestlyuntenable.Theplain
textandmeaningoftheCivilCodeisthat"lawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheir
publicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided,"i.e.adifferenteffectivitydateisprovidedbythe
lawitself.Thisprovisoperforcereferstoalawthathasbeendulypublishedpursuanttothebasicconstitutional
requirementsofdueprocess.ThebestexampleofthisistheCivilCodeitself:thesameArticle2providesotherwise
thatit"shalltakeeffect[only]oneyear[not15days]aftersuchpublication.2Tosustainrespondents'misreadingthat
"mostlawsordecreesspecifythedateoftheireffectivityandforthisreason,publicationintheOfficialGazetteisnot
necessaryfortheireffectivity3wouldbetonullifyandrendernugatorytheCivilCode'sindispensableandessential
requirementofpriorpublicationintheOfficialGazettebythesimpleexpedientofprovidingforimmediateeffectivityoran
earliereffectivitydateinthelawitselfbeforethecompletionof15daysfollowingitspublicationwhichistheperiodgenerally
fixedbytheCivilCodeforitsproperdissemination.

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.,concurring:
Iagree.Therecannotbeanyquestionbutthatevenifadecreeprovidesforadateofeffectivity,ithastobe
published.WhatIwouldliketostateinconnectionwiththatpropositionisthatwhenadateofeffectivityis
mentionedinthedecreebutthedecreebecomeseffectiveonlyfifteen(15)daysafteritspublicationintheOfficial
Gazette,itwillnotmeanthatthedecreecanhaveretroactiveeffecttothedateofeffectivitymentionedinthedecree
itself.Thereshouldbenoretroactivityiftheretroactivitywillruncountertoconstitutionalrightsorshalldestroy
vestedrights.

PLANA,J.,concurring(withqualification):
ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnotrequirethepublicationoflawsasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,unlikesome
Constitutionselsewhere.*Itmaybesaidthoughthattheguaranteeofdueprocessrequiresnoticeoflawstoaffectedpartiesbeforetheycanbebound

therebybutsuchnoticeisnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclauseisnotthatprecise.Neitheristhepublicationoflawsinthe
OfficialGazetterequiredbyanystatuteasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,ifsaidlawsalreadyprovidefortheireffectivitydate.

Article2oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat"lawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheir
publicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided"Twothingsmaybesaidofthisprovision:Firstly,
itobviouslydoesnotapplytoalawwithabuiltinprovisionastowhenitwilltakeeffect.Secondly,itclearly
recognizesthateachlawmayprovidenotonlyadifferentperiodforreckoningitseffectivitydatebutalsoadifferent
modeofnotice.Thus,alawmayprescribethatitshallbepublishedelsewherethanintheOfficialGazette.
CommonwealthActNo.638,inmyopinion,doesnotsupportthepropositionthatfortheireffectivity,lawsmustbe
publishedintheOfficialGazette.Thesaidlawissimply"AnActtoProvidefortheUniformPublicationand
DistributionoftheOfficialGazette."Conformablytherewith,itauthorizesthepublicationoftheOfficialGazette,
determinesitsfrequency,providesforitssaleanddistribution,anddefinestheauthorityoftheDirectorofPrintingin
relationthereto.ItalsoenumerateswhatshallbepublishedintheOfficialGazette,amongthem,"important
legislativeactsandresolutionsofapublicnatureoftheCongressofthePhilippines"and"allexecutiveand
administrativeordersandproclamations,exceptsuchashavenogeneralapplicability."Itisnoteworthythatnotall
legislativeactsarerequiredtobepublishedintheOfficialGazettebutonly"important"ones"ofapublicnature."
Moreover,thesaidlawdoesnotprovidethatpublicationintheOfficialGazetteisessentialfortheeffectivityoflaws.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

8/10

7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

Thisisasitshouldbe,forallstatutesareequalandstandonthesamefooting.Alaw,especiallyanearlieroneof
generalapplicationsuchasCommonwealthActNo.638,cannotnullifyorrestricttheoperationofasubsequent
statutethathasaprovisionofitsownastowhenandhowitwilltakeeffect.Onlyahigherlaw,whichisthe
Constitution,canassumethatrole.
Infine,Iconcurinthemajoritydecisiontotheextentthatitrequiresnoticebeforelawsbecomeeffective,forno
personshouldbeboundbyalawwithoutnotice.Thisiselementaryfairness.However,Ibegtodisagreeinsofarasit
holdsthatsuchnoticeshallbebypublicationintheOfficialGazette.
CuevasandAlampay,JJ.,concur.

GUTIERREZ,Jr.,J.,concurring:
Iconcurinsofaraspublicationisnecessarybutreservemyvoteastothenecessityofsuchpublicationbeinginthe
OfficialGazette.

DELAFUENTE,J.,concurring:
Iconcurinsofarastheopiniondeclarestheunpublisheddecreesandissuancesofapublicnatureorgeneral
applicabilityineffective,untilduepublicationthereof.
Footnotes
1Section6.Therightofthepeopletoinformationonmattersofpublicconcernshagberecognized,
accesstoofficialrecords,andtodocumentsandpaperspertainingtoofficialacts,transactions,or
decisions,shagbeaffordedthecitizenssubjecttosuchlimitationasmaybeprovidedbylaw.
2AntiChineseLeaguevs.Felix,77Phil.1012Costasvs.Aidanese,45Phil.345Almariovs.City
Mayor,16SCRA151Partingvs.SanJosePetroleum,18SCRA924Dumlaovs.Comelec,95SCRA
392.
316Phil.366,378.
4Camachovs.CourtofIndustrialRelations,80Phil848Mejiavs.Balolong,81Phil.486Republicof
thePhilippinesvs.Encamacion,87Phil.843PhilippineBloomingMills,Inc.vs.SocialSecurity
System,17SCRA1077Askayvs.Cosalan,46Phil.179.
51Manresa,CodigoCivil7thEd.,p.146.
6Peoplevs.QuePoLay,94Phil.640Balbuenaetal.vs.SecretaryofEducation,etal.,110Phil.150.
782SCRA30,dissentingopinion.
8308U.S.371,374.
993Phil..68,.
10ThereportwaspreparedbytheClerkofCourtafterActingDirectorFlorendoS.PabloJr.ofthe
GovernmentPrintingOffice,failedtorespondtoherletterrequestregardingtherespectivedatesof
publicationintheOfficialGazetteofthepresidentialissuanceslistedtherein.Noreporthasbeen
submittedbytheClerkofCourtastothepublicationornonpublicationofotherpresidentialissuances.
11129SCRA174.
Fernando,CJ.:
1SeparateOpinionofJusticePlana,firstparagraph.HementionedintillsconnectionArticle7,Sec.21
oftheWisconsinConstitutionandStateexrel.Whitev.GrandSuperiorCt.,71ALR1354,citingthe
ConstitutionofIndiana,U.S.A
2Ibid,closingparagraph.
3LearnedHand,TheSpiritofLiberty104(1960).
4Cardozo,TheGrowthoftheLaw,3(1924).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

9/10

7/14/2015

G.R.No.L63915

5Cf.Nunezv.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.5058150617,January30,1982,111SCRA433.
6Cf.Alalayanv.NationalPowerCorporation,L24396,July29,1968,24SCRA172.
Teehankee,J.:
1Peoplevs.deDios,G.R.No.11003,Aug.3l,1959,perthelateChiefJusticeParas.
2Notesinbracketssupplied.
3Respondents:comment,pp.1415.
Plana,J.:
*Seee.g.,WisconsinConstitution,Art.7,Sec.21:"Thelegislatureshallprovidepublicationofall
statutelaws...andnogenerallawshallbeinforceuntilpublished."SeealsoSateexrel.Whitevs.
GrandSuperiorCt.,71ALR1354,citingConstitutionofIndiana,U.S.A.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html

10/10