Case Digest (G.R. No. 63915) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Lorenzo M. Tanada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI) vs. Hon. Juan C. Tuvera, Hon. Joaquin Venus, Melquiades P. de la Cruz, and Florendo S. Pablo, decided en banc by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 24, 1985 in Manila, petitioners filed an original Rule 65 petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the publication in the Official Gazette of hundreds of presidential issuances spanning Presidential Decrees Nos. 12 to 1847, Letters of Instructions Nos. 10 to 1278, General Orders Nos. 14 to 65, Proclamations Nos. 1126 to 2244, Executive Orders Nos. 411 to 857, Letters of Implementation Nos. 7 to 123, and Administrative Orders Nos. 347 to 439. Petitioners invoked their citizen right under Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution to be informed on matters of public concern and argued that effective promulgation through publication is a prerequisite to enforceability. Respondents, Case Digest (G.R. No. 63915) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Petition
- Petitioners: Lorenzo M. Tanada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI).
- Respondents: Hon. Juan C. Tuvera (Executive Assistant to the President), Hon. Joaquin Venus (Deputy Executive Assistant), Melquiades P. de la Cruz (Director, Malacañang Records Office), Florendo S. Pablo (Director, Bureau of Printing).
- Subject of the Petition
- A writ of mandamus seeking to compel respondents to publish in the Official Gazette various presidential issuances—Presidential Decrees, Letters of Instructions, General Orders, Proclamations, Executive Orders, Letters of Implementation, Administrative Orders—numbering in the hundreds.
- Reliance on Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (right to information) and on the principle that laws must be published to be valid and enforceable.
- Respondents’ Defense
- Motion to dismiss for lack of standing: petitioners are not “aggrieved parties” under Section 3, Rule 65, Rules of Court, having shown no direct or personal injury.
- Argument that publication in the Official Gazette is unnecessary where issuances already specify their own dates of effectivity (Civil Code, Art. 2).
- Procedural History
- The Solicitor General appeared for respondents, urging dismissal.
- Clerk of Court’s report: only Presidential Decrees Nos. 1019–1030, 1278, and 1937–1939 remain unpublished; these have never been implemented and their texts are unavailable.
Issues:
- Standing
- Can private citizens and an association maintain a mandamus petition to enforce the publication of presidential issuances of general applicability?
- Publication Requirement
- Is publication in the Official Gazette mandatory for the effectivity of presidential issuances that contain their own effectivity dates?
- Relief
- Should the Court compel respondents to publish all listed presidential issuances in the Official Gazette?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)