MODULE 4: EFFECTIVITY OF STATUTES

I. When the Constitution Becomes Effective

1. Alfredo M. de Leon v. Hon. Benjamin B. Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059, August 31,
1987
-The act of ratification is the act of voting in the plebiscite by the people. (Meaning, it is also the date of
Ratification).

-Art 18 Sec 27: this Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of
votes cast on a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous constitutions.

-The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a Plebiscite on Feb 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the
provisional constitution must have been superseded already.

II. When Statute Becomes Effective

1. Phil. Veterans Bank v. Vega
- (that publication is not necessary and that laws may be effective upon approval.)

-R.A. No. 7169 (An Act to Rehabilitate the PVB) was signed into law by then Pres. Corazon
Aquino and was published in the Official Gazette on February 24, 1992.

-In May 1992, due to rehabilitation efforts, the Central Bank allowed PVB to reopen. However,
the liquidation judge, Judge Benjamin Vega, did not immediately stop the liquidation proceeding.

-PVBEU filed before the Supreme Court a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
seeking to enjoin Judge Vega from proceeding with the liquidation case.

-A motion for intervention was filed by the MOP Security & Detective Agency averring among
others that R.A. 7169 did not immediately take effect and that it only took effect 15 days after
publication in the Official Gazette or on March 10, 1992.

Issue: Whether or not R.A. No. 7169 needed publication to be effective.

Held: No. R.A. 7169 provides in its effectivity clause that: Sec. 10. Effectivity. – This Act shall
take effect upon its approval.

As a rule, laws take effect 15 days after completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or
in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.

However, the legislature has the authority to provide for exceptions as indicated in the
clause unless otherwise provided.

Hence, it is clear that the legislature intended to make the law effective immediately upon its
approval. (Signed by Cory Aquino on January 2, 1992.)

III. When Statute Becomes effective

Sec. 9, Book VII, Administrative Code

(9) “Adjudication” means an agency process for the formulation of a final order.
Every agency shall file with the UP Law Center 3certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules

in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within 3 months from that date shall
not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party/ persons.

IV. When Local Ordinance Takes Effect

Bagatsing v. Ramirez

Revised Charter vs Local Tax Code

-The Revised Charter of the City of Manila requires publication before the enactment

of the ordinance and after the approval thereof in two daily newspapers

of general circulation in the city.

-Section 17 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila speaks of “ordinance” in general, i.e.,
irrespective of the nature and scope thereof.

-While, the Local Tax Code only prescribes for publication after the approval of "ordinances levying or
imposing taxes, fees or other charges" either in a newspaper or publication widely circulated within the
jurisdiction of the local government or by posting the ordinance in the local legislative hall or premises
and in two other conspicuous places within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government.

- whereas, Section 43 of the Local Tax Code relates to “ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or
other charges” in particular.

SPECIAL STATUTE VS GENERAL STATUTE.

Where a special statute refers to a subject in general, which the general statute treats in particular,
the provision of the latter, in case of conflict, will prevail.

The fact that one is special and the other general creates a presumption that the special is to be
considered as remaining an exception to the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the
law of a particular case.

NOTE: However, the rule readily yields to a situation where the special statute refers to a subject in
general, which the general statute treats in particular. That exactly is the circumstance obtaining in
the case at bar.

-In regard, therefore, to ordinances in general, the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is doubtless
dominant, but, that dominant force loses its continuity when it approaches the realm of “ordinances
levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges” in particular.

-There, the Local Tax Code controls. Here as always, a general provision must give way to a particular
provision. Special provision governs. This is especially true where the law containing the particular
provision was enacted later than the one containing the general provision. The City Charter of Manila
was promulgated on June 18, 1949 as against the Local Tax Code which was decreed on June 1, 1973.
V. Manner of Computing Time

CIR v. Primetown Property

Recovery of Taxes Erroneously or Illegally Collected. - No such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the
expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening
cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a
written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment
was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid.

When the law speaks of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of three
hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four hours, and nights from
sunset to sunrise.

"Year" shall be understood to be twelve calendar months; "month" of thirty days, unless it refers to a
specific calendar month in which case it shall be computed according to the number of days the
specific month contains; "day", to a day of twenty-four hours and; "night" from sunrise to sunset.

Yapdiangco v. Buencamino

Pretermission of holiday

- where the day, or the last day, for doing any act required or permitted by law falls on a holiday, the
act may be done on the next succeeding business day.

-They do not apply to lengthen the period fixed by the State for it to prosecute those who committed a
crime against it. The waiver or loss of the right to prosecute such offenders is automatic and by
operation of law.

- Where the sixtieth and last day to file an information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the sixty-day
period cannot be extended up to the next working day. Prescription has automatically set in.

VI. Effectivity of Laws Until Repealed

Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No

CONTINUITY OF LAW.

-It is a legal maxim that, excepting that of a political nature, "Law once established continues until
changed by some competent legislative power. It is not changed merely by change of sovereignty."
(Joseph H. Beale, Cases on Conflict of Laws, III, Summary section 9, citing Commonwealth vs.
Chapman, 13 Met., 68.)

- As the same author says, in his Treatise 011 the Conflict of Laws (Cambridge, 1916, section 131):
"There can be no break or interregnum in law. From the time the law comes into existence with the
first-felt corporateness of a primitive people it must last until the final disappearance of human
society. Once created, it persists until a change takes place, and when changed it continues in such
changed condition until the next change, and so forever. Conquest or colonization is impotent to bring
law to amend; in spite of change of constitution, the law continues unchanged until the new sovereign
by legislative act creates a change.
- As courts are creatures of statutes and their existence depends upon that of the laws which create
and confer upon them their jurisdiction, it is evident that such laws, not being of a political nature, are
not abrogated by a change of sovereignty, and continue in force "ex proprio vigore" unless and until

repealed by legislative acts.

- A proclamation that said laws and courts are expressly continued is not necessary in order that they
may continue in force. Such proclamation, if made, is but a declaration of the intention of respecting
and not repealing those laws. As a consequence, enabling laws or acts providing that proceedings
pending in one court be continued by or transferred to another court are not required by the mere
change of government or sovereignty. They are necessary only in case the "former courts are
abolished or their jurisdiction so changed that they can no longer continue taking cognizance of the
cases and proceedings commenced therein, in order that the new courts or the courts having
jurisdiction over said cases may continue the proceedings.

Peralta v. Director of Prison

PHILIPPINES UNDER BELIGERENT OCCUPATION.

- The government established over an enemy’s territory during the military occupation may exercise
all the powers given by the laws of war to the conqueror over the conquered, and is subject to all
restrictions which that code imposes. It is of little consequence whether such government be called a
military or civil government. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. In
either case it is a government imposed by the laws of war and so far, as it concerns the inhabitants of
such territory or the rest of the world those laws alone determine the legality or illegality of its acts.