Tanada vs Tuvera

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/apr1985/gr_l63915_1985.html 1/10

TodayisFriday,June13,2014

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L63915April24,1985

LORENZOM.TAADA,ABRAHAMF.SARMIENTO,andMOVEMENTOFATTORNEYSFORBROTHERHOOD,INTEGRITYANDNATIONALISM,INC.[MABINI],petitioners,vs.HON.JUANC.TUVERA,inhiscapacityasExecutiveAssistanttothePresident,HON.JOAQUINVENUS,inhiscapacityasDeputyExecutiveAssistanttothePresident,MELQUIADESP.DELACRUZ,inhiscapacityasDirector,MalacaangRecordsOffice,andFLORENDOS.PABLO,inhiscapacityasDirector,BureauofPrinting,respondents.

ESCOLIN,J.:

Invokingthepeople'srighttobeinformedonmattersofpublicconcern,arightrecognizedinSection6,ArticleIVofthe1973PhilippineConstitution,1aswellastheprinciplethat lawstobevalidandenforceablemustbepublishedintheOfficialGazetteorotherwiseeffectivelypromulgated,petitionersseekawritofmandamustocompelrespondentpublicofficials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters ofinstructions,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, 312315,325,327,343,346,349,357,358,362,367,370,382,385,386,396397,405,438440,444445,473,486,488,498,501,399,527,561,576,587,594,599,600,602,609,610,611,612,615,641,642,665,702,712713,726,837839,878879,881,882,939940,964,997,11491178,11801278.

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, 16941695, 16971701, 17051723, 17311734, 17371742, 1744, 17461751, 1752, 1754,1762, 17641787, 17891795, 1797, 1800, 18021804, 18061807, 18121814, 1816, 18251826,1829, 18311832, 18351836, 18391840, 18431844, 18461847, 1849, 18531858, 1860, 1866,1868,1870,18761889,1892,1900,1918,1923,1933,1952,1963,19651966,19681984,19862028,20302044,20462145,21472161,21632244.

e]ExecutiveOrdersNos.:411,413,414,427,429454,457471,474492,494507,509510,522,524528,531532,536,538,543544,549,551553,560,563,567568,570,574,593,594,598604,609,611647,649677,679703,705707,712786,788852,854857.

f]Lettersof ImplementationNos.:7,8,9,10,1122,2527,39,50,51,59,76,8081,92,94,95,107,120,122,123.

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915


g]AdministrativeOrdersNos.:347,348,352354,360378,380433,436439.

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the ground thatpetitionershaveno legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition.The view is submitted that in theabsenceof any showing that petitioners are personally anddirectly affectedor prejudicedby the allegednonpublication of the presidential issuances in question 2 said petitioners are without the requisite legal personality toinstitutethismandamusproceeding,theyarenotbeing"aggrievedparties"withinthemeaningofSection3,Rule65oftheRulesofCourt,whichwequote:

SEC. 3. Petition for Mandamus.When any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfullyneglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from anoffice,trust,orstation,orunlawfullyexcludesanotherfromtheuseardenjoymentofarightorofficeto which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in theordinarycourseof law,thepersonaggrievedtherebymayfileaverifiedpetition inthepropercourtallegingthefactswithcertaintyandprayingthatjudgmentberenderedcommandingthedefendant,immediatelyoratsomeotherspecifiedtime,todotheactrequiredtobedonetoProtecttherightsofthepetitioner,andtopaythedamagessustainedbythepetitionerbyreasonofthewrongfulactsofthedefendant.

Upon the other hand, petitionersmaintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and itsobjectistocompeltheperformanceofapublicduty,theyneednotshowanyspecificinterestfortheirpetitiontobegivenduecourse.

Theissueposedisnotoneoffirstimpression.Asearlyasthe1910caseofSeverinovs.GovernorGeneral,3 thisCourtheldthatwhilethegeneralruleisthat"awritofmandamuswouldbegrantedtoaprivateindividualonlyinthosecaseswherehehassomeprivateorparticular interest tobesubserved,orsomeparticular right tobeprotected, independentofthatwhichheholdswith thepublicat large,"and "it is for thepublicofficersexclusively toapply for thewritwhenpublicrightsaretobesubserved[Mithchellvs.Boardmen,79M.e.,469],"nevertheless,"whenthequestionisoneofpublicrightandtheobjectofthemandamusistoprocuretheenforcementofapublicduty,thepeopleareregardedastherealpartyininterestand the relatoratwhose instigation theproceedingsare institutedneednotshow thathehasany legalorspecialinterestintheresult,itbeingsufficienttoshowthatheisacitizenandassuchinterestedintheexecutionofthelaws[High,ExtraordinaryLegalRemedies,3rded.,sec.431].

Thus,insaidcase,thisCourtrecognizedtherelatorLopeSeverino,aprivateindividual,asaproperpartytothemandamus proceedings brought to compel theGovernor General to call a special election for the position ofmunicipalpresident in the townofSilay,NegrosOccidental.Speaking for thisCourt,Mr.JusticeGrantT.Trentsaid:

Wearethereforeoftheopinionthattheweightofauthoritysupportsthepropositionthattherelatorisaproperparty toproceedingsof thischaracterwhenapublic right issought tobeenforced. If thegeneralruleinAmericawereotherwise,wethinkthatitwouldnotbeapplicabletothecaseatbarforthereason'thatitisalwaysdangeroustoapplyageneralruletoaparticularcasewithoutkeepinginmindthereasonfor therule,because, ifundertheparticularcircumstancesthereasonfor theruledoesnotexist,theruleitselfisnotapplicableandrelianceupontherulemaywellleadtoerror'

No reasonexists in the caseat bar for applying thegeneral rule insisteduponby counsel for therespondent. The circumstances which surround this case are different from those in the UnitedStates, inasmuchas if therelator isnotaproperpartytotheseproceedingsnootherpersoncouldbe, as we have seen that it is not the duty of the law officer of the Government to appear andrepresentthepeopleincasesofthischaracter.

The reasons given by theCourt in recognizing a private citizen's legal personality in the aforementioned caseapply squarely to thepresentpetition.Clearly, the right sought tobeenforcedbypetitionersherein isapublicrightrecognizedbyno lessthanthefundamental lawof the land. Ifpetitionerswerenotallowedto institutethisproceeding,itwouldindeedbedifficulttoconceiveofanyotherpersontoinitiatethesame,consideringthattheSolicitor General, the government officer generally empowered to represent the people, has entered hisappearanceforrespondentsinthiscase.

Respondents further contend that publication in theOfficialGazette is not a sine qua non requirement for theeffectivityoflawswherethelawsthemselvesprovidefortheirowneffectivitydates.Itisthussubmittedthatsincethepresidentialissuancesinquestioncontainspecialprovisionsastothedatetheyaretotakeeffect,publicationintheOfficialGazetteisnotindispensablefortheireffectivity.ThepointstressedisanchoredonArticle2oftheCivilCode:

Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in theOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided,...

TheinterpretationgivenbyrespondentisinaccordwiththisCourt'sconstructionofsaidarticle.Inalonglineof

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915


decisions,4 thisCourthasruled thatpublication in theOfficialGazette isnecessary in thosecaseswhere the legislationitselfdoesnotprovideforitseffectivitydateforthenthedateofpublicationismaterialfordeterminingitsdateofeffectivity,whichisthefifteenthdayfollowingitspublicationbutnotwhenthelawitselfprovidesforthedatewhenitgoesintoeffect.

Respondents'argument,however,islogicallycorrectonlyinsofarasitequatestheeffectivityoflawswiththefactofpublication.Considered in the lightofotherstatutesapplicable to the issueathand, theconclusion iseasilyreachedthatsaidArticle2doesnotprecludetherequirementofpublicationintheOfficialGazette,evenifthelawitselfprovidesforthedateofitseffectivity.Thus,Section1ofCommonwealthAct638providesasfollows:

Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all important legisiative acts andresolutionsofapublicnatureofthe,CongressofthePhilippines[2]allexecutiveandadministrativeordersandproclamations,exceptsuchashavenogeneralapplicability[3]decisionsorabstractsofdecisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts ofsufficient importance to be so published [4] such documents or classes of documents asmay berequired so to be published by law and [5] such documents or classes of documents as thePresidentofthePhilippinesshalldeterminefromtimetotimetohavegeneralapplicabilityandlegaleffect,orwhichhemayauthorizesotobepublished....

Theclearobjectoftheabovequotedprovisionistogivethegeneralpublicadequatenoticeofthevariouslawswhicharetoregulatetheiractionsandconductascitizens.Withoutsuchnoticeandpublication,therewouldbenobasisfortheapplicationofthemaxim"ignorantialegisnonexcusat."Itwouldbetheheightofinjusticetopunishorotherwiseburdenacitizen for the transgressionofa lawofwhichhehadnonoticewhatsoever,notevenaconstructiveone.

Perhapsatno timesince theestablishmentof thePhilippineRepublichas thepublicationof laws takensovitalsignificance that at this timewhen the people have bestowed upon thePresident a power heretofore enjoyedsolelybythelegislature.Whilethepeoplearekeptabreastbythemassmediaofthedebatesanddeliberationsinthe Batasan Pambansaand for the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative recordsno such publicityaccompanies the lawmakingprocessof thePresident.Thus,withoutpublication, thepeoplehavenomeansofknowing what presidential decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informingthemselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees.As theSupremeCourt ofSpain ruled: "Bajo ladenominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones,CircularesyRealesordinesdictadasdeconformidadconlasmismasporelGobiernoenusodesupotestad.5

The very first clause of Section I of Commonwealth Act 638 reads: "There shall be published in the OfficialGazette...."Theword"shall"usedthereinimposesuponrespondentofficialsanimperativeduty.Thatdutymustbeenforced if theConstitutional rightof thepeople tobe informedonmattersofpublicconcern is tobegivensubstanceandreality.ThelawitselfmakesalistofwhatshouldbepublishedintheOfficialGazette.Suchlisting,to ourmind, leaves respondentswith no discretionwhatsoever as towhatmust be included or excluded fromsuchpublication.

Thepublicationofallpresidential issuances"ofapublicnature"or"ofgeneralapplicability" ismandatedbylaw.Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwiseimposeaburdenor.thepeople,suchastaxandrevenuemeasures,fallwithinthiscategory.Otherpresidentialissuanceswhichapplyonlytoparticularpersonsorclassofpersonssuchasadministrativeandexecutiveordersneednotbepublishedontheassumptionthattheyhavebeencircularizedtoallconcerned.6

Itisneedlesstoaddthatthepublicationofpresidentialissuances"ofapublicnature"or"ofgeneralapplicability"isarequirementofdueprocess. It isaruleof lawthatbeforeapersonmaybeboundby law,hemust firstbeofficiallyandspecificallyinformedofitscontents.AsJusticeClaudioTeehankeesaidinPeraltavs.COMELEC7:

Inatimeofproliferatingdecrees,ordersand lettersof instructionswhichall formpartof the lawofthe land, therequirementofdueprocessand theRuleofLawdemandthat theOfficialGazetteastheofficialgovernmentrepositorypromulgateandpublish thetextsofallsuchdecrees,ordersandinstructionssothatthepeoplemayknowwheretoobtaintheirofficialandspecificcontents.

TheCourtthereforedeclaresthatpresidential issuancesofgeneralapplication,whichhavenotbeenpublished,shall have no force and effect. Somemembers of theCourt, quite apprehensive about the possible unsettlingeffect thisdecisionmighthaveonactsdone in relianceof thevalidityof thosepresidentialdecreeswhichwerepublishedonlyduringthependencyofthispetition,haveputthequestionastowhethertheCourt'sdeclarationofinvalidityapplytoP.D.swhichhadbeenenforcedorimplementedpriortotheirpublication.Theanswerisalltoofamiliar.InsimilarsituationsinthepastthisCourthadtakenthepragmaticandrealisticcoursesetforthinChicotCountyDrainageDistrictvs.BaxterBank8towit:

ThecourtsbelowhaveproceededonthetheorythattheActofCongress,havingbeenfoundtobeunconstitutional,wasnotalawthatitwasinoperative,conferringnorightsandimposingnoduties,andhenceaffordingnobasisforthechallengeddecree.Nortonv.ShelbyCounty,118U.S.425,442

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915


Chicago,1.&L.Ry.Co.v.Hackett,228U.S.559,566. It isquiteclear,however, thatsuchbroadstatementsastotheeffectofadeterminationofunconstitutionalitymustbetakenwithqualifications.Theactualexistenceofastatute,prior tosuchadetermination, isanoperative factandmayhaveconsequenceswhichcannot justlybe ignored.Thepastcannotalwaysbeerasedbyanewjudicialdeclaration.Theeffectofthesubsequentrulingastoinvaliditymayhavetobeconsideredinvariousaspectswith respect toparticular conduct, privateandofficial.Questionsof rights claimed tohavebecome vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted uponaccordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previousapplication,demandexamination.Thesequestionsareamongthemostdifficultofthosewhichhaveengagedtheattentionofcourts,stateandfederalanditismanifestfromnumerousdecisionsthatanallinclusivestatementofaprincipleofabsoluteretroactiveinvaliditycannotbejustified.

Consistently with the above principle, this Court inRutter vs. Esteban 9 sustained the right of a party under theMoratoriumLaw,albeitsaidrighthadaccruedinhisfavorbeforesaidlawwasdeclaredunconstitutionalbythisCourt.

Similarly,theimplementation/enforcementofpresidentialdecreespriortotheirpublicationintheOfficialGazetteis"anoperativefactwhichmayhaveconsequenceswhichcannotbejustly ignored.Thepastcannotalwaysbeerased by a new judicial declaration ... that an allinclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactiveinvaliditycannotbejustified."

FromthereportsubmittedtotheCourtbytheClerkofCourt,itappearsthatofthepresidentialdecreessoughtbypetitionerstobepublishedintheOfficialGazette,onlyPresidentialDecreesNos.1019to1030,inclusive,1278,and1937to1939, inclusive,havenotbeensopublished.10Neither thesubjectmattersnor the textsof thesePDscanbeascertainedsincenocopies thereofareavailable.Butwhatever their subjectmattermaybe, it isundisputed thatnoneoftheseunpublishedPDshaseverbeenimplementedorenforcedbythegovernment.InPesiganvs.Angeles,11 theCourt, throughJusticeRamonAquino, ruled that "publication isnecessary toapprise thepublicof thecontentsof [penal]regulationsandmakethesaidpenaltiesbindingonthepersonsaffectedthereby."Thecogencyofthisholdingisapparentlyrecognized by respondent officials considering the manifestation in their comment that "the government, as a matter ofpolicy,refrainsfromprosecutingviolationsofcriminallawsuntilthesameshallhavebeenpublishedintheOfficialGazetteorinsomeotherpublication,eventhoughsomecriminallawsprovidethattheyshalltakeeffectimmediately.

WHEREFORE,theCourtherebyordersrespondentstopublishintheOfficialGazetteallunpublishedpresidentialissuanceswhichareofgeneralapplication,andunlesssopublished,theyshallhavenobindingforceandeffect.

SOORDERED.

Relova,J.,concurs.

Aquino,J.,tooknopart.

Concepcion,Jr.,J.,isonleave.

SeparateOpinions

FERNANDO,C.J.,concurring(withqualification):

ThereisonthewholeacceptanceonmypartoftheviewsexpressedintheablywrittenopinionofJusticeEscolin.I amunable, however, to concur insofar as itwould unqualifiedly impose the requirement of publication in theOfficialGazetteforunpublished"presidentialissuances"tohavebindingforceandeffect.

Ishallexplainwhy.

1.It isofcoursetruethatwithouttherequisitepublication,adueprocessquestionwouldariseifmadetoapplyadversely toapartywho isnotevenawareof theexistenceofany legislativeorexecutiveacthaving the forceandeffectoflaw.MypointisthatsuchpublicationrequiredneednotbeconfinedtotheOfficialGazette.Fromthepragmatic standpoint, there is anadvantage to begained. It conduces to certainty.That is toobeadmitted. Itdoesnotfollow,however,thatfailuretodosowouldinallcasesandunderallcircumstancesresultinastatute,presidentialdecreeoranyotherexecutiveactofthesamecategorybeingbereftofanybindingforceandeffect.To so hold would, for me, raise a constitutional question. Such a pronouncement would lend itself to theinterpretationthatsuchalegislativeorpresidentialactisbereftoftheattributeofeffectivityunlesspublishedintheOfficialGazette.ThereisnosuchrequirementintheConstitutionasJusticePlanasoaptlypointedout.Itistruethat what is decided now applies only to past "presidential issuances". Nonetheless, this clarification is, tomy

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915


mind,neededtoavoidanypossiblemisconceptionastowhatisrequiredforanystatuteorpresidentialacttobeimpressedwithbindingforceoreffectivity.

2. It isquiteunderstandable thenwhyIconcur in theseparateopinionofJusticePlana. Its firstparagraphsetsforthwhattomeistheconstitutionaldoctrineapplicabletothiscase.Thus:"ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnotrequirethepublicationof lawsasaprerequisitefor theireffectivity,unlikesomeConstitutionselsewhere. ItmaybesaidthoughthattheguaranteeofdueprocessrequiresnoticeoflawstoaffectedPartiesbeforetheycanbeboundtherebybutsuchnoticeisnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclauseisnotthatprecise.1Iam likewise inagreementwith itsclosingparagraph:"In fine, Iconcur in themajoritydecision to theextent that it requiresnoticebefore lawsbecomeeffective, fornopersonshouldbeboundbya lawwithoutnotice.This iselementary fairness.However, Ibeg todisagree insofaras it holds that suchnoticeshallbebypublication in theOfficialGazette.2

4.Letmemakethereforethatmyqualifiedconcurrencegoesnofurtherthantoaffirmthatpublicationisessentialtotheeffectivityofalegislativeorexecutiveactofageneralapplication.IamnotinagreementwiththeviewthatsuchpublicationmustbeintheOfficialGazette.TheCivilCodeitselfinitsArticle2expresslyrecognizesthattheruleastolawstakingeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazetteissubject to this exception, "unless it is otherwise provided." Moreover, the Civil Code is itself only a legislativeenactment,RepublicActNo.386.Itdoesnotandcannothavethejuridicalforceofaconstitutionalcommand.Alaterlegislativeorexecutiveactwhichhastheforceandeffectoflawcanlegallyprovideforadifferentrule.

5.NorcanIagreewiththerathersweepingconclusionintheopinionofJusticeEscolinthatpresidentialdecreesandexecutiveactsnot thuspreviouslypublished in theOfficialGazettewouldbedevoidofany legalcharacter.Thatwouldbe,inmyopinion,togotoofar.Itmaybefraught,asearliernoted,withundesirableconsequences.Ifindmyselfthereforeunabletoyieldassenttosuchapronouncement.

I am authorized to state that Justices Makasiar, Abad Santos, Cuevas, and Alampay concur in this separateopinion.

Makasiar,AbadSantos,CuevasandAlampay,JJ.,concur.

TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:

I concurwith themainopinionofMr. JusticeEscolinand theconcurringopinionofMme.JusticeHerrera.TheRule of Law connotes a body of norms and laws published and ascertainable and of equal application to allsimilarlycircumstancesandnotsubjecttoarbitrarychangebutonlyundercertainsetprocedures.TheCourthasconsistently stressed that "it is an elementary rule of fair play and justice that a reasonable opportunity to beinformed must be afforded to the people who are commanded to obey before they can be punished for itsviolation,1citingthesettledprinciplebasedondueprocessenunciatedinearliercasesthat"beforethepublicisboundbyitscontents,especiallyitspenalprovisions,alaw,regulationorcircularmustfirstbepublishedandthepeopleofficiallyandspeciallyinformedofsaidcontentsanditspenalties.

Without official publication in the Official Gazette as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code and the RevisedAdministrativeCode, therewouldbenobasisnor justification for thecorollaryruleofArticle3of theCivilCode(based on constructive notice that the provisions of the law are ascertainable from the public and officialrepositorywheretheyaredulypublished)that"Ignoranceofthelawexcusesnoonefromcompliancetherewith.

Respondents'contentionbasedonamisreadingofArticle2oftheCivilCodethat"onlylawswhicharesilentastotheireffectivity [date]needbepublished in theOfficialGazette for theireffectivity" ismanifestlyuntenable.TheplaintextandmeaningoftheCivilCodeisthat"lawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided,"i.e.adifferenteffectivitydateisprovidedby the law itself. This proviso perforce refers to a law that has been duly published pursuant to the basicconstitutional requirementsofdueprocess.Thebestexampleof this is theCivilCode itself: thesameArticle2provides otherwise that it "shall take effect [only] one year [not 15 days] after such publication. 2 To sustainrespondents'misreadingthat"mostlawsordecreesspecifythedateoftheireffectivityandforthisreason,publicationintheOfficialGazetteisnotnecessaryfortheireffectivity3wouldbetonullifyandrendernugatorytheCivilCode'sindispensableand essential requirement of prior publication in the Official Gazette by the simple expedient of providing for immediateeffectivityoranearliereffectivitydateinthelawitselfbeforethecompletionof15daysfollowingitspublicationwhichistheperiodgenerallyfixedbytheCivilCodeforitsproperdissemination.

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.,concurring:

I agree.There cannotbeanyquestionbut that even if adecreeprovides for adateof effectivity, it has tobepublished. What I would like to state in connection with that proposition is that when a date of effectivity is

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915


mentionedinthedecreebutthedecreebecomeseffectiveonlyfifteen(15)daysafteritspublicationintheOfficialGazette, itwill notmean that thedecree canhave retroactiveeffect to thedateof effectivitymentioned in thedecree itself.There shouldbeno retroactivity if the retroactivitywill run counter to constitutional rightsor shalldestroyvestedrights.

PLANA,J.,concurring(withqualification):

ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnot require thepublicationof lawsasaprerequisite for their effectivity, unlikesomeConstitutionselsewhere.*Itmaybesaidthoughthattheguaranteeofdueprocessrequiresnoticeoflawstoaffectedpartiesbeforetheycanbeboundtherebybutsuchnotice isnotnecessarilybypublication in theOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclause isnot thatprecise.Neither is thepublicationoflawsintheOfficialGazetterequiredbyanystatuteasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,ifsaidlawsalreadyprovidefortheireffectivitydate.

Article2oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat"lawsshall takeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublication in theOfficial Gazette,unless it is otherwise provided " Two things may be said of this provision:Firstly,itobviouslydoesnotapplytoalawwithabuiltinprovisionastowhenitwilltakeeffect.Secondly,itclearlyrecognizes that each law may provide not only a different period for reckoning its effectivity date but also adifferent mode of notice. Thus, a law may prescribe that it shall be published elsewhere than in the OfficialGazette.

CommonwealthActNo.638,inmyopinion,doesnotsupportthepropositionthatfortheireffectivity,lawsmustbepublished in the Official Gazette. The said law is simply "An Act to Provide for the Uniform Publication andDistributionof theOfficialGazette."Conformably therewith, it authorizes thepublicationof theOfficialGazette,determinesitsfrequency,providesforitssaleanddistribution,anddefinestheauthorityoftheDirectorofPrintingin relation thereto. It also enumerateswhat shall be published in theOfficialGazette, among them, "importantlegislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines" and "all executive andadministrativeordersandproclamations,exceptsuchashavenogeneralapplicability."ItisnoteworthythatnotalllegislativeactsarerequiredtobepublishedintheOfficialGazettebutonly"important"ones"ofapublicnature."Moreover, thesaid lawdoesnotprovide thatpublication in theOfficialGazette isessential for theeffectivityoflaws.Thisisasitshouldbe,forallstatutesareequalandstandonthesamefooting.Alaw,especiallyanearlierone of general application such as Commonwealth Act No. 638, cannot nullify or restrict the operation of asubsequentstatutethathasaprovisionofitsownastowhenandhowitwilltakeeffect.Onlyahigherlaw,whichistheConstitution,canassumethatrole.

Infine,Iconcurinthemajoritydecisiontotheextentthatitrequiresnoticebeforelawsbecomeeffective,fornopersonshouldbeboundbyalawwithoutnotice.Thisiselementaryfairness.However,IbegtodisagreeinsofarasitholdsthatsuchnoticeshallbebypublicationintheOfficialGazette.

CuevasandAlampay,JJ.,concur.

GUTIERREZ,Jr.,J.,concurring:

IconcurinsofaraspublicationisnecessarybutreservemyvoteastothenecessityofsuchpublicationbeingintheOfficialGazette.

DELAFUENTE,J.,concurring:

I concur insofar as the opinion declares the unpublished decrees and issuances of a public nature or generalapplicabilityineffective,untilduepublicationthereof.

SeparateOpinions

FERNANDO,C.J.,concurring(withqualification):

ThereisonthewholeacceptanceonmypartoftheviewsexpressedintheablywrittenopinionofJusticeEscolin.Iamunable,however,toconcurinsofarasitwouldunqualifiedlyimposetherequirementofpublicationintheOfficialGazetteforunpublished"presidentialissuances"tohavebindingforceandeffect.

Ishallexplainwhy.

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915


1.Itisofcoursetruethatwithouttherequisitepublication,adueprocessquestionwouldariseifmadetoapplyadverselytoapartywhoisnotevenawareoftheexistenceofanylegislativeorexecutiveacthavingtheforceandeffectoflaw.MypointisthatsuchpublicationrequiredneednotbeconfinedtotheOfficialGazette.Fromthepragmaticstandpoint,thereisanadvantagetobegained.Itconducestocertainty.Thatistoobeadmitted.Itdoesnotfollow,however,thatfailuretodosowouldinallcasesandunderallcircumstancesresultinastatute,presidentialdecreeoranyotherexecutiveactofthesamecategorybeingbereftofanybindingforceandeffect.Tosoholdwould,forme,raiseaconstitutionalquestion.SuchapronouncementwouldlenditselftotheinterpretationthatsuchalegislativeorpresidentialactisbereftoftheattributeofeffectivityunlesspublishedintheOfficialGazette.ThereisnosuchrequirementintheConstitutionasJusticePlanasoaptlypointedout.Itistruethatwhatisdecidednowappliesonlytopast"presidentialissuances".Nonetheless,thisclarificationis,tomymind,neededtoavoidanypossiblemisconceptionastowhatisrequiredforanystatuteorpresidentialacttobeimpressedwithbindingforceoreffectivity.

2.ItisquiteunderstandablethenwhyIconcurintheseparateopinionofJusticePlana.Itsfirstparagraphsetsforthwhattomeistheconstitutionaldoctrineapplicabletothiscase.Thus:"ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnotrequirethepublicationoflawsasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,unlikesomeConstitutionselsewhere.ItmaybesaidthoughthattheguaranteeofdueprocessrequiresnoticeoflawstoaffectedPartiesbeforetheycanbeboundtherebybutsuchnoticeisnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclauseisnotthatprecise.1Iamlikewiseinagreementwithitsclosingparagraph:"Infine,Iconcurinthemajoritydecisiontotheextentthatitrequiresnoticebeforelawsbecomeeffective,fornopersonshouldbeboundbyalawwithoutnotice.Thisiselementaryfairness.However,IbegtodisagreeinsofarasitholdsthatsuchnoticeshallbebypublicationintheOfficialGazette.2

4.Letmemakethereforethatmyqualifiedconcurrencegoesnofurtherthantoaffirmthatpublicationisessentialtotheeffectivityofalegislativeorexecutiveactofageneralapplication.IamnotinagreementwiththeviewthatsuchpublicationmustbeintheOfficialGazette.TheCivilCodeitselfinitsArticle2expresslyrecognizesthattheruleastolawstakingeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazetteissubjecttothisexception,"unlessitisotherwiseprovided."Moreover,theCivilCodeisitselfonlyalegislativeenactment,RepublicActNo.386.Itdoesnotandcannothavethejuridicalforceofaconstitutionalcommand.Alaterlegislativeorexecutiveactwhichhastheforceandeffectoflawcanlegallyprovideforadifferentrule.

5.NorcanIagreewiththerathersweepingconclusionintheopinionofJusticeEscolinthatpresidentialdecreesandexecutiveactsnotthuspreviouslypublishedintheOfficialGazettewouldbedevoidofanylegalcharacter.Thatwouldbe,inmyopinion,togotoofar.Itmaybefraught,asearliernoted,withundesirableconsequences.Ifindmyselfthereforeunabletoyieldassenttosuchapronouncement.

IamauthorizedtostatethatJusticesMakasiar,AbadSantos,Cuevas,andAlampayconcurinthisseparateopinion.

Makasiar,AbadSantos,CuevasandAlampay,JJ.,concur.

TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:

IconcurwiththemainopinionofMr.JusticeEscolinandtheconcurringopinionofMme.JusticeHerrera.TheRuleofLawconnotesabodyofnormsandlawspublishedandascertainableandofequalapplicationtoallsimilarlycircumstancesandnotsubjecttoarbitrarychangebutonlyundercertainsetprocedures.TheCourthasconsistentlystressedthat"itisanelementaryruleoffairplayandjusticethatareasonableopportunitytobeinformedmustbeaffordedtothepeoplewhoarecommandedtoobeybeforetheycanbepunishedforitsviolation,1citingthesettledprinciplebasedondueprocessenunciatedinearliercasesthat"beforethepublicisboundbyitscontents,especiallyitspenalprovisions,alaw,regulationorcircularmustfirstbepublishedandthepeopleofficiallyandspeciallyinformedofsaidcontentsanditspenalties.

WithoutofficialpublicationintheOfficialGazetteasrequiredbyArticle2oftheCivilCodeandtheRevisedAdministrativeCode,therewouldbenobasisnorjustificationforthecorollaryruleofArticle3oftheCivilCode(basedonconstructivenoticethattheprovisionsofthelawareascertainablefromthepublicandofficialrepositorywheretheyaredulypublished)that"Ignoranceofthelawexcusesnoonefromcompliancetherewith.

Respondents'contentionbasedonamisreadingofArticle2oftheCivilCodethat"onlylawswhicharesilentastotheireffectivity[date]needbepublishedintheOfficialGazettefortheireffectivity"ismanifestlyuntenable.TheplaintextandmeaningoftheCivilCodeisthat"lawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided,"i.e.adifferenteffectivitydateisprovidedbythelawitself.Thisprovisoperforcereferstoalawthathasbeendulypublishedpursuanttothebasicconstitutionalrequirementsofdueprocess.ThebestexampleofthisistheCivilCodeitself:thesameArticle2providesotherwisethatit"shalltakeeffect[only]oneyear[not15days]aftersuchpublication.2Tosustainrespondents'misreadingthat"mostlawsordecreesspecifythedateoftheireffectivityandforthisreason,publicationinthe

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915


OfficialGazetteisnotnecessaryfortheireffectivity3wouldbetonullifyandrendernugatorytheCivilCode'sindispensableandessentialrequirementofpriorpublicationintheOfficialGazettebythesimpleexpedientofprovidingforimmediateeffectivityoranearliereffectivitydateinthelawitselfbeforethecompletionof15daysfollowingitspublicationwhichistheperiodgenerallyfixedbytheCivilCodeforitsproperdissemination.

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.,concurring:

Iagree.Therecannotbeanyquestionbutthatevenifadecreeprovidesforadateofeffectivity,ithastobepublished.WhatIwouldliketostateinconnectionwiththatpropositionisthatwhenadateofeffectivityismentionedinthedecreebutthedecreebecomeseffectiveonlyfifteen(15)daysafteritspublicationintheOfficialGazette,itwillnotmeanthatthedecreecanhaveretroactiveeffecttothedateofeffectivitymentionedinthedecreeitself.Thereshouldbenoretroactivityiftheretroactivitywillruncountertoconstitutionalrightsorshalldestroyvestedrights.

PLANA,J.,concurring(withqualification):

ThePhilippineConstitutiondoesnotrequirethepublicationoflawsasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,unlikesomeConstitutionselsewhere.*ItmaybesaidthoughthattheguaranteeofdueprocessrequiresnoticeoflawstoaffectedpartiesbeforetheycanbeboundtherebybutsuchnoticeisnotnecessarilybypublicationintheOfficialGazette.Thedueprocessclauseisnotthatprecise.NeitheristhepublicationoflawsintheOfficialGazetterequiredbyanystatuteasaprerequisitefortheireffectivity,ifsaidlawsalreadyprovidefortheireffectivitydate.

Article2oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat"lawsshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingthecompletionoftheirpublicationintheOfficialGazette,unlessitisotherwiseprovided"Twothingsmaybesaidofthisprovision:Firstly,itobviouslydoesnotapplytoalawwithabuiltinprovisionastowhenitwilltakeeffect.Secondly,itclearlyrecognizesthateachlawmayprovidenotonlyadifferentperiodforreckoningitseffectivitydatebutalsoadifferentmodeofnotice.Thus,alawmayprescribethatitshallbepublishedelsewherethanintheOfficialGazette.

CommonwealthActNo.638,inmyopinion,doesnotsupportthepropositionthatfortheireffectivity,lawsmustbepublishedintheOfficialGazette.Thesaidlawissimply"AnActtoProvidefortheUniformPublicationandDistributionoftheOfficialGazette."Conformablytherewith,itauthorizesthepublicationoftheOfficialGazette,determinesitsfrequency,providesforitssaleanddistribution,anddefinestheauthorityoftheDirectorofPrintinginrelationthereto.ItalsoenumerateswhatshallbepublishedintheOfficialGazette,amongthem,"importantlegislativeactsandresolutionsofapublicnatureoftheCongressofthePhilippines"and"allexecutiveandadministrativeordersandproclamations,exceptsuchashavenogeneralapplicability."ItisnoteworthythatnotalllegislativeactsarerequiredtobepublishedintheOfficialGazettebutonly"important"ones"ofapublicnature."Moreover,thesaidlawdoesnotprovidethatpublicationintheOfficialGazetteisessentialfortheeffectivityoflaws.Thisisasitshouldbe,forallstatutesareequalandstandonthesamefooting.Alaw,especiallyanearlieroneofgeneralapplicationsuchasCommonwealthActNo.638,cannotnullifyorrestricttheoperationofasubsequentstatutethathasaprovisionofitsownastowhenandhowitwilltakeeffect.Onlyahigherlaw,whichistheConstitution,canassumethatrole.

Infine,Iconcurinthemajoritydecisiontotheextentthatitrequiresnoticebeforelawsbecomeeffective,fornopersonshouldbeboundbyalawwithoutnotice.Thisiselementaryfairness.However,IbegtodisagreeinsofarasitholdsthatsuchnoticeshallbebypublicationintheOfficialGazette.

CuevasandAlampay,JJ.,concur.

GUTIERREZ,Jr.,J.,concurring:

IconcurinsofaraspublicationisnecessarybutreservemyvoteastothenecessityofsuchpublicationbeingintheOfficialGazette.

DELAFUENTE,J.,concurring:

Iconcurinsofarastheopiniondeclarestheunpublisheddecreesandissuancesofapublicnatureorgeneralapplicabilityineffective,untilduepublicationthereof.

Footnotes

1Section6.Therightofthepeopletoinformationonmattersofpublicconcernshagberecognized,

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915


accesstoofficialrecords,andtodocumentsandpaperspertainingtoofficialacts,transactions,ordecisions,shagbeaffordedthecitizenssubjecttosuchlimitationasmaybeprovidedbylaw.

2AntiChineseLeaguevs.Felix,77Phil.1012Costasvs.Aidanese,45Phil.345Almariovs.CityMayor,16SCRA151Partingvs.SanJosePetroleum,18SCRA924Dumlaovs.Comelec,95SCRA392.

316Phil.366,378.

4Camachovs.CourtofIndustrialRelations,80Phil848Mejiavs.Balolong,81Phil.486RepublicofthePhilippinesvs.Encamacion,87Phil.843PhilippineBloomingMills,Inc.vs.SocialSecuritySystem,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.oftheGovernmentPrintingOffice,failedtorespondtoherletterrequestregardingtherespectivedatesofpublicationintheOfficialGazetteofthepresidentialissuanceslistedtherein.NoreporthasbeensubmittedbytheClerkofCourtastothepublicationornonpublicationofotherpresidentialissuances.

11129SCRA174.

Fernando,CJ.:

1SeparateOpinionofJusticePlana,firstparagraph.HementionedintillsconnectionArticle7,Sec.21oftheWisconsinConstitutionandStateexrel.Whitev.GrandSuperiorCt.,71ALR1354,citingtheConstitutionofIndiana,U.S.A

2Ibid,closingparagraph.

3LearnedHand,TheSpiritofLiberty104(1960).

4Cardozo,TheGrowthoftheLaw,3(1924).

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:"Thelegislatureshallprovidepublicationofallstatutelaws...andnogenerallawshallbeinforceuntilpublished."SeealsoSateexrel.Whitevs.GrandSuperiorCt.,71ALR1354,citingConstitutionofIndiana,U.S.A.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

3.Itsuffices,aswasstatedbyJudgeLearnedHand,thatlawasthecommandofthegovernment"mustbeascertainableinsomeformifit

istobeenforcedatall.3Itwouldindeedbetoreduceittothelevelofmerefutility,aspointedoutbyJusticeCardozo,"ifitisunknownandunknowable.4Publication,torepeat,isthusessential.WhatIamnotpreparedtosubscribetoisthedoctrinethatitmustbeintheOfficialGazette.Tobesureoncepublishedthereinthereistheascertainablemodeofdeterminingtheexactdateofitseffectivity.Stillformethatdoesnotdisposeofthequestionofwhatisthejuraleffectofpastpresidential

6/13/2014 G.R. No. L-63915


decreesorexecutiveactsnotsopublished.Forpriorthereto,itcouldbethatpartiesawareoftheirexistencecouldhaveconductedthemselvesinaccordancewiththeirprovisions.IfnolegalconsequencescouldattachduetolackofpublicationintheOfficialGazette,thenseriousproblemscouldarise.Previoustransactionsbasedonsuch"PresidentialIssuances"couldbeopentoquestion.Mattersdeemedsettledcouldstillbeinquiredinto.Iamnotpreparedtoholdthatsuchaneffectiscontemplatedbyourdecision.Wheresuchpresidentialdecreeorexecutiveactismadethebasisofacriminalprosecution,then,ofcourse,itsexpostfactocharacterbecomesevident.5Incivilcasesthough,retroactivityassuchisnotconclusiveonthedueprocessaspect.Theremuststillbeashowingofarbitrariness.Moreover,wherethechallengedpresidentialdecreeorexecutiveactwasissuedunderthepolicepower,thenonimpairmentclauseoftheConstitutionmaynotalwaysbesuccessfullyinvoked.Theremuststillbethatprocessofbalancingtodeterminewhetherornotitcouldinsuchacasebetaintedbyinfirmity.6Intraditionalterminology,therecouldarisethenaquestionofunconstitutionalapplication.Thatisasfarasitgoes.

3. It suffices,aswasstatedbyJudgeLearnedHand, that lawas thecommandof thegovernment"mustbeascertainableinsomeformifitistobeenforcedatall.3Itwouldindeedbetoreduceittothelevelofmerefutility,aspointedoutbyJusticeCardozo,"ifitisunknownandunknowable.4Publication,torepeat,isthusessential.What Iamnotprepared tosubscribe to is thedoctrine that itmustbe in theOfficialGazette.Tobesureoncepublishedthereinthereistheascertainablemodeofdeterminingtheexactdateofitseffectivity.Stillformethatdoesnotdisposeofthequestionofwhat is the juraleffectofpastpresidentialdecreesorexecutiveactsnotsopublished.Forprior thereto, itcouldbe thatpartiesawareof theirexistencecouldhaveconducted themselves inaccordancewith theirprovisions. Ifnolegal consequences could attach due to lack of publication in the Official Gazette, then serious problems could arise.Previoustransactionsbasedonsuch"PresidentialIssuances"couldbeopentoquestion.Mattersdeemedsettledcouldstillbe inquired into. I amnot prepared to hold that such an effect is contemplated by our decision.Where such presidentialdecreeorexecutiveact ismadethebasisofacriminalprosecution, then,ofcourse, itsexpost factocharacterbecomesevident.5 Incivil cases though, retroactivityassuch isnot conclusiveon thedueprocessaspect.Theremust still beashowingofarbitrariness.Moreover,where thechallengedpresidentialdecreeorexecutiveactwas issuedunder thepolicepower, the nonimpairment clause of the Constitution may not always be successfully invoked. There must still be thatprocessofbalancingtodeterminewhetherornotitcouldinsuchacasebetaintedbyinfirmity.6In traditional terminology,therecouldarisethenaquestionofunconstitutionalapplication.Thatisasfarasitgoes.

Documents

Tanada vs Tuvera