Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Taada vs.

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:

ISSUE: This is a motion for reconsideration of the


decision promulgated on April 24, 1985.
Whether or not publication in the Official Respondent argued that while publication
Gazette is required before any law or was necessary as a rule, it was not so when
statute becomes valid and enforceable. it was otherwise as when the decrees
themselves declared that they were to
HELD: become effective immediately upon their
approval.
Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude
the requirement of publication in the Official ISSUES:
Gazette, even if the law itself provides for
the date of its effectivity. The clear object of 1. Whether or not a distinction be made
this provision is to give the general public between laws of general applicability and
adequate notice of the various laws which laws which are not as to their publication;
are to regulate their actions and conduct as 2. Whether or not a publication shall be
citizens. Without such notice and made in publications of general circulation.
publication, there would be no basis for the
application of the maxim ignoratia legis HELD:
nominem excusat. It would be the height of
injustive to punish or otherwise burden a The clause unless it is otherwise provided
citizen for the transgression of a law which refers to the date of effectivity and not to the
he had no notice whatsoever, not even a requirement of publication itself, which
constructive one. cannot in any event be omitted. This clause
does not mean that the legislature may
The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 make the law effective immediately upon
approval, or in any other date, without its scabbarded saber that cannot faint, parry or
previous publication. cut unless the naked blade is drawn.

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
conducted a joint hearing on the matter.
Thereafter, notices were posted at the
G.R. No. 187378 : September 30, 2013 designated areas, including Capayas Island,
declaring the premises as government
RAMONITO O. ACAAC, PETAL property and prohibiting ingress and egress
FOUNDATION, INC., APOLINARIO M. thereto.
ELORDE, HECTOR ACAAC, and ROMEO
BULAWIN,Petitioners, v. MELQUIADES D. A Notice of Voluntary Demolition was served
AZCUNA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor, upon PETAL directing it to remove the
and MARIETES B. BONALOS, in her structures it built on Capayas Island.
capacity as Municipal Engineer and
Building Official-Designate, both of Petitioners filed an action praying for the
Lopez Jaena Municipality, Misamis issuance of a TRO, injunction and
Occidental, Respondents. damagesagainst respondents alleging that
they have prior vested rights to occupy and
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: utilize Capayas Island. Moreover, PETAL
assailed the validity of the subject ordinance
FACTS: on the following grounds : (a) it was adopted
without public consultation; (b) it was not
PETAL Foundation is a non-governmental published in a newspaper of general
organization, which is engaged in the circulation in the province as required by the
protection and conservation of ecology, Local Government Code (LGC); and (c) it
tourism, and livelihood projects within was not approved by the SP. Therefore, its
Misamis Occidental.PETAL built some implementation should be enjoined.
cottages on Capayas Island which it rented
out to the public and became the source of Respondents averred that petitioners have
livelihood of its beneficiaries,among whom no cause of action against them since they
are petitioners Hector Acaac and Romeo are not the lawful owners or lessees of
Bulawin. Capayas Island, which was classified as
timberland and property belonging to the
Respondents Mayor Azcuna and Building public domain.
Official Bonalos issued Notices of Illegal
Construction against PETAL for its failure to The RTC declared the ordinance as
apply for a building permit prior to the invalid/void.
construction of its buildings in violation of
the Building Code ordering it to stop all On appeal, the CA held that the subject
illegal building activities on Capayas Island. ordinance was deemed approved upon
On July 8, 2002 the Sangguniang Bayan of failure of the SP to declare the same invalid
Jaena Lopez adopted a Municipal within 30 days after its submission in
Ordinance which prohibited, among others : accordance with Section 56 of the LGC.
(a) the entry of any entity, association, Having enacted the subject ordinance within
corporation or organization inside the its powers as a municipality and in
sanctuaries;and (b) the construction of any accordance with the procedure prescribed
structures, permanent or temporary, on the by law, the CA pronounced that the subject
premises, except if authorized by the local ordinance is valid.
government.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject
On July 12, 2002, Azcuna approved the ordinance is valid and enforceable against
subject ordinance; hence, the same was petitioners.
submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Misamis Occidental (SP), which in turn, HELD: The decision of the Court of
Appeals is sustained. petitioners had the burden of proving their
own allegation, which they, however, failed
POLITICAL LAW presumption of validity to do.

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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen