Tañada v. Tuvera

NAME: MARK JOHN U. RAMOS ATTY.
RAYMUNDO AQUINO
PERSONS & FAMILY LAW (JD501) AUGUST 24, 2022
TAÑADA V. TUVERA
146 SCRA 446
Petitioners: LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT

OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC.
[MABINI]
Respondents: HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the
President, HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to
the President , MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Director, Malacañang
Records Office, and FLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of
Printing
Ponente: J. ESCOLIN
Facts:
Lorenzo M. Tañada, et. al., invoked due process in questioning the list of the
several Presidential Decrees, Letter of Instructions & Implementation, General Orders,
Proclamations and also Administrative Orders from President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
The petitioners implies that the respondents violated the right of the people to be
informed on matters of public concern; a right recognized in Section 6, Art. IV of the
1973 Constitution, because the said issuances were not published as required by the
law.
In response to the petition, the Solicitor General dismissed the motion insofar as
the petitioners hold no legal personality to pursue the motion nor have been directly
affected or prejudiced by the said issuances that were not published.
Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition
concerns a public right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they
need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due course
The respondents hold that the presidential issuance in question provides for its
own effectivity and asserts that it has special provisions as to the implementation dates.
Based from the Article 2 of the Civil Code, “Laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided.”The respondents pointed out on the clause “unless it otherwise provided” from
the said article, that the other presidential issuances need not to be published in the
Official Gazette if the issuances have the required characteristics to be exempted.
Issues:
NAME: MARK JOHN U. RAMOS ATTY. RAYMUNDO AQUINO
PERSONS & FAMILY LAW (JD501) AUGUST 24, 2022
Whether or not the issuances in question which contains special provisions as to

the implementation dates still need to be published in the Official Gazette.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that all presidential issuances of general
application shall be published as a condition for its effectivity. That it would hold no
binding force nor power if not published. Which shall begin 15 days after the completion
of its publication or when there is a special provision as to its date when it goes to
effect. Publication is a considerable part of due process.
WHEREFORE, Supreme Court hereby orders the respondents to publish the
unpublished issuances in the Official Gazette which are of general application. The
Presidential Issuances shall have no binding force and effect until published. SO
ORDERED.
Separate Opinion:
I concur insofar with the ruling of the court, I strongly agree that proper
publication of laws hold a substantive part of due process. Without a publication or prior
notice to the various laws and rules, it would led to injustice and problems for the
citizen.
I also acknowledge the opinion of the court as to the discretion in the type of
presidential issuance to publish. The Laws for general application and of public nature
are strongly needed to be published specially the presidential issuances that provides
fines, penalties for their violation or impose a burden to the citizen. While there are
others that does not need to be published as such the presidential issuances that is
relevant only to a single person or even administrative and executive order that only a
set of persons are required to know.
I would like to concur as well for the amendment by E.O. No. 200 of the Article 2
from the old Civil Code. I strongly agree for changing the restriction of a single
publication to either publication of Official Gazette or newspaper publication that is
widely used in the Philippines.

Tañada v. Tuvera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tañada v. Tuvera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tañada v. Tuvera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAME: MARK JOHN U. RAMOS ATTY.

Petitioners: LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT

Whether or not the issuances in question which contains special provisions as to

You might also like