Tañada vs.

Tuvera
No. L-63915 April 24, 1985 Escolin
Petitioners Respondents
Lorenzo M. Tañada et. al Hon. Juan C. Tuvera
RECIT-READY:
See facts of the case.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case is about the effectivity clause of laws. Petitioners invoke their right to
be informed on matters of public interest; they seek a writ of mandamus in order to
compel respondentspublic officials to publish in the Official Gazette various
presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, letter of implementation
and administrative orders.

ISSUES: Ruling
1. W/N unpublished issuances of general application are not binding? Yes

RULING/RATIONALE:
Respondentspublic officials contend that publication in the Official Gazette is
not a requirement for the effectivity of laws. This applies when the laws already
provide for their own effectivity dates. They argue that since the presidential
issuances in question contain special provisions indicating its date of effectivity,
publication in the Gazette is unnecessary. To justify this position, they used article 2
of the Civil Code.

Court response:

1. Respondent’s argument is correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws

with publication. SC ruled that publication in the Gazette is necessary when
legislation doesn’t provide for its effectivity date (in cases like this, effectivity is on
the fifteenth day after publication). However, the court pointed that article 2 doesn’t
close the requirement of publication to the Gazette even if it already provided a
date of effectivity. The reason for this is to give the public adequate notice of the
laws that will regulate their action and conduct. The absence of notice and
publication makes the maxim “ignorantia legis non excusat” not applicable.
Moreover, it is an injustice to render punishment or burden to the public when they
weren’t informed about it in the first place. Without publication, they have no means
to know what presidential decrees have been promulgated or has taken effect.
They are also left clueless of what it is about.

2. The first clause of Commonwealth Act 638 provides: “there shall be published in
the Official Gazette…” Shall is used to impose on officials the duty to publish. This
is needed to realize the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters
of public concern. The law also provides a list of what can be placed in the Official
Gazette hence respondents are not given discretion as to what must be included in
the Gazette.

3. Publication of all presidential issuances that are “of public nature” or “of general

By: Capili, Eddielene R.

applicability” is mandated by law. This is a requirement of due process. It is a rule
of law that before persons may be bound by law, they must first be informed of its
content. Otherwise, these laws have no force or effect. Under this category are
Presidential Decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures, or penalties for violation or
imposes a burden on the people. On the other hand, issuances that apply only to
particular personsi.e. administrative and executive orders, need not be published
because they are only to be circularized on the people concerned.

LAWS, STATUTES, CODES INVOLVED:

Effectivity clause of laws
DISPOSITION:
From the report submitted in Court, it appears that only Presidential Decree nos.
1019 to 1030, 1278, 1937-1939 have not been published. The Court favors the
petitioners. It ordered respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished
presidential issuances that are of general application. Unless they are published,
they have no binding force and effect.
DICTA RELATING TO DOCTRINE:

SEPARATE RULINGS:

CASES CITED IN CASE:

By: Capili, Eddielene R.