Tañada vs.

Tuvera
136 SCRA 27 24 April 24, 1985

FACTS:

Petioners Tanada, Sarmiento and MABINI,filed for writ of mandamus to compel respondent public
officials to publish and/or cause to publish various presidential decrees and issuances. They were
invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern and also principle that
laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette.

ISSUE:

Whether or not laws or statutes should be published in the Official Gazette to make them valid
and enforceable.

HELD:

The Court declared that presidential issuances of general application which have not been
published have no force and effect.

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 fo
r the transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

The word “shall” as mentioned in the first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 “there shall be published
in the Official Gazette…” imposes 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.

TAÑADA VS. TUVERA

146 SCRA 446 29 December 29, 1986

FACTS:
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:

Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which are
not as to their publication;

HELD:

The laws should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application as all 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.

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.