Tañada v.

Tuvera
Justice Escolin
GR No. L-63915 – April 24, 1985
Review of decision of Executive Assistant to the President
FACTS:
• Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish in the
Official Gazette various
o presidential decrees
o letters of instructions
o general orders
o proclamations
o executive orders
o letters of implementation and
o administrative orders
• This is by virtue of Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, which
recognizes people's right to be informed on matters of public concern and the principle that
laws must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated in
order to be valid and enforceable.
• Respondents, through the Solicitor General, argued that petitioners have no legal
personality to bring the instant petition since they were not “aggrieved parties” as found in
Sec. 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
• Petitioners contend that their petition concerns a public right and compels the performance
of a public duty. Thus, showing a specific interest is not necessary.
• Invoking Art. 2 of the Civil Code, respondents argue that:
o it is not an essential condition (sine qua non) to publish laws in the Official Gazette
in order for them to be effective if the laws themselves have their own effectivity
dates.
o since the presidential issuances contain special provisions on the date of their
effectivity, publication in the Official Gazette is unnecessary.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N petitioners have legal standing to bring the instant petition.
2. W/N publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid
and enforceable.
HELD:
1. Yes
o Severino vs. Governor General (1910):
- When the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to compel
the performance of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in
interest.
- The private individual as party to the mandamus proceedings need not show that he
has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a
citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws.
2. Yes
o In the case at bar, the interpretation given by respondents of Art.2 of the Civil Code is
 logically correct only in so far as it equates the effectivity of laws with the fact of
publication.
o However, even when laws provide their date of effectivity, Art 2. does not preclude
publication in the Official Gazette.
o The publication of all presidential issuances of a public nature is mandated by law. Section
1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides:
“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;
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.”
o Publication is indispensable since it provides the public with adequate notice of the law.
Without it, there would be no basis for the application of “ignorantia legis non excusat”
(ignorance of law excuses no one)

Ruling:
Petition granted, Court orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished
presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no
binding force and effect.