The Supreme Court ruled that (1) laws must be published in the Official Gazette in order to be valid and enforceable, even if the laws themselves provide an effective date, (2) publication is required for all laws, not just those of general applicability, and (3) publication must be made in full in the Official Gazette and cannot be omitted for any reason. The Court affirmed that the people have a right to be informed of the laws that govern them and secret or unpublished laws are invalid.
This document summarizes several legal cases from the Philippines. It discusses the facts, issues, and holdings of each case. The cases cover a range of legal topics including publication requirements, administrative rules and regulations, labor laws, and civil liability.
Jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear and decide cases. There are different types of jurisdiction including subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, and appellate jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by law and cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties. Remedial law governs procedures for enforcing rights or obtaining redress, while substantive law creates and defines rights. Courts can lose jurisdiction if a new law prohibits continued exercise of jurisdiction or if a defendant is deprived of constitutional rights. Jurisdiction is divided among trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court based on factors like the type of case, amount in controversy, and whether an appeal is involved.
RETROSPECTIVE APPROVALS, CONSENTS AND CERTIFICATES IN NEW SOUTH WALESDr Ian Ellis-Jones
First Published: (2008) 25 EPLJ 449 - All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: The information contained in this publication does not constitute legal advice of any kind. The author Ian Ellis-Jones does not guarantee or warrant the current accuracy, legal correctness or up-to-dateness of the information contained in the publication.
This document summarizes the proceedings of the 14th session of the Senate of the Philippines on August 28, 2013. It includes details of the call to order, prayer, roll call with 17 senators present, approval of the previous session's journal, and the referral of 1174 bills to various committees for consideration. The session covered routine legislative procedures and business.
The First Amendment protects religious freedom and freedom of speech. It prevents the government from establishing religion or restricting religious practices and protects free speech and press. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The Third Amendment prevents the quartering of soldiers in homes without consent. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant.
The document summarizes concerns about draft regulatory decrees related to Laws 975 and 782, which deal with demobilization of paramilitaries. Specifically:
1) One draft decree threatens victims with up to 18 years imprisonment for "failing to denounce" crimes committed by paramilitaries, while paramilitaries face only 3.5 years under Law 975. This punishes victims more harshly than perpetrators.
2) The decrees address matters that should be determined by law, not decree, and ignore a prior Constitutional Court decision. The process of issuing them by decree is arbitrary and violates principles of separation of powers.
3) The decrees fail to guarantee victims' rights
The document discusses various types of jurisdiction of courts in Pakistan. It explains that civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all civil suits unless expressly barred. It classifies jurisdiction into four types - subject matter jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction. It provides details on each type of jurisdiction and the rules regulating them. The document also discusses various absolute bars, conditional bars, and special bars upon the jurisdiction of civil courts in Pakistan.
This document summarizes several legal cases from the Philippines. It discusses the facts, issues, and holdings of each case. The cases cover a range of legal topics including publication requirements, administrative rules and regulations, labor laws, and civil liability.
Jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear and decide cases. There are different types of jurisdiction including subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, and appellate jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by law and cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties. Remedial law governs procedures for enforcing rights or obtaining redress, while substantive law creates and defines rights. Courts can lose jurisdiction if a new law prohibits continued exercise of jurisdiction or if a defendant is deprived of constitutional rights. Jurisdiction is divided among trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court based on factors like the type of case, amount in controversy, and whether an appeal is involved.
RETROSPECTIVE APPROVALS, CONSENTS AND CERTIFICATES IN NEW SOUTH WALESDr Ian Ellis-Jones
First Published: (2008) 25 EPLJ 449 - All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: The information contained in this publication does not constitute legal advice of any kind. The author Ian Ellis-Jones does not guarantee or warrant the current accuracy, legal correctness or up-to-dateness of the information contained in the publication.
This document summarizes the proceedings of the 14th session of the Senate of the Philippines on August 28, 2013. It includes details of the call to order, prayer, roll call with 17 senators present, approval of the previous session's journal, and the referral of 1174 bills to various committees for consideration. The session covered routine legislative procedures and business.
The First Amendment protects religious freedom and freedom of speech. It prevents the government from establishing religion or restricting religious practices and protects free speech and press. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The Third Amendment prevents the quartering of soldiers in homes without consent. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant.
The document summarizes concerns about draft regulatory decrees related to Laws 975 and 782, which deal with demobilization of paramilitaries. Specifically:
1) One draft decree threatens victims with up to 18 years imprisonment for "failing to denounce" crimes committed by paramilitaries, while paramilitaries face only 3.5 years under Law 975. This punishes victims more harshly than perpetrators.
2) The decrees address matters that should be determined by law, not decree, and ignore a prior Constitutional Court decision. The process of issuing them by decree is arbitrary and violates principles of separation of powers.
3) The decrees fail to guarantee victims' rights
The document discusses various types of jurisdiction of courts in Pakistan. It explains that civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all civil suits unless expressly barred. It classifies jurisdiction into four types - subject matter jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction. It provides details on each type of jurisdiction and the rules regulating them. The document also discusses various absolute bars, conditional bars, and special bars upon the jurisdiction of civil courts in Pakistan.
Legal research involves finding and analyzing legal authorities like statutes, cases, and regulations. It is important for legal practice and decision making. Sources include primary sources like laws and cases as well as secondary sources that discuss the law. Legal bibliography is the study of legal materials to aid in research. Research requires identifying the proper sources and knowing where and how to find the applicable law. Laws are rules promulgated by legitimate authorities to guide conduct for the common benefit. They become effective after publication, and key cases have established that publication in the Official Gazette is generally required for a law to be valid and enforceable.
Here are responses to the assignment questions:
1. The "equal protection" clause protects citizens from discrimination by public authorities. It aims to prevent the government from denying any person equal protection under the law.
2. "Equality before the law" means that all citizens should be treated equally and fairly in similar circumstances according to the law, without discrimination. For example, the law should punish a rich person and a poor person equally for committing the same crime.
3. The "equal protection" clause assumes that all humans are equal in fundamental worth and dignity. For example, the law should not discriminate against someone based on attributes like race, gender, social class, or religion.
4. No, it would not
This case involved a public interest litigation filed by M.C Mehta regarding pollution caused by a chemical factory. The factory was releasing toxic gases without proper safeguards, endangering public health. The Supreme Court found that the factory was violating various environmental laws and regulations. It ordered the factory to pay compensation to those affected by the pollution and to properly handle hazardous waste in accordance with the law to prevent future violations. The case strengthened environmental protection by establishing the polluter pays principle and setting precedents to curb industrial pollution for the benefit of public health.
1) The document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to publication requirements for laws and other government issuances to take legal effect. This includes cases establishing that laws must be published in full and that publication is necessary for presidential decrees and other issuances to be legally binding.
2) One case discusses whether a presidential decree could incorporate a private agreement by reference without publishing the full text of the agreement. The Court ruled that it could not, as the agreement was not published.
3) Another case discusses whether an alien who filed a petition for adoption before the enactment of the Family Code, which prohibited alien adoption, could still have their petition granted. The Court ruled the petition could still be granted as the alien had
The document discusses the concept and classification of constitutional rights as outlined in a bill of rights. It defines natural rights, constitutional rights, and statutory rights. Constitutional rights are further classified as political rights, civil rights, social and economic rights, and rights of the accused. The document then discusses concepts of due process and equal protection under the law as outlined in Section 1. It also discusses unreasonable searches and seizures as prohibited in Section 2, including the requisites for valid search warrants and instances where search and seizure may be conducted without a warrant.
This case involved citizens filing a petition with the Supreme Court expressing apprehension about the construction of a new grid station in a residential area. The Court examined whether government agencies could endanger citizens' lives through their actions without consent, and whether zoning laws gave citizens rights that could not be altered without consent. Considering the potential health impacts, the Court appointed a commission to examine the plans and suggest alterations to address citizens' complaints. The Court emphasized the precautionary principle and citizens' fundamental right to life under the Constitution, which includes protection from health hazards. It directed the relevant authority to provide public notice and hearings for any future grid station projects.
The document discusses principles of liberalism that are found in declarations of rights from the 18th century, including the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the Declaration of Independence. These documents establish rights such as equality, liberty, security under law, consent to taxation, and private property rights. They also limit the power of government and aim to protect individuals from oppression.
The document discusses principles of liberalism that are found in historical documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the Declaration of Independence. These principles include individual rights and freedoms, rule of law, economic freedom, and private property rights. The document does not mention any connections between these principles or the documents.
Presentation on Effect and Application of LawsTimmyGrace2
The document discusses the preliminary title of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which covers the effect and application of laws. It provides 18 articles that establish basic principles for how laws are implemented and interpreted. Some key points include: laws take effect 15 days after publication unless otherwise specified; ignorance of the law is not an excuse; laws generally do not apply retroactively unless intended; and judicial decisions help form the legal system. Personal laws on status and family relations apply to citizens abroad.
The document outlines the key provisions of the Bill of Rights in the Philippines constitution. It discusses the different classes of rights like natural rights, constitutional rights, and statutory rights. It also describes the different types of constitutional rights such as political rights, civil rights, social and economic rights, and rights of the accused. Finally, it provides details on the 22 specific sections of the Bill of Rights, giving an overview of the protections granted for rights like due process, privacy, speech, religion, bail, and prohibition of ex post facto laws.
This document provides an overview of Persons and Family Relations law concepts based on notes from a law school reviewer. It begins with definitions of key terms like law, codification of laws, and divisions of law. It then discusses the Civil Code of the Philippines and principles of law effectivity from Articles 1 and 2, including requirements for publication. Several case summaries are provided relating to when laws take effect and the importance of publication. The summary focuses on the key concepts around law effectivity and publication requirements.
Child protection- Social action litigation as a catalystNilendra Kumar
Judiciary has come forward in the sphere of child care and protection by not only interpreting the statues where so needed but also by adopting an active stance to take innovative steps for child care.
The document discusses different types of constitutional writs that can be issued by the Supreme Court and High Courts in India under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. It describes writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, and quo warranto.
The writ of habeas corpus directs a person detaining another to produce the detainee in court to determine if the detention is lawful. Mandamus commands a public official to perform official duties they have failed or refused to perform. Quo warranto inquires into the legitimacy of a claim to hold public office to prevent illegal occupation. These writs protect fundamental rights and ensure public authorities act within their jurisdiction.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man adopted by the French National Assembly in 1789 outlines 17 fundamental rights of citizens that reflect Enlightenment ideals. These include equality before the law, liberty as long as it does not harm others, participation in government, freedom of speech and press, and protections against arbitrary arrest. However, it does not directly address the economic causes of the revolution that led to its adoption.
This document discusses the fundamentals of law, including definitions of law and ethics. It describes the differences between substantive and procedural law, as well as civil and criminal law. It also outlines the key purposes and functions of law in establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting rights and liberties. Additionally, it examines the sources of law including constitutions, legislatures, executives, judiciaries, administrative agencies, and international organizations. Finally, it summarizes Republic Act No. 9292, also known as the Electronics Engineering Law of 2004, which regulates the licensing and practice of electronics engineers and technicians in the Philippines.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed a complaint filed by Amelita Constantino seeking acknowledgment, support and damages from Ivan Mendez. The Court of Appeals had found that Amelita failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ivan was the father of her son Michael. The Supreme Court found no reversible error, as the Court of Appeals' factual findings were supported by evidence showing inconsistencies in Amelita's testimony about the timing of her sexual encounters with Ivan around the estimated time of conception. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not err in its evaluation of evidence and setting aside of the trial court decision.
This summary provides the high level details of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case involving a breach of promise to marry claim.
1) A woman filed a complaint against an Iranian exchange student for damages resulting from his breach of their agreement to marry. She alleged they had a relationship, he proposed marriage, but then broke off the engagement.
2) The trial court ruled in favor of the woman, ordering the man to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.
3) The case was appealed to the Supreme Court regarding whether Article 21 of the Civil Code, which allows damages for moral wrongs, was applicable. The Supreme Court upheld the previous rulings, finding the man had fraudulently promised
Legal research involves finding and analyzing legal authorities like statutes, cases, and regulations. It is important for legal practice and decision making. Sources include primary sources like laws and cases as well as secondary sources that discuss the law. Legal bibliography is the study of legal materials to aid in research. Research requires identifying the proper sources and knowing where and how to find the applicable law. Laws are rules promulgated by legitimate authorities to guide conduct for the common benefit. They become effective after publication, and key cases have established that publication in the Official Gazette is generally required for a law to be valid and enforceable.
Here are responses to the assignment questions:
1. The "equal protection" clause protects citizens from discrimination by public authorities. It aims to prevent the government from denying any person equal protection under the law.
2. "Equality before the law" means that all citizens should be treated equally and fairly in similar circumstances according to the law, without discrimination. For example, the law should punish a rich person and a poor person equally for committing the same crime.
3. The "equal protection" clause assumes that all humans are equal in fundamental worth and dignity. For example, the law should not discriminate against someone based on attributes like race, gender, social class, or religion.
4. No, it would not
This case involved a public interest litigation filed by M.C Mehta regarding pollution caused by a chemical factory. The factory was releasing toxic gases without proper safeguards, endangering public health. The Supreme Court found that the factory was violating various environmental laws and regulations. It ordered the factory to pay compensation to those affected by the pollution and to properly handle hazardous waste in accordance with the law to prevent future violations. The case strengthened environmental protection by establishing the polluter pays principle and setting precedents to curb industrial pollution for the benefit of public health.
1) The document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to publication requirements for laws and other government issuances to take legal effect. This includes cases establishing that laws must be published in full and that publication is necessary for presidential decrees and other issuances to be legally binding.
2) One case discusses whether a presidential decree could incorporate a private agreement by reference without publishing the full text of the agreement. The Court ruled that it could not, as the agreement was not published.
3) Another case discusses whether an alien who filed a petition for adoption before the enactment of the Family Code, which prohibited alien adoption, could still have their petition granted. The Court ruled the petition could still be granted as the alien had
The document discusses the concept and classification of constitutional rights as outlined in a bill of rights. It defines natural rights, constitutional rights, and statutory rights. Constitutional rights are further classified as political rights, civil rights, social and economic rights, and rights of the accused. The document then discusses concepts of due process and equal protection under the law as outlined in Section 1. It also discusses unreasonable searches and seizures as prohibited in Section 2, including the requisites for valid search warrants and instances where search and seizure may be conducted without a warrant.
This case involved citizens filing a petition with the Supreme Court expressing apprehension about the construction of a new grid station in a residential area. The Court examined whether government agencies could endanger citizens' lives through their actions without consent, and whether zoning laws gave citizens rights that could not be altered without consent. Considering the potential health impacts, the Court appointed a commission to examine the plans and suggest alterations to address citizens' complaints. The Court emphasized the precautionary principle and citizens' fundamental right to life under the Constitution, which includes protection from health hazards. It directed the relevant authority to provide public notice and hearings for any future grid station projects.
The document discusses principles of liberalism that are found in declarations of rights from the 18th century, including the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the Declaration of Independence. These documents establish rights such as equality, liberty, security under law, consent to taxation, and private property rights. They also limit the power of government and aim to protect individuals from oppression.
The document discusses principles of liberalism that are found in historical documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the Declaration of Independence. These principles include individual rights and freedoms, rule of law, economic freedom, and private property rights. The document does not mention any connections between these principles or the documents.
Presentation on Effect and Application of LawsTimmyGrace2
The document discusses the preliminary title of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which covers the effect and application of laws. It provides 18 articles that establish basic principles for how laws are implemented and interpreted. Some key points include: laws take effect 15 days after publication unless otherwise specified; ignorance of the law is not an excuse; laws generally do not apply retroactively unless intended; and judicial decisions help form the legal system. Personal laws on status and family relations apply to citizens abroad.
The document outlines the key provisions of the Bill of Rights in the Philippines constitution. It discusses the different classes of rights like natural rights, constitutional rights, and statutory rights. It also describes the different types of constitutional rights such as political rights, civil rights, social and economic rights, and rights of the accused. Finally, it provides details on the 22 specific sections of the Bill of Rights, giving an overview of the protections granted for rights like due process, privacy, speech, religion, bail, and prohibition of ex post facto laws.
This document provides an overview of Persons and Family Relations law concepts based on notes from a law school reviewer. It begins with definitions of key terms like law, codification of laws, and divisions of law. It then discusses the Civil Code of the Philippines and principles of law effectivity from Articles 1 and 2, including requirements for publication. Several case summaries are provided relating to when laws take effect and the importance of publication. The summary focuses on the key concepts around law effectivity and publication requirements.
Child protection- Social action litigation as a catalystNilendra Kumar
Judiciary has come forward in the sphere of child care and protection by not only interpreting the statues where so needed but also by adopting an active stance to take innovative steps for child care.
The document discusses different types of constitutional writs that can be issued by the Supreme Court and High Courts in India under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. It describes writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, and quo warranto.
The writ of habeas corpus directs a person detaining another to produce the detainee in court to determine if the detention is lawful. Mandamus commands a public official to perform official duties they have failed or refused to perform. Quo warranto inquires into the legitimacy of a claim to hold public office to prevent illegal occupation. These writs protect fundamental rights and ensure public authorities act within their jurisdiction.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man adopted by the French National Assembly in 1789 outlines 17 fundamental rights of citizens that reflect Enlightenment ideals. These include equality before the law, liberty as long as it does not harm others, participation in government, freedom of speech and press, and protections against arbitrary arrest. However, it does not directly address the economic causes of the revolution that led to its adoption.
This document discusses the fundamentals of law, including definitions of law and ethics. It describes the differences between substantive and procedural law, as well as civil and criminal law. It also outlines the key purposes and functions of law in establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting rights and liberties. Additionally, it examines the sources of law including constitutions, legislatures, executives, judiciaries, administrative agencies, and international organizations. Finally, it summarizes Republic Act No. 9292, also known as the Electronics Engineering Law of 2004, which regulates the licensing and practice of electronics engineers and technicians in the Philippines.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed a complaint filed by Amelita Constantino seeking acknowledgment, support and damages from Ivan Mendez. The Court of Appeals had found that Amelita failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ivan was the father of her son Michael. The Supreme Court found no reversible error, as the Court of Appeals' factual findings were supported by evidence showing inconsistencies in Amelita's testimony about the timing of her sexual encounters with Ivan around the estimated time of conception. The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not err in its evaluation of evidence and setting aside of the trial court decision.
This summary provides the high level details of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case involving a breach of promise to marry claim.
1) A woman filed a complaint against an Iranian exchange student for damages resulting from his breach of their agreement to marry. She alleged they had a relationship, he proposed marriage, but then broke off the engagement.
2) The trial court ruled in favor of the woman, ordering the man to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.
3) The case was appealed to the Supreme Court regarding whether Article 21 of the Civil Code, which allows damages for moral wrongs, was applicable. The Supreme Court upheld the previous rulings, finding the man had fraudulently promised
This case involves a paternity suit filed by Antonia L. de Jesus against Cesar Syquia. Antonia alleges that Cesar is the father of her children Ismael and Pacita. The trial court ruled that Cesar must acknowledge paternity of Ismael and pay child support of 50 pesos per month. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court upholds the trial court's ruling, finding that letters written by Cesar acknowledging the expected birth of a child to Antonia and referring to the child as "junior" constitute legal acknowledgment of paternity under the Civil Code. Additionally, Cesar's financial support of Antonia and Ismael for a year further demonstrate Ismael's possession of
1) Araceli Santos filed a complaint against Apolonio Tanjanco seeking damages for breach of promise to marry after Tanjanco ended their relationship when Santos became pregnant.
2) The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. However, the Court of Appeals reinstated the complaint, finding it stated a cause of action for damages under the Civil Code.
3) The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the lower court's dismissal, finding that Santos' allegations did not establish the tort of seduction as Santos willingly engaged in a sexual relationship with Tanjanco for over a year, proving it was based on mutual passion rather than deceit.
Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer planned to marry on September 4, 1954. However, on the day of the wedding, Velez left Beatriz a note postponing the wedding because his mother opposed it, and then disappeared without contact. Beatriz sued Velez for damages. The court found in favor of Beatriz, ordering Velez to pay damages. Velez appealed. Ordinarily, merely breaching a marriage promise is not grounds for a lawsuit. However, in this case Velez formally planned an elaborate wedding, invited guests, and left Beatriz humiliated just before the ceremony. The court found Velez's actions unjustifiable and awarded Beatriz moral and exempl
This case involved a petition for certiorari brought by Antonio Geluz, a physician, to review a decision awarding damages to Oscar Lazo for Geluz performing an abortion on Lazo's wife, Nita Villanueva. The Supreme Court reversed the award, finding that damages could not be recovered for the death of an unborn fetus lacking legal personality. While Geluz's actions in performing the abortion were illegal, the record showed Lazo was indifferent to Villanueva's previous abortions and seemed primarily interested in obtaining a large monetary payment from Geluz rather than pursuing criminal or administrative charges. The Court concluded there were no legal or factual bases to support the damages award against Geluz.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding Imelda Marcos' eligibility to run for representative of the First District of Leyte. The Commission on Elections ruled she did not meet the one-year residency requirement based on her voter registration and certificate of candidacy stating she had lived in Tolosa, Leyte for only 7 months. The COMELEC also did not allow her to amend her certificate to say she had lived in the district "since childhood." While Marcos argued this was an honest mistake, the COMELEC found evidence she had lived in other places like Manila in prior years. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's decision disqualifying Marcos from the ballot and sus
This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling from 1959 regarding a promissory note signed in 1944. Rosario de Braganza and her sons Rodolfo and Guillermo received 70,000 Japanese war notes as a loan from Fernando de Villa Abrille and promised to repay 10,000 Philippine currency after hostilities ceased. The sons argued they should not be liable as they were minors when signing, but the court found Rosario fully responsible and the sons partially responsible based on legal precedent and statutes regarding minority and benefit received. The court modified the damages owed to account for the sons' minority but still requiring some restitution.
The plaintiff sued the defendants claiming he did not sell land to them that was rightfully his. The defendants argued they purchased the land from the plaintiff according to a document signed by the plaintiff. However, the court found the document was invalid because the plaintiff was a minor at the time of signing and there was no evidence he intended to sell the land. Therefore, the defendants did not acquire rights to the property through the document alone, even if it was properly executed, since the sale by a minor is not binding. The court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.
This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1917 regarding a land dispute. Domingo and Josefa Mercado filed a complaint to annul the sale of land that was inherited from their mother and sold to Luis Espiritu in 1910. They argued they were minors at the time of the sale. The court reviewed evidence presented, including birth and census records showing the plaintiffs were ages 19 and 18 in 1910 when the sale occurred. Therefore, the court found the plaintiffs were capable of annulling the sale as minors within the legal period, and were entitled to restitution of their shares of the inherited land.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1911 regarding Vicente Sixto Villanueva, who had signed a bond obligating himself and others to pay a debt but later claimed to have been insane at the time of signing. The court heard testimony from physicians and others about Villanueva's mental state and condition of "monomania of wealth," in which he believed himself to be wealthier than he was. Ultimately, the court found that this monomania did not necessarily imply that Villanueva was legally incapable of understanding and signing the bond, and it upheld the lower court's rejection of Villanueva's attempt to void the bond on grounds of insanity.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding a bounced check. Petitioners Albenson Enterprises Corp., Jesse Yap, and Benjamin Mendiona delivered steel plates to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. and were paid partially with a check that bounced. They filed a criminal case against respondent Eugenio S. Baltao for issuing the check, but he was later exonerated. Baltao then filed a civil case against the petitioners. The court found that petitioners did not abuse their rights in honestly believing Baltao had issued the check based on their investigations. However, the appellate court still awarded Baltao damages. The Supreme Court modifies the damages, finding no clear abuse of rights by
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence Lawyers
Persons tuvera v tanada
1.
2. Tañada vs. Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985) 146
SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
3. 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985)
FACTS:
Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the principle that
laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of
mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish and/or cause to publish various presidential
decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of
implementations and administrative orders.
The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of the case, contending that
petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid and
enforceable.
HELD:
Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the
law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of this provision is to give the general
public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens.
Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignoratia
legis nominem excusat. It would be the height of injustive to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the
transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the Official Gazette…. The
word “shall” therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if
the constitutional right of the people to be informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance
and validity.
The publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general applicability is a requirement of
due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and
specifically informed of its contents. The Court declared that presidential issuances of general application
which have not been published have no force and effect.
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
FACTS:
This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on April 24, 1985. Respondent argued
that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise” as when the decrees
themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which are not as
to their publication;
2. Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general circulation.
HELD:
4. 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 in any other date, without its previous
publication.
“Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking, all laws
relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. A law without any
bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires
act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest eve if it might be
directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and not to the public as a whole.
All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for
their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the
legislature.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to inform the public of the
content of the law.
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be made in the Official Gazette, and not
elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity. The Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the
wisdom of a law or to repeal or modify it if it finds it impractical.
The publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as possible.
J. Cruz:
Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the shadows with their
dark, deep secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding
unless their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full disclosure
and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot faint, parry or
cut unless the naked blade is drawn.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985
LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR
BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI], petitioners,
vs.
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, respondents.
ESCOLIN, J.:
5. Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in Section
6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, 1
as well as the principle that laws to be valid and
enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners
seek 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.
Specifically, the publication of the following presidential issuances is sought:
a] Presidential Decrees Nos. 12, 22, 37, 38, 59, 64, 103, 171, 179, 184, 197, 200,
234, 265, 286, 298, 303, 312, 324, 325, 326, 337, 355, 358, 359, 360, 361, 368, 404,
406, 415, 427, 429, 445, 447, 473, 486, 491, 503, 504, 521, 528, 551, 566, 573, 574,
594, 599, 644, 658, 661, 718, 731, 733, 793, 800, 802, 835, 836, 923, 935, 961,
1017-1030, 1050, 1060-1061, 1085, 1143,1165, 1166, 1242, 1246, 1250, 1278,
1279, 1300, 1644, 1772, 1808, 1810, 1813-1817, 1819-1826, 1829-1840, 1842-
1847.
b] Letter of Instructions Nos.: 10, 39, 49, 72, 107, 108, 116, 130, 136, 141, 150, 153,
155, 161, 173, 180, 187, 188, 192, 193, 199, 202, 204, 205, 209, 211-213, 215-224,
226-228, 231-239, 241-245, 248, 251, 253-261, 263-269, 271-273, 275-283, 285-
289, 291, 293, 297-299, 301-303, 309, 312-315, 325, 327, 343, 346, 349, 357, 358,
362, 367, 370, 382, 385, 386, 396-397, 405, 438-440, 444- 445, 473, 486, 488, 498,
501, 399, 527, 561, 576, 587, 594, 599, 600, 602, 609, 610, 611, 612, 615, 641, 642,
665, 702, 712-713, 726, 837-839, 878-879, 881, 882, 939-940, 964,997,1149-
1178,1180-1278.
c] General Orders Nos.: 14, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64 & 65.
d] Proclamation Nos.: 1126, 1144, 1147, 1151, 1196, 1270, 1281, 1319-1526, 1529,
1532, 1535, 1538, 1540-1547, 1550-1558,1561-1588, 1590-1595, 1594-1600, 1606-
1609, 1612-1628, 1630-1649, 1694-1695, 1697-1701, 1705-1723, 1731-1734, 1737-
1742, 1744, 1746-1751, 1752, 1754, 1762, 1764-1787, 1789-1795, 1797, 1800,
1802-1804, 1806-1807, 1812-1814,1816, 1825-1826, 1829, 1831-1832, 1835-1836,
1839-1840, 1843-1844, 1846-1847,1849, 1853-1858, 1860, 1866, 1868, 1870,
1876-1889, 1892, 1900, 1918, 1923, 1933, 1952, 1963, 1965-1966, 1968-1984,
1986-2028, 2030-2044, 2046-2145,2147-2161, 2163-2244.
e] Executive Orders Nos.: 411, 413, 414, 427, 429-454, 457- 471, 474-492, 494-507,
509-510, 522, 524-528, 531-532, 536, 538, 543-544, 549, 551-553, 560, 563, 567-
568, 570, 574, 593, 594, 598-604, 609, 611- 647, 649-677, 679-703, 705-707, 712-
786, 788-852, 854-857.
f] Letters of Implementation Nos.: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11-22, 25-27, 39, 50, 51, 59, 76, 80-81,
92, 94, 95, 107, 120, 122, 123.
g] Administrative Orders Nos.: 347, 348, 352-354, 360- 378, 380-433, 436-439.
The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the
ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition. The view is
submitted that in the absence of any showing that petitioners are personally and directly affected or
prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances in question 2
said petitioners
6. are without the requisite legal personality to institute this mandamus proceeding, they are not being
"aggrieved parties" within the meaning of Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which we quote:
SEC. 3. Petition for Mandamus.—When any tribunal, corporation, board or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the
use a rd enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant,
immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to
Protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the
petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant.
Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public
right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not show any specific
interest for their petition to be given due course.
The issue posed is not one of first impression. As early as the 1910 case of Severino vs. Governor
General, 3
this Court held that while the general rule is that "a writ of mandamus would be granted to a
private individual only in those cases where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or
some particular right to be protected, independent of that which he holds with the public at large," and "it
is for the public officers exclusively to apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved [Mithchell
vs. Boardmen, 79 M.e., 469]," nevertheless, "when the question is one of public right and the object of the
mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in
interest and 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 interested
in the execution of the laws [High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3rd ed., sec. 431].
Thus, in said case, this Court recognized the relator Lope Severino, a private individual, as a proper
party to the mandamus proceedings brought to compel the Governor General to call a special
election for the position of municipal president in the town of Silay, Negros Occidental. Speaking for
this Court, Mr. Justice Grant T. Trent said:
We are therefore of the opinion that the weight of authority supports the proposition
that the relator is a proper party to proceedings of this character when a public right
is sought to be enforced. If the general rule in America were otherwise, we think that
it would not be applicable to the case at bar for the reason 'that it is always
dangerous to apply a general rule to a particular case without keeping in mind the
reason for the rule, because, if under the particular circumstances the reason for the
rule does not exist, the rule itself is not applicable and reliance upon the rule may
well lead to error'
No reason exists in the case at bar for applying the general rule insisted upon by
counsel for the respondent. The circumstances which surround this case are different
from those in the United States, inasmuch as if the relator is not a proper party to
these proceedings no other person could be, as we have seen that it is not the duty
of the law officer of the Government to appear and represent the people in cases of
this character.
The reasons given by the Court in recognizing a private citizen's legal personality in the
aforementioned case apply squarely to the present petition. Clearly, the right sought to be enforced
by petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land. If
7. petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to conceive of
any other person to initiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General, the government officer
generally empowered to represent the people, has entered his appearance for respondents in this
case.
Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non
requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity
dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions
as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their
effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Article 2 of the Civil Code:
Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided, ...
The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with this Court's construction of said article. In a
long line of decisions, 4
this Court has ruled that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those
cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-for then the date of publication is
material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication-but not
when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect.
Respondents' argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws
with the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand,
the conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication
in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. Thus, Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act 638 provides as follows:
Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all important legisiative
acts and resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the Philippines; [2] all
executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no
general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance
to be so published; [4] such documents or classes of documents as may be required
so to be published by law; and [5] such documents or classes of documents as the
President of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general
applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be published. ...
The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the
various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and
publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It
would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law
of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of laws
taken so vital significance that at this time when the people have bestowed upon the President a
power heretofore enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass
media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pambansa—and for the diligent ones, ready
access to the legislative records—no such publicity accompanies the law-making process of the
President. Thus, without publication, the people have no means of knowing what presidential
decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing themselves of the
specific contents and texts of such decrees. As the Supreme Court of Spain ruled: "Bajo la
denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos,
8. Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordines dictadas de conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno
en uso de su potestad. 5
The very first clause of Section I of Commonwealth Act 638 reads: "There shall be published in the
Official Gazette ... ." The word "shall" used therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative
duty. That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matter s of
public concern is to be given substance and reality. The law itself makes a list of what should be
published in the Official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves respondents with no discretion
whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from such publication.
The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is
mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for
their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall
within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of
persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that
they have been circularized to all concerned. 6
It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general
applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound
by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. As Justice Claudio
Teehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC 7
:
In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letters of instructions which all form part
of the law of the land, the requirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand
that the Official Gazette as the official government repository promulgate and publish
the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructions so that the people may know
where to obtain their official and specific contents.
The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application, which have not been
published, shall have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quite apprehensive about the
possible unsettling effect this decision might have on acts done in reliance of the validity of those
presidential decrees which were published only during the pendency of this petition, have put the
question as to whether the Court's declaration of invalidity apply to P.D.s which had been enforced
or implemented prior to their publication. The answer is all too familiar. In similar situations in the
past this Court had taken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot County Drainage
District vs. Baxter Bank 8 to wit:
The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having
been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative, conferring
no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged
decree. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442; Chicago, 1. & L. Ry. Co. v.
Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566. It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as
to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken with
qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an
operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past
cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent
ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects-with respect to
particular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights claimed to have become
vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon
accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its
previous application, demand examination. These questions are among the most
difficult of those which have engaged the attention of courts, state and federal and it
9. is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of
absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.
Consistently with the above principle, this Court in Rutter vs. Esteban 9
sustained the right of a party
under the Moratorium Law, albeit said right had accrued in his favor before said law was declared
unconstitutional by this Court.
Similarly, the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their publication in the
Official Gazette is "an operative fact which may have consequences which cannot be justly ignored.
The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration ... that an all-inclusive statement of a
principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified."
From the report submitted to the Court by the Clerk of Court, it appears that of the presidential
decrees sought by petitioners to be published in the Official Gazette, only Presidential Decrees Nos.
1019 to 1030, inclusive, 1278, and 1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been so published. 10
Neither
the subject matters nor the texts of these PDs can be ascertained since no copies thereof are available.
But whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that none of these unpublished PDs has ever
been implemented or enforced by the government. In Pesigan vs. Angeles, 11
the Court, through Justice
Ramon Aquino, ruled that "publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of [penal]
regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. " The cogency of this
holding is apparently recognized by respondent officials considering the manifestation in their comment
that "the government, as a matter of policy, refrains from prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the
same shall have been published in the Official Gazette or in some other publication, even though some
criminal laws provide that they shall take effect immediately.
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.
SO ORDERED.
Relova, J., concurs.
Aquino, J., took no part.
Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.
Separate Opinions
FERNANDO, C.J., concurring (with qualification):
There is on the whole acceptance on my part of the views expressed in the ably written opinion of
Justice Escolin. I am unable, however, to concur insofar as it would unqualifiedly impose the
requirement of publication in the Official Gazette for unpublished "presidential issuances" to have
binding force and effect.
10. I shall explain why.
1. It is of course true that without the requisite publication, a due process question would arise if
made to apply adversely to a party who is not even aware of the existence of any legislative or
executive act having the force and effect of law. My point is that such publication required need not
be confined to the Official Gazette. From the pragmatic standpoint, there is an advantage to be
gained. It conduces to certainty. That is too be admitted. It does not follow, however, that failure to
do so would in all cases and under all circumstances result in a statute, presidential decree or any
other executive act of the same category being bereft of any binding force and effect. To so hold
would, for me, raise a constitutional question. Such a pronouncement would lend itself to the
interpretation that such a legislative or presidential act is bereft of the attribute of effectivity unless
published in the Official Gazette. There is no such requirement in the Constitution as Justice Plana
so aptly pointed out. It is true that what is decided now applies only to past "presidential issuances".
Nonetheless, this clarification is, to my mind, needed to avoid any possible misconception as to what
is required for any statute or presidential act to be impressed with binding force or effectivity.
2. It is quite understandable then why I concur in the separate opinion of Justice Plana. Its first
paragraph sets forth what to me is the constitutional doctrine applicable to this case. Thus: "The
Philippine Constitution does not require the publication of laws as a prerequisite for their effectivity,
unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. It may be said though that the guarantee of due process
requires notice of laws to affected Parties before they can be bound thereby; but such notice is not
necessarily by publication in the Official Gazette. The due process clause is not that precise. 1
I am
likewise in agreement with its closing paragraph: "In fine, I concur in the majority decision to the extent
that it requires notice before laws become effective, for no person should be bound by a law without
notice. This is elementary fairness. However, I beg to disagree insofar as it holds that such notice s hall be
by publication in the Official Gazette. 2
3. It suffices, as was stated by Judge Learned Hand, that law as the command of the government
"must be ascertainable in some form if it is to be enforced at all. 3
It would indeed be to reduce it to the
level of mere futility, as pointed out by Justice Cardozo, "if it is unknown and unknowable. 4
Publication, to
repeat, is thus essential. What I am not prepared to subscribe to is the doctrine that it must be in the
Official Gazette. To be sure once published therein there is the ascertainable mode of determining the
exact date of its effectivity. Still for me that does not dispose of the question of what is the jural effect of
past presidential decrees or executive acts not so published. For prior thereto, it could be that parties
aware of their existence could have conducted themselves in accordance with their provisions. If no legal
consequences could attach due to lack of publication in the Official Gazette, then serious problems could
arise. Previous transactions based on such "Presidential Issuances" could be open to question. Matters
deemed settled could still be inquired into. I am not prepared to hold that such an effect is contemplated
by our decision. Where such presidential decree or executive act is made the basis of a criminal
prosecution, then, of course, its ex post facto character becomes evident. 5
In civil cases though,
retroactivity as such is not conclusive on the due process aspect. There must still be a showing of
arbitrariness. Moreover, where the challenged presidential decree or executive act was issued under the
police power, the non-impairment clause of the Constitution may not always be successfully invoked.
There must still be that process of balancing to determine whether or not it could in such a case be
tainted by infirmity. 6 In traditional terminology, there could arise then a question of unconstitutional
application. That is as far as it goes.
4. Let me make therefore that my qualified concurrence goes no further than to affirm that
publication is essential to the effectivity of a legislative or executive act of a general application. I am
not in agreement with the view that such publication must be in the Official Gazette. The Civil Code
itself in its Article 2 expressly recognizes that the rule as to laws taking effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette is subject to this exception,
"unless it is otherwise provided." Moreover, the Civil Code is itself only a legislative enactment,
Republic Act No. 386. It does not and cannot have the juridical force of a constitutional command. A
11. later legislative or executive act which has the force and effect of law can legally provide for a
different rule.
5. Nor can I agree with the rather sweeping conclusion in the opinion of Justice Escolin that
presidential decrees and executive acts not thus previously published in the Official Gazette would
be devoid of any legal character. That would be, in my opinion, to go too far. It may be fraught, as
earlier noted, with undesirable consequences. I find myself therefore unable to yield assent to such a
pronouncement.
I am authorized to state that Justices Makasiar, Abad Santos, Cuevas, and Alampay concur in this
separate opinion.
Makasiar, Abad Santos, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:
I concur with the main opinion of Mr. Justice Escolin and the concurring opinion of Mme. Justice
Herrera. The Rule of Law connotes a body of norms and laws published and ascertainable and of
equal application to all similarly circumstances and not subject to arbitrary change but only under
certain set procedures. The Court has consistently stressed that "it is an elementary rule of fair play
and justice that a reasonable opportunity to be informed must be afforded to the people who are
commanded to obey before they can be punished for its violation, 1
citing the settled principle based on
due process enunciated in earlier cases that "before the public is bound by its contents, especially its
penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be published and the people officially and
specially informed of said contents and its penalties.
Without official publication in the Official Gazette as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code and the
Revised Administrative Code, there would be no basis nor justification for the corollary rule of Article
3 of the Civil Code (based on constructive notice that the provisions of the law are ascertainable
from the public and official repository where they are duly published) that "Ignorance of the law
excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Respondents' contention based on a misreading of Article 2 of the Civil Code that "only laws which
are silent as to their effectivity [date] need be published in the Official Gazette for their effectivity" is
manifestly untenable. The plain text and meaning of the Civil Code is that "laws shall take effect after
fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided, " i.e. a different effectivity date is provided by the law itself. This proviso perforce refers to
a law that has been duly published pursuant to the basic constitutional requirements of due process.
The best example of this is the Civil Code itself: the same Article 2 provides otherwise that it "shall
take effect [only] one year [not 15 days] after such publication. 2
To sustain respondents' misreading
that "most laws or decrees specify the date of their effectivity and for this reason, publication in the Official
Gazette is not necessary for their effectivity 3 would be to nullify and render nugatory the Civil Code's
indispensable and essential requirement of prior publication in the Official Gazette by the simple
expedient of providing for immediate effectivity or an earlier effectivity date in the law itself before the
completion of 15 days following its publication which is the period generally fixed by the Civil Code for its
proper dissemination.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring:
12. I agree. There cannot be any question but that even if a decree provides for a date of effectivity, it
has to be published. What I would like to state in connection with that proposition is that when a date
of effectivity is mentioned in the decree but the decree becomes effective only fifteen (15) days after
its publication in the Official Gazette, it will not mean that the decree can have retroactive effect to
the date of effectivity mentioned in the decree itself. There should be no retroactivity if the
retroactivity will run counter to constitutional rights or shall destroy vested rights.
PLANA, J., concurring (with qualification):
The Philippine Constitution does not require the publication of laws as a prerequisite for their
effectivity, unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. * It may be said though that the guarantee of dueprocessrequires
notice of lawsto affected partiesbefore they can be boundthereby; but such noticeisnot necessarily by publication inthe Official Gazette.
The due processclause is not that precise. Neither isthe publication of lawsin the Official Gazette requiredby any statute asa prerequisite
for their effectivity, if said lawsalready providefor their effectivity date.
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided " Two things
may be said of this provision: Firstly, it obviously does not apply to a law with a built-in provision as
to when it will take effect. Secondly, it clearly recognizes that each law may provide not only a
different period for reckoning its effectivity date but also a different mode of notice. Thus, a law may
prescribe that it shall be published elsewhere than in the Official Gazette.
Commonwealth Act No. 638, in my opinion, does not support the proposition that for their
effectivity, laws must be published in the Official Gazette. The said law is simply "An Act to Provide
for the Uniform Publication and Distribution of the Official Gazette." Conformably therewith, it
authorizes the publication of the Official Gazette, determines its frequency, provides for its sale and
distribution, and defines the authority of the Director of Printing in relation thereto. It also enumerates
what shall be published in the Official Gazette, among them, "important legislative acts and
resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines" and "all executive and
administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability." It is
noteworthy that not all legislative acts are required to be published in the Official Gazette but only
"important" ones "of a public nature." Moreover, the said law does not provide that publication in the
Official Gazette is essential for the effectivity of laws. This is as it should be, for all statutes are equal
and stand on the same footing. A law, especially an earlier one of general application such as
Commonwealth Act No. 638, cannot nullify or restrict the operation of a subsequent statute that has
a provision of its own as to when and how it will take effect. Only a higher law, which is the
Constitution, can assume that role.
In fine, I concur in the majority decision to the extent that it requires notice before laws become
effective, for no person should be bound by a law without notice. This is elementary fairness.
However, I beg to disagree insofar as it holds that such notice shall be by publication in the Official
Gazette.
Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
GUTIERREZ, Jr., J., concurring:
13. I concur insofar as publication is necessary but reserve my vote as to the necessity of such
publication being in the Official Gazette.
DE LA FUENTE, J., concurring:
I concur insofar as the opinion declares the unpublished decrees and issuances of a public nature or
general applicability ineffective, until due publication thereof.
Separate Opinions
FERNANDO, C.J., concurring (with qualification):
There is on the whole acceptance on my part of the views expressed in the ably written opinion of
Justice Escolin. I am unable, however, to concur insofar as it would unqualifiedly impose the
requirement of publication in the Official Gazette for unpublished "presidential issuances" to have
binding force and effect.
I shall explain why.
1. It is of course true that without the requisite publication, a due process question would arise if
made to apply adversely to a party who is not even aware of the existence of any legislative or
executive act having the force and effect of law. My point is that such publication required need not
be confined to the Official Gazette. From the pragmatic standpoint, there is an advantage to be
gained. It conduces to certainty. That is too be admitted. It does not follow, however, that failure to
do so would in all cases and under all circumstances result in a statute, presidential decree or any
other executive act of the same category being bereft of any binding force and effect. To so hold
would, for me, raise a constitutional question. Such a pronouncement would lend itself to the
interpretation that such a legislative or presidential act is bereft of the attribute of effectivity unless
published in the Official Gazette. There is no such requirement in the Constitution as Justice Plana
so aptly pointed out. It is true that what is decided now applies only to past "presidential issuances".
Nonetheless, this clarification is, to my mind, needed to avoid any possible misconception as to what
is required for any statute or presidential act to be impressed with binding force or effectivity.
2. It is quite understandable then why I concur in the separate opinion of Justice Plana. Its first
paragraph sets forth what to me is the constitutional doctrine applicable to this case. Thus: "The
Philippine Constitution does not require the publication of laws as a prerequisite for their effectivity,
unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. It may be said though that the guarantee of due process
requires notice of laws to affected Parties before they can be bound thereby; but such notice is not
necessarily by publication in the Official Gazette. The due process clause is not that precise. 1
I am
likewise in agreement with its closing paragraph: "In fine, I concur in the majority decision to the extent
that it requires notice before laws become effective, for no person should be bound by a law without
notice. This is elementary fairness. However, I beg to disagree insofar as it holds that such notice shall be
by publication in the Official Gazette. 2
14. 3. It suffices, as was stated by Judge Learned Hand, that law as the command of the government
"must be ascertainable in some form if it is to be enforced at all. 3
It would indeed be to reduce it to the
level of mere futility, as pointed out by Justice Cardozo, "if it is unknown and unknowable. 4
Publication, to
repeat, is thus essential. What I am not prepared to subscribe to is the doctrine that it must be in the
Official Gazette. To be sure once published therein there is the ascertainable mode of determining the
exact date of its effectivity. Still for me that does not dispose of the question of what is the jural effect of
past presidential decrees or executive acts not so published. For prior thereto, it could be that parties
aware of their existence could have conducted themselves in accordance with their provisions. If no legal
consequences could attach due to lack of publication in the Official Gazette, then serious problems could
arise. Previous transactions based on such "Presidential Issuances" could be open to question. Matters
deemed settled could still be inquired into. I am not prepared to hold that such an effect is contemplated
by our decision. Where such presidential decree or executive act is made the basis of a criminal
prosecution, then, of course, its ex post facto character becomes evident. 5
In civil cases though,
retroactivity as such is not conclusive on the due process aspect. There must still be a showing of
arbitrariness. Moreover, where the challenged presidential decree or executive act was issued under the
police power, the non-impairment clause of the Constitution may not always be successfully invoked.
There must still be that process of balancing to determine whether or not it could in such a case be
tainted by infirmity. 6
In traditional terminology, there could arise then a question of unconstitutional
application. That is as far as it goes.
4. Let me make therefore that my qualified concurrence goes no further than to affirm that
publication is essential to the effectivity of a legislative or executive act of a general application. I am
not in agreement with the view that such publication must be in the Official Gazette. The Civil Code
itself in its Article 2 expressly recognizes that the rule as to laws taking effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette is subject to this exception,
"unless it is otherwise provided." Moreover, the Civil Code is itself only a legislative enactment,
Republic Act No. 386. It does not and cannot have the juridical force of a constitutional command. A
later legislative or executive act which has the force and effect of law can legally provide for a
different rule.
5. Nor can I agree with the rather sweeping conclusion in the opinion of Justice Escolin that
presidential decrees and executive acts not thus previously published in the Official Gazette would
be devoid of any legal character. That would be, in my opinion, to go too far. It may be fraught, as
earlier noted, with undesirable consequences. I find myself therefore unable to yield assent to such a
pronouncement.
I am authorized to state that Justices Makasiar, Abad Santos, Cuevas, and Alampay concur in this
separate opinion.
Makasiar, Abad Santos, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:
I concur with the main opinion of Mr. Justice Escolin and the concurring opinion of Mme. Justice
Herrera. The Rule of Law connotes a body of norms and laws published and ascertainable and of
equal application to all similarly circumstances and not subject to arbitrary change but only under
certain set procedures. The Court has consistently stressed that "it is an elementary rule of fair play
and justice that a reasonable opportunity to be informed must be afforded to the people who are
commanded to obey before they can be punished for its violation, 1
citing the settled principle based on
due process enunciated in earlier cases that "before the public is bound by its contents, especially its
15. penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be published and the people officially and
specially informed of said contents and its penalties.
Without official publication in the Official Gazette as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code and the
Revised Administrative Code, there would be no basis nor justification for the corollary rule of Article
3 of the Civil Code (based on constructive notice that the provisions of the law are ascertainable
from the public and official repository where they are duly published) that "Ignorance of the law
excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Respondents' contention based on a misreading of Article 2 of the Civil Code that "only laws which
are silent as to their effectivity [date] need be published in the Official Gazette for their effectivity" is
manifestly untenable. The plain text and meaning of the Civil Code is that "laws shall take effect after
fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided, " i.e. a different effectivity date is provided by the law itself. This proviso perforce refers to
a law that has been duly published pursuant to the basic constitutional requirements of due process.
The best example of this is the Civil Code itself: the same Article 2 provides otherwise that it "shall
take effect [only] one year [not 15 days] after such publication. 2
To sustain respondents' misreading
that "most laws or decrees specify the date of their effectivity and for this reason, publication in the Official
Gazette is not necessary for their effectivity 3
would be to nullify and render nugatory the Civil Code's
indispensable and essential requirement of prior publication in the Official Gazette by the simple
expedient of providing for immediate effectivity or an earlier effectivity date in the law itself before the
completion of 15 days following its publication which is the period generally fixed by the Civil Code for its
proper dissemination.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring:
I agree. There cannot be any question but that even if a decree provides for a date of effectivity, it
has to be published. What I would like to state in connection with that proposition is that when a date
of effectivity is mentioned in the decree but the decree becomes effective only fifteen (15) days after
its publication in the Official Gazette, it will not mean that the decree can have retroactive effect to
the date of effectivity mentioned in the decree itself. There should be no retroactivity if the
retroactivity will run counter to constitutional rights or shall destroy vested rights.
PLANA, J., concurring (with qualification):
The Philippine Constitution does not require the publication of laws as a prerequisite for their
effectivity, unlike some Constitutions elsewhere. * It may be said though that the guarantee of dueprocessrequires
notice of lawsto affected partiesbefore they can be boundthereby; but such noticeisnot necessarily by publication inthe Official Gazette.
The due processclause is not that precise. Neither isthe publication of lawsin the Official Gazette requiredby any statute asa prerequisite
for their effectivity, if said lawsalready providefor their effectivity date.
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided " Two things
may be said of this provision: Firstly, it obviously does not apply to a law with a built-in provision as
to when it will take effect. Secondly, it clearly recognizes that each law may provide not only a
different period for reckoning its effectivity date but also a different mode of notice. Thus, a law may
prescribe that it shall be published elsewhere than in the Official Gazette.
16. Commonwealth Act No. 638, in my opinion, does not support the proposition that for their
effectivity, laws must be published in the Official Gazette. The said law is simply "An Act to Provide
for the Uniform Publication and Distribution of the Official Gazette." Conformably therewith, it
authorizes the publication of the Official Gazette, determines its frequency, provides for its sale and
distribution, and defines the authority of the Director of Printing in relation thereto. It also enumerates
what shall be published in the Official Gazette, among them, "important legislative acts and
resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines" and "all executive and
administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability." It is
noteworthy that not all legislative acts are required to be published in the Official Gazette but only
"important" ones "of a public nature." Moreover, the said law does not provide that publication in the
Official Gazette is essential for the effectivity of laws. This is as it should be, for all statutes are equal
and stand on the same footing. A law, especially an earlier one of general application such as
Commonwealth Act No. 638, cannot nullify or restrict the operation of a subsequent statute that has
a provision of its own as to when and how it will take effect. Only a higher law, which is the
Constitution, can assume that role.
In fine, I concur in the majority decision to the extent that it requires notice before laws become
effective, for no person should be bound by a law without notice. This is elementary fairness.
However, I beg to disagree insofar as it holds that such notice shall be by publication in the Official
Gazette.
Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
GUTIERREZ, Jr., J., concurring:
I concur insofar as publication is necessary but reserve my vote as to the necessity of such
publication being in the Official Gazette.
DE LA FUENTE, J., concurring:
I concur insofar as the opinion declares the unpublished decrees and issuances of a public nature or
general applicability ineffective, until due publication thereof.
Footnotes
1 Section 6. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shag
be recognized, access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, shag be afforded the citizens subject to such
limitation as may be provided by law.
2 Anti-Chinese League vs. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012; Costas vs. Aidanese, 45 Phil. 345;
Almario vs. City Mayor, 16 SCRA 151;Parting vs. San Jose Petroleum, 18 SCRA
924; Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392.
3 16 Phil. 366, 378.
17. 4 Camacho vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 80 Phil 848; Mejia vs. Balolong, 81 Phil.
486; Republic of the Philippines vs. Encamacion, 87 Phil. 843; Philippine Blooming
Mills, Inc. vs. Social Security System, 17 SCRA 1077; Askay vs. Cosalan, 46 Phil.
179.
5 1 Manresa, Codigo Civil 7th Ed., p. 146.
6 People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; Balbuena et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et
al., 110 Phil. 150.
7 82 SCRA 30, dissenting opinion.
8 308 U.S. 371, 374.
9 93 Phil.. 68,.
10 The report was prepared by the Clerk of Court after Acting Director Florendo S.
Pablo Jr. of the Government Printing Office, failed to respond to her letter-request
regarding the respective dates of publication in the Official Gazette of the presidential
issuances listed therein. No report has been submitted by the Clerk of Court as to the
publication or non-publication of other presidential issuances.
11 129 SCRA 174.
Fernando, CJ.:
1 Separate Opinion of Justice Plana, first paragraph. He mentioned in tills connection
Article 7, Sec. 21 of the Wisconsin Constitution and State ex rel. White v. Grand
Superior Ct., 71 ALR 1354, citing the Constitution of Indiana, U.S.A
2 Ibid, closing paragraph.
3 Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty 104 (1960).
4 Cardozo, The Growth of the Law, 3 (1924).
5 Cf. Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 50581-50617, January 30, 1982, 111
SCRA 433.
6 Cf. Alalayan v. National Power Corporation, L-24396, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 172.
Teehankee, J.:
1 People vs. de Dios, G.R. No. 11003, Aug. 3l, 1959, per the late Chief Justice
Paras.
2 Notes in brackets supplied.
3 Respondents: comment, pp. 14-15.
18. Plana, J.:
* See e.g., Wisconsin Constitution, Art. 7, Sec. 21: "The legislature shall provide
publication of all statute laws ... and no general law shall be in force until published."
See also S ate ex rel. White vs. Grand Superior Ct., 71 ALR 1354, citing Constitution
of Indiana, U.S.A.
Tanada vs Tuvera (136 SCRA 27)
TITLE: Tanada v Tuvera
CITATION: L-63915, April 24, 1985| 136 SCRA 27
FACTS:
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus in compelling respondent public officials to publish and/ or
cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letter of instructions,
general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders.
The general rule in seeking writ of mandamus is that it “would be granted to a private individual only
in those cases where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or some particular
right to be protected, independent of that which he holds with the public at large," and "it is for the
public officers exclusively to apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved”.
The legal capacity of a private citizen was recognized by court to make the said petition for the
reason that the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no
less than the fundamental law of the land.
ISSUE: Whether publication in the Official Gazette is still required considering the clause in Article
2 “unless otherwise provided”.
HELD:
“Unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not with the publication
requirement which cannot be omitted as public needs to be notified for the law to become
19. effective. The necessity for the publication in the Official Gazette of all unpublished presidential
issuances which are of general application, was affirmed by the court on April 24, 1985. This is
necessary to provide the general public adequate notice of the various laws which regulate actions
and conduct as citizens. Without this, there would be no basis for Art 3 of the Civil Code “Ignorance
of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith”.
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.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 200 June 18, 1987
PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR IN A
NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR
THEIR EFFECTIVITY
WHEREAS, Article 2 of the Civil Code partly provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided . .
.;"
WHEREAS, the requirement that for laws to be effective only a publication thereof in the Official
Gazette will suffice has entailed some problems, a point recognized by the Supreme Court in
Tañada. et al. vs. Tuvera, et al. (G.R. No. 63915, December 29, 1986) when it observed that "[t]here
is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be made in the Official Gazette,
considering its erratic release and limited readership";
WHEREAS, it was likewise observed that "[u]ndoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation could
better perform the function of communicating the laws to the people as such periodicals are more
easily available, have a wider readership, and come out regularly"; and
WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing premises Article 2 of the Civil Code should accordingly be
amended so the laws to be effective must be published either in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation in the country;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order:
Sec. 1. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise
provided.
Sec. 2. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the "Civil Code of the Philippines," and
all other laws inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Done in the City of Manila, this 18th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
eighty-seven.