Professional Documents
Culture Documents
004 Commissioner v. Hypermix Feeds
004 Commissioner v. Hypermix Feeds
004 Commissioner v. Hypermix Feeds
FACTS
● Commissioner of Customs issued CMO 27-2003 which classified wheat, imposed tariff depending on
such classification. and procedure for protests.
● One month after, Respondentfiled a Petition for Declaratory Relief contending that CMO27-2003 was
issued without following the mandate of the Revised Administrative Code on public participation, prior
notice, and publication or registration in the UP Law Center
RATIO
W/N publication or registration in the UP Law Center is necessary for the effectivity of the issuance?
It depends.
If the issuance would affect substantive rights such that it substantially increases the burden of those
governed, publication is necessary. This will allow those who are directly affected to be duly informed before
the issuance is given the force and effect of law. (See RAC provisions 1 and Tañ ada v. Tuvera on the
application of “ignorantia legis non excusat”)
If the issuance is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance.
Such issuances give no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed.
(In this case, it was held that the Respondent’s substantive rights would be affected. The issuance was not
published in the UP Law Center, violating its legal requirements. It was struck down.)