Case Summary (G.R. No. 63915)
Petitioners
Sought a writ of mandamus to compel publication in the Official Gazette of numerous presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementation, and administrative orders, invoking (under the 1973 Constitution) the people’s right to information.
Respondents
Contended that petitioners lacked standing as “aggrieved parties” under Section 3, Rule 65, Rules of Court, and argued that issuances containing their own effectivity dates need not be published to become effective.
Key Dates
Decision rendered April 24, 1985 (applying the 1973 Constitution).
Applicable Law
• 1973 Constitution, Article IV, Section 6 (right to information)
• Rule 65, Section 3, Rules of Court (mandamus and “aggrieved party” requirement)
• Civil Code, Article 2 (laws take effect 15 days after publication in Official Gazette unless otherwise provided)
• Commonwealth Act No. 638 (mandatory publication of executive orders, proclamations, and important legislative acts in the Official Gazette)
• Due-process principle (notice of enactments before binding citizens)
Issues
- Whether private citizens have standing to seek mandamus enforcing a public right.
- Whether presidential issuances that specify their own effectivity dates must nonetheless be published in the Official Gazette to attain binding force.
Arguments
• Respondents: Petitioners lack personal or direct injury; publication is unnecessary where a specific effectivity date is provided.
• Petitioners: Enforcement of a public duty and protection of a public right dispense with the “private interest” requirement; publication is imperative to inform citizens.
Court’s Analysis
- Standing: Building on Severino v. Governor General, the Court held that, where public rights are at stake, any citizen may invoke mandamus to enforce a public duty without showing a private, particularized interest.
- Publication Requirement:
– Civil Code Article 2 does not exempt laws or decrees from publication when they contain their own effectivity date; it merely fixes a default rule.
– Commonwealth Act 638 imposes an imperative duty (“shall be published”) on executive issuances of general applicability.
– Publication in the Official Gazette is integral to due process and the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat; it affords citizens official, constructive notice of regulatory norms and penalties. - Retroactivity: Citing Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter Bank, the Court recognized th
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 63915)
Facts and Background
- Petitioners invoke Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (right of the people to information on matters of public concern) and the rule that laws must be published in the Official Gazette (or effectively promulgated) to be valid and enforceable.
- They filed a verified petition for mandamus, praying that respondents publish, or cause to be published, numerous presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementation, and administrative orders in the Official Gazette.
- A comprehensive list of issuances was attached, covering items (a) Presidential Decrees Nos. 12–1847 (selected numbers), (b) Letters of Instructions Nos. 10–1278, (c) General Orders Nos. 14–65, (d) Proclamation Nos. 1126–2244, (e) Executive Orders Nos. 411–857, (f) Letters of Implementation Nos. 7–123, and (g) Administrative Orders Nos. 347–439.
- The Solicitor General appeared for respondents, moving for outright dismissal on the ground of lack of standing; respondents also argued that special effectivity dates in the issuances obviated the need for publication.
Procedural Posture
- Origin: En banc petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for a writ of mandamus.
- Respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of legal personality or standing (not “aggrieved parties” under Section 3, Rule 65).
- Petitioners’ opposition: public right involved; relator need not show special interest when enforcing a public duty.
Issue
- Whether private individuals (petitioners) have standing to invoke mandamus to compel publication of presidential issuances of general applicability.
- Whether publication in the Official Gazette is mandatory for the validity and effectivity of presidential issuances, even if they contain their own effectivity dates.
- Whether unpublished issuances may be enforced retroactively or remain binding without publication.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- The subject involves a public right: the people’s constitutional right to information and proper promulgation of laws and decrees.
- Under Severino v. Governor General (16 Phil. 366) and doctrine on public rights, any citizen may seek mandamus to enforce a public duty without showing a special or personal interest.
- Without publication, citizens cannot know which presidential decrees have been promulgated, violating due process and the maxim “ignorantia legis non excusat.”
Respondents’ Contentions
- Petitioners lack legal personality under Section 3, Rule 65: they are not “aggrieved parties” as they show no personal, direct prejudice.
- Article 2, Civil Code (laws take effect 15 days after publication