CASE DIGEST: TAÑADA V.

TUVERA
Published by paul on July 16, 2013 | Leave a response

Lorenzo M. Tañada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and Movement of Attorneys for

Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI), petitioners, versus 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,
etc., et al., respondents.
No. L-63915     December 29, 1986

Facts:

Due process was invoked by the petitioners in demanding the disclosure of a number of presidential
decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by law. The government argued that
while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise provided,” as when the
decrees themselves declared that they we to become effective and immediately upon their approval.

The petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and
those which are not, that publication means complete publication; and that the publication must be
made forthwith the Official Gazette.

Issue:

Whether or not the Presidential decrees are covered by the provisions of Article 2 of the New Civil
Code, on the necessity of publication for its effectivity.

Held:

The clause “unless otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of
publication itself. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion
provide that the usual fifteen day period shall be shortened or extended. The term “laws” should refer
to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking all laws related to the
people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly.

All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for
their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is
fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders
promulgated by the President. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation.

TANADA VA TUVERA
Posted by kaye lee on 9:57 AM

G.R. No. L-63915 December 29, 1986 [Effectivity and Application of Laws]

FACTS:
Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. invoked due process in demanding the disclosure of a number of Presidential
Decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by Law. The government argued that while publication
was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was otherwise provided, as when the decrees themselves declared that
they were to become effective immediately upon approval. The court decided on April 24, 1985 in affirming the necessity
for publication of some of the decrees. The court ordered the respondents to publish in the official gazette all unpublished
Presidential Issuances which are of general force and effect. The petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction
between laws of general applicability and those which are not. The publication means complete publication, and that
publication must be made in the official gazette.

ISSUE:
Whether or not all laws shall be published in the official gazette.
RULING:

The court held that all statute including those of local application shall be published as condition for their effectivity, which
shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

The publication must be full or no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the laws.  The
clause “unless otherwise provided” in Article 2 of the new Civil Code meant that the publication  required therein was not
always imperative, that the publication when necessary, did not have to be made in the official gazette.