Rodolfo C. Fariñas et al. vs. The Executive Secretary et al. G.R. No.

147387

December 10, 2003

Facts:

Petitioners Rodolfo Fariñas , Manuel Garcia, Francis Escudero, and Agapito

Aquino filed for certiorari and prohibition of RA 9006 or the “Fair Election Act” for
its unconstitutionality as it expressly repealed Section 67 of BP 881 or the
“Omnibus Election Code.” According to the petitioners, RA 9006 is
unconstitutional because it violates Article 6 Section 26(1) of the Constitution
which requires every law to have only one subject that would be expressed in its
title. In addition, the inclusion of Section 14 repealing Section 67 of the Omnibus
Election Code in RA 9006 constitutes a proscribed rider.

Issue:

Whether or not Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, has been validly
repealed by Section 14 of RA 9006.

Ruling:

The Court held that the “Effectivity” clause in Section 16 of RA 9006, which
provides that it “shall take effect immediately upon its approval,” is defective;
however, the same does not render the entire law invalid. In the case of Tañada v.
Tuvera, it was held that the clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the
date of effectivity and not the requirement of publication itself, which cannot be
omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislator may make the law effective
immediately upon its approval, or on any other date without its previous
publication. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may, in
its discretion, provide the usual fifteen-day period or may be shortened or
extended as provided in Article 2 of the Civil Code and in the Tañada doctrine. RA
9006 took effect fifteen days after its publication in the Official Gazette or a
newspaper of a general circulation.

While PD 1079 required the newspaper to be “published, edited, and circulated in

the same city and/or province where the requirement of general circulation
applies,” the Court in the case of Fortune Motors v. MetroBank did not make any
literal interpretation of the provision.