Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, reads: there shall be published in the Official
1985) 146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986) Gazette. The word shall therein imposes
upon respondent officials an imperative
TAADA VS. TUVERA duty. That duty must be enforced if the
constitutional right of the people to be
136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985) informed on matter of public concern is to
be given substance and validity.
FACTS:
The publication of presidential issuances of
Invoking the right of the people to be public nature or of general applicability is a
informed on matters of public concern as requirement of due process. It is a rule of
well as the principle that laws to be valid law that before a person may be bound by
and enforceable must be published in the law, he must first be officially and
Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of specifically informed of its contents. The
mandamus to compel respondent public Court declared that presidential issuances
officials to publish and/or cause to publish of general application which have not been
various presidential decrees, letters of published have no force and effect.
instructions, general orders, proclamations,
executive orders, letters of implementations
and administrative orders.
TAADA VS. TUVERA
The Solicitor General, representing the
respondents, moved for the dismissal of the 146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
case, contending that petitioners have no
legal personality to bring the instant petition. FACTS:
J. Cruz:
Section 56 (d) of the LGC provides : If no In the similar case of Figuerres v. CA, 364
action has been taken by the Sangguniang Phil. 683(1999) citing United States v.
Panlalawigan within thirty (30) days after Cristobal, 34 Phil. 825 (1916), the Court
submission of such an ordinance or upheld the presumptive validity of the
resolution, the same shall be presumed ordinance therein despite the lack of
consistent with law and therefore valid. controverting evidence on the part of the
local government to show that public
It is noteworthy that petitioner's own hearings were conducted in light of : (a) the
evidence reveals that a public hearing oppositors equal lack of controverting
was conducted prior to the promulgation of evidence to demonstrate the local
the subject ordinance. Moreover, other than governments non-compliance with the said
their bare allegations, petitioners failed to public hearing; and (b) the fact that the local
present any evidence to show that no governments non-compliance was a
publication or posting of the subject negative allegation essential to the
ordinance was made. oppositors cause of action. Hence, as
petitioner is the party asserting it, she has
While it is true that he likewise failed to the burden of proof. Since petitioner failed
submit any other evidence thereon, still, in to rebut the presumption of validity in favor
accordance with the presumption of validity of the subject ordinances and to discharge
in favor of an ordinance, its constitutionality the burden of proving that no public
or legality should be upheld in the absence hearings were conducted prior to the
of any controverting evidence that the enactment thereof, we are constrained to
procedure prescribed by law was not uphold their constitutionality or legality.
observed in its enactment. Likewise, The Petition is denied.