Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No.

L-63915, April 24, 1985

a. What is the premise in this case?

Petitioners Lorenzo Tañada and others filed a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent Juan
Tuvera, et.al. to publish in the Official Gazette various presidential decrees, letters of instruction,
general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementation, and administrative
orders issued by the Office of the President. They invoke the constitutional right of the people to
be informed, as well as the principle that laws are valid and enforceable after their publication in
the Official Gazette.

The Respondent opposed the petition by contending that the publication in the Official Gazette is
not a sine qua nonrequirement for the effectivity of the laws where the laws themselves provide for
their effectivity dates. The presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the
date they are to take effect considering that Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall also
take effect when otherwise provided. Thus, the publication in the Official Gazette is not
indispensable for their effectiveness.

b. To what issue does the case revolve?

Whether or not publication is necessary for presidential decrees that were not published as required
by law.

c. How did the Court analyze the issue? (Discuss the flow of discussion/elucidation by the
Court.)

The Court analyzes the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" in Article 2 of the Civil Code which
they conclude that it referred to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication
itself. Moreover, the Court clarified that the term "laws" referred to all laws, not just those of
general applicability. In short, the Court takes into consideration the meaning and intent of the
provision to come up with a better conclusion or judgment.

d. How did the Court resolve the issue?

The Court had a careful study of the provision and of the arguments of the parties, both on the
original petition and the instant motion, and concluded, that the clause "unless it is otherwise
provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which
cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law
effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication.
Moreover, 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. An example, as pointed
out by the present Chief Justice in his separate concurrence in the original decision, is the Civil
Code which did not become effective after fifteen days from its publication in the Official Gazette
but "one year after such publication." The general rule did not apply because it was "otherwise
provided."