11 Tanada Vs Tuvera

9/3/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME136
No. L63915. April 24, 1985.
LORENZO M. TAADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and

MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD,
INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI],
petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as
Executive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN
VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to
the President, MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, in his
capacity as Director, Malacaang Records Office, and
FLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau
of Printing, respondents.
_______________
*
EN BANC.
28
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taada vs. Tuvera
Mandamus Private individuals who seek to procure the

enforcement of a public duty (e.g. the publication in the Official
Gazette of Presidential Decrees, LOI, etc.) are real parties in
interest in mandamus case.The reasons given by the Court in
recognizing a private citizens legal personality in the
aforementioned case apply squarely to the present petition.
Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a
public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the
land. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding,
it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person to
initiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General, the
government officer generally empowered to represent the people,
has entered his appearance for respondents in this case.
Same Statutes Fact that a Presidential Decree or LOI states
its date of effectivity does not preclude their publication in the
Official Gazette as they constitute important legislative acts,
particularly in the present situation where the President may on
his own issue laws.The clear object of the abovequoted
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156f05d79a5077d6e36003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/24
9/3/2016
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.
Same Same Same.Perhaps at no time since the
establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of
laws taken so vital significance than at this time when the people
have bestowed upon the President a power heretofore enjoyed
solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the
mass media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan
Pambansaand for the diligent ones, ready access to the
legislative recordsno such publicity accompanies the law
making process of the President. Thus, without publication, the
people have no means of knowing what presidential decrees have
actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing
themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. As
the Supreme Court of Spain ruled: Bajo la denoroinacin
genrica de leyes, se comprenden tambin los reglamentos, Reales
decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordines dictadas de
conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su
potestad.
Same Same C.A. 638 imposes a duty for publication of
Presidential decrees and issuances as it uses the words shall be
29
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
29
Taada vs. Tuvera
published.The very first clause of Section 1 of Commonwealth

Act 638 reads: There shall be published in the Official Gazette x
x x. The word shall used therein imposes upon respondent
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 respondents with no discretion
whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from such
publication.
Same Same But administrative and executive orders and
those which affect only a particular class of persons need not be
published.The publication of all presidential issuances of a
2/24
9/3/2016
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 on
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.
Same Same Due Process Publication of Presidential decrees
and issuances of general application is a matter of due process.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.
Same Same Same Presidential Decrees and issuances of
general application which have not been published shall have no
force and effect.The Court therefore declares that presidential
issuances of general application, which have not been published,
shall have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quite
apprehensive about the possible unsettling effect this decision
might have on acts done in reliance of the validity of those
presidential decrees which were published only during the
pendency of this petition, have put the question as to whether the
Courts declaration of invalidity apply to P.D.s which had been
enforced or implemented prior to their publication. The answer is
all too familiar. In similar situations in the past this Court had
taken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot
County Drainage District vs. Baxter Bank.
30
30

Taada vs. Tuvera
Same Same Same Implementation of Presidential Decrees

prior to their publication in the Official Gazette may have
consequences which cannot be ignored.Similarly, the
implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their
publication in the Official Gazette is an operative fact which may
have consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past
cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration x x x that
an allinclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive
invalidity cannot be justified.
Same Same Same Only P.D. Nos. 1019 to 1030, 1278 and
1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been published. It is undisputed
3/24
9/3/2016
that none of them has been implemented.From the report

submitted to the Court by the Clerk of Court, it appears that of
the presidential decrees sought by petitioners to be published in
the Official Gazette, only Presidential Decrees Nos. 1019 to 1030,
inclusive. 1278, and 1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been so
published. Neither the subject matters nor the texts of these PDs
can be ascertained since no copies thereof are available. But
whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that none
of these unpublished PDs has ever been implemented or enforced
by the government.
FERNANDO, C.J., concurring with qualification:

Statutes Due Process I am unable to concur insofar as the
opinion written by Justice Escolin would unqualifiedly impose the
requirement of publication in the Official Gazette for unpublished
Presidential issuances to have a binding force and effect.It is of
course true that without the requisite publication, a due process
question would arise if made to apply adversely to a party who is
not even aware of the existence of any legislative or executive act
having the force and effect of law. My point is that such
publication required need not be confined to the Official Gazette.
From the pragmatic standpoint, there is an advantage to be
gained. It conduces to certainty. That is to be admitted. It does
not follow, however, that failure to do so would in all cases and
under all circumstances result in a statute, presidential decree or
any other executive act of the same category being bereft of any
binding force and effect. To so hold would, for me, raise a
constitutional question. Such a pronouncement would lend itself
to the interpretation that such a legislative or presidential act is
bereft of the attribute of effectivity unless published in the
Official Gazette. There is no such requirement in the Constitution
as Justice Plana so aptly pointed out. It is true that what is
decided now applies only to past presidential issuances.
31
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
31
Taada vs. Tuvera
Nonetheless, this clarification is, to my mind, needed to avoid any

possible misconception as to what is required for any statute or
presidential act to be impressed with binding force or effectivity.
Same Same The Civil Code rule on publication of statutes is
only a legislative enactment and does not and cannot have the
force of a constitutional command A later executive or legislative
4/24
9/3/2016
act can fix a different rule.Let me make clear therefore that my

qualified concurrence goes no further than to affirm that
publication is essential to the effectivity of a legislative or
executive act of a general application. I am not in agreement with
the view that such publication must be in the Official Gazette.
The Civil Code itself in its Article 2 expressly recognizes that the
rule as to laws taking effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette is subject to
this exception, unless it is otherwise provided. Moreover, the
Civil Code is itself only a legislative enactment, Republic Act No.
386. It does not and cannot have the juridical force of a
constitutional command. A later legislative or executive act which
has the force and effect of law can legally provide for a different
rule.
Same Same I am unable to agree that decrees not published
are devoid of any legal character.Nor can I agree with the
rather sweeping conclusion in the opinion of Justice Escolin that
presidential decrees and executive acts not thus previously
published in the Official Gazette would be devoid of any legal
character. That would be, in my opinion, to go too far. It may be
fraught, as earlier noted, with undesirable consequences. I find
myself therefore unable to yield assent to such a pronouncement.
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

Statutes Unless laws are published there will no basis for the
rule that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith.Without official publication in the Official Gazette as
required by Article 2 of the Civil Code and the Revised
Administrative Code, there would be no basis nor justification for
the corollary rule of Article 3 of the Civil Code (based on
constructive notice that the provisions of the law are
ascertainable from the public and official repository where they
are duly published) that Ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith.
32
32

Taada vs. Tuvera
Same Respondents theory that a Presidential Decree that

fixes its date of effectivity need not be published misreads Art. 2 of
the Civil Code.Respondents contention based on a misreading
of Article 2 of the Civil Code that only laws which are silent as to
their effectivity [date] need be published in the Official Gazette
for their effectivity is manifestly untenable. The plain text and
5/24
9/3/2016
meaning of the Civil Code is that laws shall take effect after
fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided, i.e. a different
effectivity date is provided by the law itself. This proviso perforce
refers to a law that has been duly published pursuant to the basic
constitutional requirements of due process. The best example of
this is the Civil Code itself: the same Article 2 provides otherwise
that it shall take effect [only] one year [not 15 days] after such
publication. To sustain respondents misreading that most laws
or decrees specify the date of their effectivity and for this reason,
publication in the Official Gazette is not necessary for their
effectivity would be to nullify and render nugatory the Civil
Codes indispensable and essential requirement of prior
publication in the Official Gazette by the simple expedient of
providing for immediate effectivity or an earlier effectivity date in
the law itself before the completion of 15 days following its
publication which is the period generally fixed by the Civil Code
for its proper dissemination.
MELENCIOHERRERA, J., concurring:

Statutes When a date of effectivity is mentioned in the Decree,
but becomes effective only 15 days after publication in the Gazette,
it will not mean that the Decree can have retroactive effect to the
expressed date of effectivity.I agree. There cannot be any
question but that even if a decree provides for a date of effectivity,
it has to be published. What I would like to state in connection
with that proposition is that when a date of effectivity is
mentioned in the decree but the decree becomes effective only
fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette, it will
not mean that the decree can have retroactive effect to the date of
effectivity mentioned in the decree itself. There should be no
retroactivity if the retroactivity will run counter to constitutional
rights or shall destroy vested rights.
PLANA, J., separate opinion:

Constitutional Law Statutes Due Process The Constitution
does not require prior publication for laws to be effective and while
33
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
33
Taada vs. Tuvera
6/24
9/3/2016
due process require prior notice, such notice is not necessarily

publication in the Official Gazette.The Philippine Constitution
does not require the publication of laws as a prerequisite for their
effectivity, unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. It may be said
though that the guarantee of due process requires notice of laws
to affected parties before they can be bound thereby but such
notice is not necessarily by publication in the Official Gazette.
The due process clause is not that precise. Neither is the
publication of laws in the Official Gazette required by any statute
as a prerequisite for their effectivity, if said laws already provide
for their effectivity date.
Same Same Same C.A. 638 does not require Official Gazette
publication of laws for their effectivity.Commonwealth Act No.
638, in my opinion, does not support the proposition that for their
effectivity, laws must be published in the Official Gazette. The
said law is simply An Act to Provide for the Uniform Publication
and Distribution of the Official Gazette. Conformably therewith,
it authorizes the publication of the Official Gazette, determines
its frequency, provides for its sale and distribution, and defines
the authority of the Director of Printing in relation thereto. It also
enumerates what shall be published in the Official Gazette,
among them, important legislative acts and resolutions of a
public nature of the Congress of the Philippines and all
executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except
such as have no general applicability. It is noteworthy that not
all legislative acts are required to be published in the Official
Gazette but only important ones of a public nature. Moreover,
the said law does not provide that publication in the Official
Gazette is essential for the effectivity of laws. This is as it should
be, for all statutes are equal and stand on the same footing. A law,
especially an earlier one of general application such as
Commonwealth Act No. 638, cannot nullify or restrict the
operation of a subsequent statute that has a provision of its own
as to when and how it will take effect. Only a higher law, which is
the Constitution, can assume that role.
PETITION to review the decision of the Executive

Assistant to the President.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
ESCOL1N, J.:
Invoking the peoples right to be informed on matters of
public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of
34
7/24
9/3/2016
34

Taada vs. Tuvera
1
the 1973 Philippine Constitution, as well as the principle

that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in
the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated,
petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent
public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in
the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters
of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive
orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders.
Specifically, the publication of the following presidential
issuances is sought:
a] Presidential Decrees Nos. 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, 1060
1061, 1085, 1143, 1165, 1166, 1242, 1246, 1250,
1278, 1279, 1300, 1644, 1772, 1808, 1810, 1813
1817, 18191826, 18291840, 18421847.
b] Letter of Instructions Nos.: 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, 248251, 253
261, 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, 837
839, 878879, 881, 882, 939940, 964, 997, 1149
1178, 11801278.
c] General Orders Nos.: 14, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64 &
65.
d] Proclamation Nos.: 1126, 1144, 1147, 1151, 1196,
1270, 1281, 13191526, 1529, 1532, 1535, 1538,
15401547, 15501558, 15611588, 15901595, 1594
1600, 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, 1839
8/24
9/3/2016
_______________
1
Section 6. The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized, access to official records, and to documents

and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be
afforded the citizens subject to such limitation as may be provided by law.
35
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
35
Taada vs. Tuvera
1840, 18431844, 18461847, 1849, 18531858, 1860,

1866, 1868, 1870, 18761889, 1892, 1900, 1918,
1923, 1933, 1952, 1963, 19651966, 19681984,
19862028, 20302044, 20462145, 21472161, 2163
2244.
e] Executive Orders Nos.: 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, 854
857.
f] Letters of Implementation Nos.: 7, 8, 9, 10, 1122,
2527, 39, 50, 51, 59, 76, 8081, 92, 94, 95, 107, 120,
122, 123.
g] Administrative Orders Nos.: 347, 348, 352354, 360
378, 380433, 436439.
The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would
have this case dismissed outright on the ground that
petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring
the instant petition. The view is submitted that in the
absence of any showing that petitioners are personally and
directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged 2 non
publication of the presidential issuances in question said
petitioners are without the requisite legal personality to
institute this mandamus proceeding, they are not being
aggrieved parties within the meaning of Section 3, Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, which we quote:
SEC. 3. Petition for Mandamus.When any tribunal,
corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another
from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
9/24
9/3/2016
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging

the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other
specified time, to do the act required to be done to protect the
rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the
petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant.
_______________
2
AntiChinese League vs. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012 Costas vs. Aldanese, 45
Phil. 345 Almario vs. City Mayor, 16 SCRA 151 Palting vs. San Jose
Petroleum, 18 SCRA 924 Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392.
36
36

Taada vs. Tuvera
Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the

subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object
is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not
show any specific interest for their petition to be given due
course.
The issue posed is not one of first impression. As 3early
as the 1910 case of Severino vs. Governor General, this
Court held that while the general rule is that a writ of
mandamus would be granted to a private individual only in
those cases where he has some private or particular
interest to be subserved, or some particular right to be
protected, independent of that which he holds with the
public at large, and it is for the public officers exclusively
to apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved
[Mithchell vs. Boardmen, 79 M.e., 469, nevertheless,
when the question is one of public right and the object of
the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public
duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest
and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are
instituted 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
[High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3rd ed., sec. 431].
Thus, in said case, this Court recognized the relator
Lope Severino, a private individual, as a proper party to
the mandamus proceedings brought to compel the
Governor General to call a special election for the position
of municipal president in the town of Silay, Negros
Occidental. Speaking for this Court, Mr. Justice Grant T.
Trent said:
10/24
9/3/2016
We are therefore of the opinion that the weight of authority

supports the proposition that the relator is a proper party to
proceedings of this character when a public right is sought to be
enforced. If the general rule in America were otherwise, we think
that it would not be applicable to the case at bar for the reason
that it is always dangerous to apply a general rule to a particular
case without keeping in mind the reason for the rule, because, if
under the particular circumstances the reason for the rule does
not exist, the rule itself is not applicable and reliance upon the
rule may well lead to error.
_______________
3
16 Phil. 366, 378.

37
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
37
Taada vs. Tuvera

No reason exists in the case at bar for applying the general rule
insisted upon by counsel for the respondent. The circumstances
which surround this case are different from those in the United
States, inasmuch as if the relator is not a proper party to these
proceedings no other person could be, as we have seen that it is
not the duty of the law officer of the Government to appear and
represent the people in cases of this character.
The reasons given by the Court in recognizing a private

citizens legal personality in the aforementioned case apply
squarely to the present petition. Clearly, the right sought
to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right
recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land.
If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding,
it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person
to initiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General,
the government officer generally empowered to represent
the people, has entered his appearance for respondents in
this case.
Respondents further contend that publication in the
Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the
effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for
their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that 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. The point stressed is anchored on Article 2 of
the Civil Code:
11/24
9/3/2016
Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided, x x x
The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with

this Courts
construction of said article. In a long line of
4
decisions, this Court has ruled that publication in the
Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the
legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date
for then the date of
_______________
4
Camacho vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 80 Phil. 848 Mejia vs.
Balolong, 81 Phil. 486 Republic of the Philippines vs. Encarnacion, 87

Phil. 843 Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. vs. Social Security System, 17
SCRA 1077 Askay vs. Cosalan, 46 Phil. 179.
38
38

Taada vs. Tuvera
publication is material for determining its date of

effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its
publicationbut not when the law itself provides for the
date when it goes into effect.
Respondents argument, however, is logically correct
only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws with the
fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes
applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily
reached that said Article 2 does not preclude the
requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if
the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. 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 tne
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. x x x
12/24
9/3/2016
The clear object of the abovequoted 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.
Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the
Philippine Republic has the publication of laws taken so
vital significance that at this time when the people have
bestowed upon the President a power heretofore enjoyed
solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast
by the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the
Batasan Pambansaand for
39
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
39
Taada vs. Tuvera
the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative records

no such publicity accompanies the lawmaking process of
the President. Thus, without publication, the people have
no means of knowing what presidential decrees have
actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of
informing themselves of the specific contents and texts of
such decrees. As the Supreme Court of Spain ruled: Bajo
la denominacin genrica de leyes, se comprenden tambin
los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares
y Reales ordines dietadas de conformidad
con las mismas
5
por el Gobierno en uso de su potestad.
The very first clause of Section 1 of Commonwealth Act
638 reads: There shall be published in the Official Gazette
x x x. The word shall used therein imposes upon
respondent 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 respondents with no discretion
whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from
such publication.
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
13/24
9/3/2016
impose a burden on 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
6
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. As Justice Claudio
_______________
5
1 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., p. 146.
People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 Balbuena et al. vs. Secretary of
Education, et al., 110 Phil. 150.

40
40

Taada vs. Tuvera
7
Teehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC :

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.
The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of

general application, which have not been published, shall
have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quite
apprehensive about the possible unsettling effect this
decision might have on acts done in reliance of the validity
of those presidential decrees which were published only
during the pendency of this petition, have put the question
as to whether the Courts declaration of invalidity apply to
P.D.s which had been enforced or implemented prior to
their publication. The answer is all too familiar. In similar
situations in the past this Court had taken the pragmatic
and realistic course set8 forth in Chicot County Drainage
District vs. Baxter Bank to wit:
The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of
Congress, having been found to be unconstitutional, was not a
14/24
9/3/2016
law that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing no

duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged decree.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 Chicago, I. & L. Ry.
Co. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566. It is quite clear, however, that
such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of
unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual
existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an
operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be
ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial
declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity
may have to be considered in various aspectswith respect to
particular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights
claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations
deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public
policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its
previous application, demand examination. These ques
_______________
7
82 SCRA 30, dissenting opinion.
308 U.S. 371, 374.
41
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
41
Taada vs. Tuvera
tions are among the most difficult of those which have engaged
the attention of courts, state and federal, and it is manifest from
numerous decisions that an allinclusive statement of a principle
of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.
Consistently9 with the above principle, this Court in Rutter

vs. Esteban sustained the right of a party under the
Moratorium Law, albeit said right had accrued in his favor
before said law was declared unconstitutional by this
Court.
Similarly,
the
implementation/enforcement
of
presidential decrees prior to their publication in the
Official Gazette is an operative fact which may have
consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past
cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration x x x
that an allinclusive statement of a principle of absolute
retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.
From the report submitted to the Court by the Clerk of
Court, it appears that of the presidential decrees sought by
petitioners to be published in the Official Gazette, only
Presidential Decrees Nos. 1019 to 1030, inclusive, 1278,
10
and 1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been so published.
15/24
9/3/2016
Neither the subject matters nor the texts of these PDs can
be ascertained since no copies thereof are available. But
whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that
none of these unpublished PDs has ever been implemented
11
or enforced by the government. In Pesigan vs. Angeles,
the Court, through Justice Ramon Aquino, ruled that
publication is necessary to apprise the public of the
contents of [penal] regulations and make the said penalties
binding on the persons affected thereby. The cogency of
this holding is apparently recognized by respondent
officials considering the manifestation in their comment
that the government, as a matter of policy, refrains
_______________
9
93 Phil. 68.
10
The report was prepared by the Clerk of Court after Acting Director
Florendo S. Pablo Jr. of the Government Printing Office, failed to respond

to her letterrequest regarding the respective dates of publication in the
Official Gazette of the presidential issuances listed therein. No report has
been submitted by the Clerk of Court as to the publication or non
publication of other presidential issuances.
11
129 SCRA 174.

42
42

Taada vs. Tuvera
from prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the same

shall have been published in the Official Gazette or in some
other publication, even though some criminal laws provide
that they shall take effect immediately.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby 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.
SO ORDERED.
Relova, J., concur.
Fernando, C.J., concurs in a separate opinion
expressing the view that without publication, a due process
question may arise but that such publication need not be in
the Official Gazette. To that extent he concurs with the
opinion of Justice Plana.
Teehankee, J., files a brief concurrence.
Makasiar, J., concurs in the opinion of Chief Justice
Fernando.
16/24
9/3/2016
Aquino, J., no part.

Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.
Abad Santos, J., I concur in the separate opinion of
the Chief Justice.
MelencioHerrera, J., see separate concurring
opinion.
Plana, J., see separate opinion.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., I concur insofar as publication is
necessary but reserve my vote as to the necessity of such
publication being in the Official Gazette.
De la Fuente, J., Insofar as the opinion declares the
unpublished decrees and issuances of a public nature or
general applicability ineffective, until due publication
thereof.
Cuevas, J., I concur in the opinion of the Chief
Justice and Justice Plana.
Alampay, J., I subscribe to the opinion of Chief
Justice Fernando and Justice Plana.
43
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
43
Taada vs. Tuvera
FERNANDO, C.J., concurring with qualification:

There is on the whole acceptance on my part of the views
expressed in the ably written opinion of Justice Escolin. I
am unable, however, to concur insofar as it would
unqualifiedly impose the requirement of publication in the
Official Gazette for unpublished presidential issuances to
have binding force and effect.
I shall explain why.
1. It is of course true that without the requisite
publication, a due process question would arise if
made to apply adversely to a party who is not even
aware of the existence of any legislative or
executive act having the force and effect of law. My
point is that such publication required need not be
confined to the Official Gazette. From the
pragmatic standpoint, there is an advantage to be
gained. It conduces to certainty. That is too be
admitted. It does not follow, however, that failure to
do so would in all cases and under all circumstances
result in a statute, presidential decree or any other
executive act of the same category being bereft of
any binding force and effect. To so hold would, for
17/24
9/3/2016
me, raise a constitutional question. Such a

pronouncement would lend itself to the
interpretation that such a legislative or presidential
act is bereft of the attribute of effectivity unless
published in the Official Gazette. There is no such
requirement in the Constitution as Justice Plana so
aptly pointed out. It is true that what is decided
now applies only to past presidential issuances.
Nonetheless, this clarification is, to my mind,
needed to avoid any possible misconception as to
what is required for any statute or presidential act
to be impressed with binding force or effectivity.
2. It is quite understandable then why I concur in the
separate opinion of Justice Plana. Its first
paragraph sets forth what to me is the
constitutional doctrine applicable to this case. Thus:
The Philippine Constitution does not require the
publication of laws as a prerequisite for their
effectivity, unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. It
may be said though that the guarantee of due
process requires notice of laws to affected parties
before they can be bound thereby but such
44
44

Taada vs. Tuvera
notice is not necessarily by publication in the

Official Gazette.
The due process clause is not that
1
precise. I am likewise in agreement with its
closing paragraph: In fine, I concur in the majority
decision to the extent that it requires notice before
laws become effective, for no person should be
bound by a law without notice. This is elementary
fairness. However, I beg to disagree insofar as it
holds that such notice
shall be by publication in the
2
Official Gazette.
3. It suffices, as was stated by Judge Learned Hand,
that law as the command of the government must
be ascertainable
in some form if it is to be enforced
3
at all. It would indeed be to reduce it to the level
of mere futility, as pointed out by Justice
Cardozo,
4
if it is unknown and unknowable. Publication, to
repeat, is thus essential. What I am not prepared to
subscribe to is the doctrine that it must be in the
Official Gazette. To be sure once published therein
18/24
9/3/2016
there is the ascertainable mode of determining the

exact date of its effectivity. Still for me that does
not dispose of the question of what is the jural effect
of past presidential decrees or executive acts not so
published. For prior thereto, it could be that parties
aware of their existence could have conducted
themselves in accordance with their provisions. If
no legal consequences could attach due to lack of
publication in the Official Gazette, then serious
problems could arise. Previous transactions based
on such Presidential Issuances could be open to
question. Matters deemed settled could still be
inquired into. I am not prepared to hold that such
an effect is contemplated by our decision. Where
such presidential decree or executive act is made
the basis of a criminal prosecution, then, of5 course,
its ex post facto character becomes evident. In civil
cases though, retroac
_______________
1
Separate Opinion of Justice Plana, first paragraph. He mentioned in
this connection Article 7, Sec. 21 of the Wisconsin Constitution and State

ex rel. White v. Grand Superior Ct., 71 ALR 1354, citing the Constitution
of Indiana, U.S.A.
2
Ibid, closing paragraph.
Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty 104 (1960).
Cardozo, The Growth of the Law, 3 (1924).
Cf. Nuez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 5058150617, January 30,
1982, 111 SCRA 433.

45
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
45
Taada vs. Tuvera
tivity as such is not conclusive on the due process

aspect There must still be a showing of
arbitrariness. Moreover, where the challenged
presidential decree or executive act was issued
under the police power, the nonimpairment clause
of the Constitution may not always be successfully
invoked. There must still be that process of
balancing to determine whether or 6not it could in
such a case be tainted by infirmity. In traditional
terminology, there could arise then a question of
unconstitutional application. That is as far as it
goes.
19/24
9/3/2016
4. Let me make therefore that my qualified

concurrence goes no further than to affirm that
publication is essential to the effectivity of a
legislative or executive act of a general application.
I am not in agreement with the view that such
publication must be in the Official Gazette. The
Civil Code itself in its Article 2 expressly recognizes
that the rule as to laws taking effect after fifteen
days following the completion of their publication in
the Official Gazette is subject to this exception,
unless it is otherwise provided. Moreover, the
Civil Code is itself only a legislative enactment,
Republic Act No. 386. It does not and cannot have
the juridical force of a constitutional command. A
later legislative or executive act which has the force
and effect of law can legally provide for a different
rule.
5. Nor can I agree with the rather sweeping
conclusion in the opinion of Justice Escolin that
presidential decrees and executive acts not thus
previously published in the Official Gazette would
be devoid of any legal character. That would be, in
my opinion, to go too far. It may be fraught, as
earlier noted, with undesirable consequences. I find
myself therefore unable to yield assent to such a
pronouncement.
I am authorized to state that Justices Makasiar, Abad
Santos, Cuevas, and Alampay concur in this separate
opinion.
_______________
6
Cf. Alalayan v. National Power Corporation, L24396, July 29, 1968,
24 SCRA 172.
46
46

Taada vs. Tuvera
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

I concur with the main opinion of Mr. Justice Escolin and
the concurring opinion of Mme. Justice Herrera. The Rule
of Law connotes a body of norms and laws published and
ascertainable and of equal application to all similarly
circumstanced and not subject to arbitrary change but only
20/24
9/3/2016
under certain set procedures. The Court has consistently

stressed that it is an elementary rule of fair play and
justice that a reasonable opportunity to be informed must
be afforded to the people who are commanded
to obey
1
before they can be punished for its violation, citing the
settled principle based on due process enunciated in earlier
cases that before the public is bound by its contents,
especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular
must first be published and the people officially and
specially informed of said contents and its penalties.
Without official publication in the Official Gazette as
required by Article 2 of the Civil Code and the Revised
Administrative Code, there would be no basis nor
justification for the corollary rule of Article 3 of the Civil
Code (based on constructive notice that the provisions of
the law are ascertainable from the public and official
repository where they are duly published) that Ignorance
of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Respondents contention based on a misreading of
Article 2 of the Civil Code that only laws which are silent
as to their effectivity [date] need be published in the
Official Gazette for their effectivity is manifestly
untenable. The plain text and meaning of the Civil Code is
that laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,
unless it is otherwise provided, i.e. a different effectivity
date is provided by the law itself. This proviso perforce
refers to a law that has been duly published pursuant to
the basic constitutional requirements of due process. The
best example of this is the Civil Code itself: the same
Article 2 provides otherwise that it shall take effect [only]
one
_______________
1
People vs. de Dios, G.R. No. 11003, Aug. 31, 1959, per the late Chief
Justice Paras.
47
VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985
47
Taada vs. Tuvera

2
year [not 15 days] after such publication. To sustain

respondents misreading that most laws or decrees specify
the date of their effectivity and for this reason, publication3
in the Official Gazette is not necessary for their effectivity
would be to nullify and render nugatory the Civil Codes
21/24
9/3/2016
indispensable and essential requirement of prior

publication in the Official Gazette by the simple expedient
of providing for immediate effectivity or an earlier
effectivity date in the law itself before the completion of 15
days following its publication which is the period generally
fixed by the Civil Code for its proper dissemination.
MELENCIOHERRERA, J., concurring:
I agree. There cannot be any question but that even if a
decree provides for a date of effectivity, it has to be
published. What I would like to state in connection with
that proposition is that when a date of effectivity is
mentioned in the decree but the decree becomes effective
only fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official
Gazette, it will not mean that the decree can have
retroactive effect to the date of effectivity mentioned in the
decree itself. There should be no retroactivity if the
retroactivity will run counter to constitutional rights or
shall destroy vested rights.
SEPARATE OPINION
PLANA, J.:
The Philippine Constitution does not require the
publication of laws as a prerequisite for
their effectivity,
**
unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. It may be said
though that the guarantee of due process requires notice of
laws to affected op
_______________
2
Notes in brackets supplied.
Respondents comment, pp. 1415.
**
See e.g., Wisconsin Constitution. Art. 7, Sec. 21: The legislature
shall provide publication of all statute laws . . . and no general law shall
be in force until published. See also State ex rel. White vs. Grand
Superior Ct., 71 ALR 1354, citing the Constitution of Indiana, U.S.A.
48
48

Taada vs. Tuvera
parties before they can be bound thereby but such notice is

not necessarily by publication in the Official Gazette. The
22/24
9/3/2016
due process clause is not that precise. Neither is the

publication of laws in the Official Gazette required by any
statute as a prerequisite for their effectivity, if said laws
already provide for their effectivity date.
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall take
effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided. Two things may be said of this provision: Firstly,
it obviously does not apply to a law with a builtin
provision as to when it will take effect. Secondly, it clearly
recognizes that each law may provide not only a different
period for reckoning its effectivity date but also a different
mode of notice. Thus, a law may prescribe that it shall be
published elsewhere than in the Official Gazette.
Commonwealth Act No. 638, in my opinion, does not
support the proposition that for their effectivity, laws must
be published in the Official Gazette. The said law is simply
An Act to Provide for the Uniform Publication and
Distribution of the Official Gazette. Conformably
therewith, it authorizes the publication of the Official
Gazette, determines its frequency, provides for its sale and
distribution, and defines the authority of the Director of
Printing in relation thereto. It also enumerates what shall
be published in the Official Gazette, among them,
important legislative acts and resolutions of a public
nature of the Congress of the Philippines and all
executive and administrative orders and proclamations,
except such as have no general applicability. It is
noteworthy that not all legislative acts are required to be
published in the Official Gazette but only important ones
of a public nature. Moreover, the said law does not
provide that publication in the Official Gazette is essential
for the effectivity of laws. This is as it should be, for all
statutes are equal and stand on the same footing. A law,
especially an earlier one of general application such as
Commonwealth Act No. 638, cannot nullify or restrict the
operation of a subsequent statute that has a provision of its
own as to when and how it will take effect. Only a higher
law, which is the Constitution, can assume that role.
49
VOL. 136, APRIL 25, 1985
49
In Re: Milagros Santia
In fine, I concur in the majority decision to the extent that

it requires notice before laws become effective, for no
person should be bound by a law without notice. This is
23/24
9/3/2016
elementary fairness. However, I beg to disagree insofar as

it holds that such notice shall be by publication in the
Official Gazette.
Respondents ordered to publish all unpublished
presidential issuances in the Official Gazette.
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
24/24

11 Tanada Vs Tuvera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Tanada Vs Tuvera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Tanada Vs Tuvera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/3/2016

No. L63915. April 24, 1985.

LORENZO M. TAADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mandamus Private individuals who seek to procure the

provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the

VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985

Taada vs. Tuvera

published.The very first clause of Section 1 of Commonwealth

public nature or of general applicability is mandated by law.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same Same Same Implementation of Presidential Decrees

that none of them has been implemented.From the report

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring with qualification:

VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985

Taada vs. Tuvera

Nonetheless, this clarification is, to my mind, needed to avoid any

act can fix a different rule.Let me make clear therefore that my

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same Respondents theory that a Presidential Decree that

MELENCIOHERRERA, J., concurring:

PLANA, J., separate opinion:

VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985

Taada vs. Tuvera

due process require prior notice, such notice is not necessarily

PETITION to review the decision of the Executive

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the 1973 Philippine Constitution, as well as the principle

Section 6. The right of the people to information on matters of public

concern shall be recognized, access to official records, and to documents

VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985

Taada vs. Tuvera

1840, 18431844, 18461847, 1849, 18531858, 1860,

thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging

AntiChinese League vs. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012 Costas vs. Aldanese, 45

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the

We are therefore of the opinion that the weight of authority

16 Phil. 366, 378.

VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985

Taada vs. Tuvera

The reasons given by the Court in recognizing a private

The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with

Camacho vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 80 Phil. 848 Mejia vs.

Balolong, 81 Phil. 486 Republic of the Philippines vs. Encarnacion, 87

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

publication is material for determining its date of

The clear object of the abovequoted provision is to give the

VOL. 136, APRIL 24, 1985

Taada vs. Tuvera

the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative records

impose a burden on the people, such as tax and revenue

1 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., p. 146.

Education, et al., 110 Phil. 150.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Teehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC :

The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of

law that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing no