CASE DIGEST

Tañada v. Tuvera (144 SCRA 466)

Statutory Construction

Court Supreme Court En Banc

Citation G.R. No. L-63915
Date December 29, 1986
Petitioner Lorenzo M. Tañada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and
Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism Inc. (MABINI)
Respondent 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, Malacañang
Records Office, and Florendo S. Pablo in his capacity as Director, Bureau of
Printing
Ponente Justice Escolin

FACTS:
Petitioners in this case sought 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.
Respondents would have the case dismissed (1) on the ground of lack of standing of petitioners, and (2)
based on an interpretation of Article 2 of the Civil Code that publication is not a sine qua non requirement
for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide their own effectivity dates.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the petitioners have standing to institute the mandamus proceeding.
2. Whether publication in the Official Gazette is an indispensable requirement for the effectivity of
laws.

HELD:
In the first issue, the general rule in a writ of mandamus is it would be granted to a private individual
only in those cases where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved except when the
question is one of public right and the object of mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty.
The people are regarded as the real party in interest; 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 is interested in the execution of the laws. THUS, the petitioners have
standing to institute the mandamus proceeding.
In the second issue, Respondents’ interpretation of Article 2 of the Civil Code (that the fifteen day
effectivity after publication does not apply to laws which have for themselves, special provisions as to
their effectivity) is correct only insofar as effectivity is equated with publication. The inapplicability of the
fifteen day period by virtue of a law providing for its own date of effectivity does not preclude the
requirement of publication.
Even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity, it does not preclude the requirement of
publication. The Court based its decision on Section 1, of Commonwealth Act 638. In this section the
word “shall” was used which imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty that 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 listing therein, leaves respondents with no discretion whatsoever as to what
must be included or excluded from publication.

RULING:
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.