Preliminaries
LORENZO M. TANADA v. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA
G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985, ESCOLIN, J.
The requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the
date of its effectivity cannot be dispensed with.
Facts:
Tanada seeks for the issuance of writ of mandamus to compel public officials to publish or
cause to be published in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of
instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and
administrative orders because it involves public interest. Tuvera dismissed the case outright
because Tanada has no legal personality to file petition for mandamus since he is not an
aggrieved party which what the law requires that only a person who is personally and directly
affected by non-publication of laws would have the personality to file such. Tuvera further
contends that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for
effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates and since
the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to
take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their
effectivity.
Issue:
Whether or not the requirement of publication can be dispensed with.
Ruling:
No. The requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law
itself provides for the date of its effectivity cannot be dispensed with.
Thus, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as follows:
Section 1.There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all important
legislative 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 required
so to be published by law; and [5] such documents or classes of documents as the
President of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general
applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be published.
The word "shall" used therein imposes upon public 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 substance and reality. The law itself makes a
list of what should be published in the Official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind,
leaves public officials with no discretion whatsoever as to what must be included or
excluded from such publication.
The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the general public
adequate 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 the
application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of
injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of
which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general
applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for
fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or the
people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other
presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such
as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that
they have been circularized to all concerned. It is needless to add that the
publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability"
is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound
by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.
In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letters of instructions which all
form part of the law of the 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 instructions so that the people
may know where to obtain their official and specific contents.
LORENZO M. TANADA ET AL v. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA
G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986, CRUZ, J.
The clause "unless it is otherwise provided" under Article 2 of the Civil Code
refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which
cannot in any event be omitted.
Facts:
Tanada requested for publication of presidential decrees for public purposes.
The government argued that while publication is necessary as a ruled, it is not so
when it is "otherwise provided," as when the decrees themselves declared that they
were to become effective immediately upon their approval.
Issue:
Whether or not the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date
of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself
Ruling:
Yes. Article 2 of the Civil Code states that laws shall take effect after fifteen
days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication.
After a careful study of this provision, SC have come to the conclusion and so
hold, that the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity
and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be
3|Page
Persons and Family Relations Law
omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective
immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication.
Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its
discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. It
is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed
with altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as
it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern the
legislature could validly provide that a law e effective immediately upon its approval
notwithstanding the lack of publication (or after an unreasonably short period after
publication), it is not unlikely that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as a
result and they would be so not because of a failure to comply with but simply
because they did not know of its existence, Significantly, this is not true only of penal
laws as is commonly supposed. One can think of many non-penal measures, like a
law on prescription, which must also be communicated to the persons they may
affect before they can begin to operate.
SC holds therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and
private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin
fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the
legislature.
PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT and SERVICES CORPORATION v. THE
HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, VIVENCIO DE MESA,
RODRIGO MIKIN and CEDRIC LEYSON
G.R. No. 103144, April 4, 2001, GONZAGA-REYES, J.
All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be
published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after
publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by
this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President
in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the
legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution: Administrative rules
and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement
existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those
merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative
agency and the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the
so-called letter of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning the
rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their
duties
Facts:
Philsa International Placement and Services Corporation is a domestic
corporation engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment. It
recruited private respondents for employment in Saudi and made to pay placement
fees. However when the private reached the Saudi they were made to sign contracts
resulting to some reduction of their benefits but they refused to do sp. Due to their
refusal they, were terminated and repatriated back in the Philippines. Thereafter, the
filed a complaint of illegal exaction against Philsa which the Secretary of Labor found
it guilty of such for collecting fees beyond the prescribed by law. Philsa insists
however, that it cannot be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum
4|Page
Persons and Family Relations Law
Circular No. 11, Series of 1983, which enumerated the allowable fees which may be
collected from applicants, is void for lack of publication.
Issue:
Whether or not Philsa is guilty of illegal exaction despite the fact that the
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 11, Series of 1983 was not published.
Ruling:
No. In Tañada vs. Tuvera, the Court held, as follows: that all statutes, including
those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their
effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different
effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders
promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the
same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the
Constitution: Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only
the personnel of the administrative agency and the public, need not be published.
Neither is publication required of the so-called letter of instructions issued by the
administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their duties."
Applying this doctrine, SC ruled that the abovementioned Memorandum shall
be ineffective since it lacks publication which makes Philsa not liable for illegal
exaction.
UNCIANO PARAMEDICAL COLLEGE INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 100335, April 7, 1993, NOCON, J.
It is a settled rule that when a doctrine of the Supreme Court is overruled and
a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively, and
should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith
thereof.
Facts:
Elena Villegas and Ted Magallanes were students of Unciano Paramedical
College Inc. After their first term, they were no longer allowed to enroll due to
allegedly being members of National Union of Students of the Philippines and League
of Filipinos Officers which they organized despite the prohibition to organize such.
Unciano cited the ruling in Alcuaz which was promulgated on 1988 that when a
college student registered in a school, it is understood that he is only enrolling for the
entire semester. Thus it also refuted the argument of Villegas and Magallanes that
since in a more recent case of Ariel Non, et al. vs. Hon. Sancho Dames promulgated
in 1990 (185 SCRA 523), the Supreme Court, abandoned and overruled its decision in
Alcuaz since it was promulgated later when the contract has already been
terminated. Thus, it cannot apply retroactively.