This case concerns a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel public officials to publish various presidential decrees, orders, and proclamations in the Official Gazette.
The court ruled that (1) the petitioners have legal standing since the case involves a matter of public right, and (2) laws and other issuances must be published in order to be effective and enforceable, as publication provides citizens with adequate notice of the laws regulating their actions and conduct. The court noted that Commonwealth Act 638 mandates publication of various government acts, orders, and decisions in the Official Gazette to inform the public.
This case concerns a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel public officials to publish various presidential decrees, orders, and proclamations in the Official Gazette.
The court ruled that (1) the petitioners have legal standing since the case involves a matter of public right, and (2) laws and other issuances must be published in order to be effective and enforceable, as publication provides citizens with adequate notice of the laws regulating their actions and conduct. The court noted that Commonwealth Act 638 mandates publication of various government acts, orders, and decisions in the Official Gazette to inform the public.
Original Description:
Tanada vs. Tuvera G.R. No. L-63915; April 24, 1985
This case concerns a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel public officials to publish various presidential decrees, orders, and proclamations in the Official Gazette.
The court ruled that (1) the petitioners have legal standing since the case involves a matter of public right, and (2) laws and other issuances must be published in order to be effective and enforceable, as publication provides citizens with adequate notice of the laws regulating their actions and conduct. The court noted that Commonwealth Act 638 mandates publication of various government acts, orders, and decisions in the Official Gazette to inform the public.
This case concerns a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel public officials to publish various presidential decrees, orders, and proclamations in the Official Gazette.
The court ruled that (1) the petitioners have legal standing since the case involves a matter of public right, and (2) laws and other issuances must be published in order to be effective and enforceable, as publication provides citizens with adequate notice of the laws regulating their actions and conduct. The court noted that Commonwealth Act 638 mandates publication of various government acts, orders, and decisions in the Official Gazette to inform the public.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
TAADA v.
TUVERA G.R. No. L-63915;
APRIL 24, 1985
FACTS: Invoking the peoples right to be informed on matters of public concern, [a
right recognized in Sec. 6, Article IV of the 1973 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. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have the case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition; However, petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel performance of a public duty, they need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due course. Respondents further content that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine que 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 provision as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is dispensable for their effectivity, stressing the phrase in Article 2 of the civil code unless otherwise provided1. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not petitioners have legal standing; (2) Whether or not laws, statutes and other issuances need to be publish in order to be effective; RULING: (1) Yes. Petitioners have legal standing. Citing the case of Severino v. Governor General, the court held that 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 1 Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication on the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided
interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws. (2) Yes. The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with the Courts construction of said article. In a long line of decisions, this court held that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those case where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication-but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. However, respondents argument is logically correct 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, 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. [Citing Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] All important legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the Philippines; [2] all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be so published; [4] such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law; 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] The clear object of the above 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 which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
The word shall in the abovementioned provision 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 list provided in the provision 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 (also a requirement of due process). 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.
