Case Digest (G.R. No. L-63915) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, decided December 29, 1986, petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, Abraham F. Sarmiento and the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI) challenged the non-publication of several Presidential Decrees and sought a judicial order compelling respondents—Hon. Juan C. Tuvera (Executive Assistant to the President), Hon. Joaquin Venus (Deputy Executive Assistant), Melquiades P. de la Cruz and others—to cause their publication. Initially, on April 24, 1985, the Court en banc ruled that unpublished presidential issuances of general application have no binding force unless published in the Official Gazette. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification, asking (1) the meaning of “laws of public nature” or “general applicability,” (2) whether any distinction must be drawn between those and private or local laws, (3) what constitutes valid “publication,” (4) where such publication must occur, an Case Digest (G.R. No. L-63915) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Original Petition
- Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and the MABINI Movement challenged the non-publication of several presidential decrees as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code.
- Respondents included Executive Assistant to the President Hon. Juan C. Tuvera, Deputy Executive Assistant Hon. Joaquin Venus, and other officials.
- Procedural History and Motion for Reconsideration
- On April 24, 1985, the Court ordered publication in the Official Gazette of all unpublished presidential issuances of general application, failing which they would have no binding force.
- Petitioners filed for reconsideration/clarification, asking:
- What constitutes “law of public nature” or “general applicability”?
- Whether a distinction must be made between general and particular laws.
- The precise meaning of “publication,” its venue, and timing.
- The Solicitor General’s Comment argued (a) the motion sought an advisory opinion; (b) “unless otherwise provided” dispensed with the publication requirement; (c) publication need not be in the Official Gazette; and (d) the original decision lacked binding force due to insufficient concurrence.
- Petitioners replied, and following the February 1986 Revolution, the new Solicitor General filed a Rejoinder, conceding publication must be full and in the Official Gazette but denying binding effect due to vote count.
Issues:
- Scope of the “unless otherwise provided” clause in Article 2 of the Civil Code
- Whether publication is an indispensable requirement or may be omitted when a law prescribes immediate effectivity
- The meaning, venue, and timing of the required publication
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)