Tañada vs Tuvera Case Digest

Tañada vs Tuvera Case Digest – G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985

Tañada vs Tuvera Case Digest


ESCOLIN, J.:

Facts

The petitioners filed for a writ of mandamus. This is to compel respondents to publish various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementations, and administrative orders.

The case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition through the Solicitor General.

The respondent shows that petitioners are personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances.

On 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 public duty, they need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due course.

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.

ISSUE

Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid and enforceable.

RULING

The Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances. Unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect.

Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity.

The clear object of this provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws. which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignoratia legis nominem excusat.

The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the Official Gazette….

The word “shall” therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced. It is the constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern.


Tañada vs Tuvera Case Digest

Chi Ming Tsoi v Gina Lao – Case Digest

Total
2
Shares
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts