Case Digest (G.R. No. L-63915)
Facts:
Lorenzo M. Tanada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, Arid Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI) v. Hon. Juan C. Tuvera, et al., G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986, Supreme Court En Banc, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (Tanada, Sarmiento and MABINI) challenged the non‑publication of numerous presidential decrees and other issuances, invoking due process and the public's right to information and seeking disclosure and publication of those measures. The government respondents (including Hon. Juan C. Tuvera in his official capacity and other executive officers) defended the practice on the ground that Article 2 of the Civil Code — which provides that laws take effect fifteen days after publication "unless it is otherwise provided" — permitted effectivity without prior publication when the instrument itself declared immediate effectivity.
In an earlier decision dated April 24, 1985, the Court had held that publication was necessary for some of the decrees and ordered respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, stating they would have no binding force unless so published. Petitioners then filed the present motion for reconsideration/clarification, asking, inter alia, what is meant by "law of public nature" or "general applicability," whether a distinction must be drawn between laws of general application and private/local laws, what constitutes "publication," where it must be made, and when it must occur.
The Solicitor General filed a Comment asserting the motion sought an advisory opinion and arguing that the "unless it is otherwise provided" clause authorized immediate effectivity without publication; that publication need not be in the Official Gazette; and that the April 24, 1985 decision was not binding because only a minority of the justices had concurred in the specific holding on the place of publication. After the February Revolution and a required Rejoinder, the Solicitor General conceded that instruments intended only for internal administration or for particular persons need not be published, but maintained that publication when necessary must be in full and that the prior decision lacked the requisite votes to be binding.
The Court reexamined Article 2 of the Civil Code and the parties' arguments and resolved the motion by clarifying and strengthening the earlier ruling: the phrase "unless it is otherwise provided" relates to the date of a law's effectivity, not to dispensing with publication; publication is indispensable for effectivity; publication must be full, in the Official Gazette, and made forthwith; and the rule extends to statutes, private laws, presidential decrees, executive orders adopted in the exercise of delegated or constitutional legislative power, and administrative rules and regulations that enforce or implement law, while interpretative or purely internal agency regulations and internal instructions need not be published.
The Court also addressed the split votes in the prior decision and pronounced a clear, binding consensus on the requirements and medium of publication. Two justices filed separate concurring opi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petitioners' motion for clarification/reconsideration a request for an advisory opinion and therefore non‑justiciable?
- Does the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" in Article 2 of the Civil Code permit dispensing with publication as a precondition to a law's effectivity, or does it refer only to the date of effectivity?
- What is the required form and medium of "publication" under Article 2 — must it be full publication and in the Official Gazette?
- When must the publication be made for laws to become effective, and which classes of exec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)