What is the Principle that “Ignorance of the Law Excuses No One”?

PHILIPPINE LAW TODAY

Imagine how problematic our legal system would be if it were possible for any person to relieve themselves from

punishment or liability by claiming that they are not aware about a law they have broken.

Thus, Art. 3 of the Civil Code prevents this possibility through the following rule:
Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.Art. 3, Civil Code.

This presumption in Philippine law is based on convenience, public policy and necessity. It is derived from the Latin

maxim “ignorantia legis neminem excusat.”

However, this rule only refers to the existence of a law, not to mistakes regarding its application or

interpretation.

In other words, every person in Philippine jurisdiction is presumed to know that a law regarding a particular

conduct exists, even though in reality, he has not read or even heard about the the law before. If a person violates

a law, even though in truth he does not know that such law exists, such ignorance of its existence is not a valid

legal defense and will not excuse him from the legal consequences of the law’s violation. However, if a person

made a mistake borne out of a difficult question of law as to its interpretation or application, such ignorance

constitutes an excuse and is a valid legal defense.

References:

 Civil Law Reviewer by Desiderio P. Jurado

"Ignorance of the Law"

Article three (3) of the Civil Code of the Philippines is very clear that " Ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith."

What does this mean? From decisions of the Supreme Court, this provision of law is very heavy. It means that
every person is pressumed to know the laws, and that it is an invalid defense in court that one doesn't know the
existence of a law punishing the act he/she may have been committed. A person must, in the acts he/she may do,
know its consequences and legal its boundaries. Thus, one should be very cautious in all of his/her actions.

But one may ask; Isn't it unfair that a person is deemed to have known the laws that sorround him/her? In the
stand of justice, it is not. Article two (2) of the Civil code demands that " Laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication either in the official gazzette, or in a newspaper of general circulation
in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided." This provision seeks to safeguard the right of every citizen to be
informed of the law passed by our Congress or of any other declaration which is of punitive or binding effect to the
public, so that one may know the laws which govern him/her in his/her day-to-day life. Our constitution
guarantees this due process which should not be violated or dispensed with. The statement "unless it is otherwise
provided" does not talk about the publication but of the effectivity of laws which may be set on a different date as
may be stipulated in the law. The necessity of publication is indespensable as to inform the general public.

Given these points, it is therefore our duty as citizens to know the laws that govern us and to abide with these
laws. It is not a valid reason for us to raise that we don't know the existence of the law. We must therefore be
vigilant to all our actions and to see to it that we don't violate any of the laws of the land. We have the freedom
and liberty, but these freedom and liberty end when the freedom and liberty of others begin. Let us all be guided.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses
not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2]respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is
unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.
European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into
Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law) or ignorantia iuris nocet (not
knowing the law is harmful).

Explanation[edit]
See also: Promulgation and Promulgation (canon law)

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a
subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if
that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all
persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone
with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is
the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that
persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear
power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they
cannot complain if they incur liability.
The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated—published and distributed, for
example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes
available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the ancient phrase of Gratian, Leges instituuntur cum
promulgantur("Laws are instituted when they are promulgated").[3] In order that a law obtain the binding force
which is proper to a law, it must be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by
their being given notice by promulgation. A law can bind only when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it
applies to acquire knowledge of it in order to observe it, even if actual knowledge of the law is absent for a
particular individual. A secret law is no law at all.
In criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing,
particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials.
For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they
had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.[4] Although the
defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge.
In addition, there were, particularly in the days before satellite communication and cellular phones, persons who
could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in British Columbia, a
pair of hunters were acquitted of game offenses where the law was changed during the period they were in the
wilderness hunting.[citation needed] In reaching this decision, the court refused to follow an early English law case in
which a seaman on a clipper before the invention of radiowas convicted even though the law had been changed
while he was at sea (Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1).

In literature[edit]
An alternate explanation of the origin of the maxim, though not particularly relevant to the modern context, can
be found in the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans. Such were cultures heavily influenced by customary legal
systems. Within such a system, law is learned as a person participates in the culture and customs of the
community. Thus it is unreasonable to believe a person could have avoided learning them. These rules and
customs were also interwoven with ethical and religious dialogue so that laws expressed what is right and that
which is not. We find that Cicero wrote the following in De re publica (On the Republic):
"There is a true law, right reason, agreeable to nature, known to all men, constant and eternal, which calls to duty
by its precepts, deters from evil by its prohibition. This law cannot be departed from without guilt. Nor is there one
law at Rome and another at Athens, one thing now and another afterward; but the same law, unchanging and
eternal, binds all races of man and all times."
Minos (attributed to Plato) states the following conversation between Socrates and his companion:
Socrates
Come then, do you consider just things to be unjust and unjust things just, or just things to be just and
unjust things unjust?
Companion
I consider just things to be just, and unjust things unjust. [5]
Socrates
And are they so considered among all men elsewhere as they are here?
Companion
Yes.
...
Socrates
Are things that weigh more considered heavier here, and things that weigh less lighter, or the contrary?
Companion
No, those that weigh more are considered heavier, and those that weigh less lighter.
Socrates
And is it so in Carthage also, and in Lycaea?
Companion
Yes.
Socrates
Noble things, it would seem, are everywhere considered noble[6], and base things base; not base things
noble or noble things base.
Companion
That is so.

Translation[edit]
Presumed knowledge of the law is the principle in jurisprudence that one is bound by a law even if one does not
know of it. It has also been defined as the "prohibition of ignorance of the law".
The concept comes from Roman law, and is expressed in the brocard ignorantia legis non excusat.
 The essential public character of a law requires that the law, once properly promulgated, must apply to anyone in
the jurisdiction where the law applies. Thus, no one can justify his conduct on the grounds that he was not aware
of the law.
Generally, a convention exists by which the laws are issued and rendered accessible by methods, authors and
means that are simple and well known: the law is readable in certain places (some systems prescribe that a
collection of the laws is copied in every local city council), is made by certain authorities (usually sovereign,
government, parliament, and derivative bodies), and enters into effect in certain ways (many systems for instance
prescribe a certain number of days - often 15 - after issue). This is commonly intended as
a constitutional regulation, and in fact many constitutions or statutes exactly describe the correct procedures.
However, some recent interpretations weaken this concept. Particularly in civil law, regard can be had to the
difficulty of being informed of the existence of a law considering the lifestyle of the average citizen. On the penal
side, the quality of the knowledge of the law can affect the evaluation of the animus nocendi or the mens rea, in
that certain subjective conditions can weaken personal responsibility.
The theme was widely discussed, also for political reasons, at the time of the Enlightenment and in the 18th
century, given the heavy proportion of illiterate citizens in European countries (who would have some difficulties
being aware of all the laws in a country). It was then argued that both the presumed knowledge and the heavily
increasing corpus of national legislation were working in favour of lawyers rather than citizens.
In recent times, some authors have considered this concept as an extension of (or at least as analogous to) the
other ancient concept (typical of criminal law) that no one can be punished under a law that was issued after the
action was committed (non-retroactivity of the law. See ex post facto). This interpretation is however disputed,
given that the matter would hierarchically more properly refer to a constitutional doctrine rather than to a civil or
penal one.
Some modern criminal statutes contain language such as stipulating that the act must be done "knowingly and
wittingly" or "with unlawful intent," or some similar language. However, this does not refer to ignorance of laws,
but having criminal intent.

Statutory law[edit]
This principle is also stated in statutes:

 Brazil: Decree 2848 as changed by law 7209.[7]

 Canada: Criminal Code, section 19[8]

Exceptions[edit]
In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. For
example, under U.S. Federal criminal tax law, the element of willfulness required by the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code has been ruled by the courts to correspond to a "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal
duty" under which an "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax
law" is a valid legal defense. See Cheek v. United States.[9][10][11]

See also[edit]

 Edict of government
 Mistake of law
 Secret law
 Qualified immunity
 References[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to:a b Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, pg. 672

2. ^ Jump up to:a b Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, pg. 673
3. Jump up^ Gratian, Decretum, Distinctio 4, dictum post c.3
4. Jump up^ R v Potter (1978), 39 CCC (2d) 538, 3 CR (3d) 154 (PEISC).
5. Jump up^ Plat. Minos 315e
6. Jump up^ Plat. Minos 316a
7. Jump up^ Decree 2848 (compiled), part of Brazilian Criminal Code.
8. Jump up^ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-34, s 19.
9. Jump up^ Jon Strauss, "Nonpayment of Taxes: When Ignorance of the Law Is an Excuse," 25 Akron Law
Review 611 (Winter/Spring 1992), at [1].
10. Jump up^ Mark C. Winings, "Ignorance Is Bliss Especially for the Tax Evader," 84 Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology 575, 582 (Northwestern Univ. School of Law, Fall 1993), at [2].
11. Jump up^ Steven R. Toscher, Dennis L. Perez, Charles P. Rettig & Edward M. Robbins, Jr., Tax Crimes, Tax
Management Portfolio, Volume 636, Bloomberg BNA (3d ed. 2012).