Quiz No. 1 Effect and Application of Laws (Art.

2, 3, 4 & 6, NCC)
(Aug. 9, 2017)

I
A law was passed providing for its immediate effectivity. Does this mean that its immediate
effectivity provision would dispense with the publication requirement? Why?

No.

Article 2 NCC provides that Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of its
publicationunless otherwise provided.

In the case of Taada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27, the SC said that the phrase unless otherwise
provided refers to the period of publication and not the indispensable requirement of publication.
It ruled that an immediate effectivity clause does not preclude the requirement of publication
since the clear object of the law is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws
which are to regulate their conduct and actions as citizens. Without such notice and publication,
there would be no cause for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat It would
be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law
which he had no notice of.

II
May the 15-day period of publication be reduced or extended?

Yes.

Art. 2 NCC provides that laws shall take effect 15 days after completion of its publication..

In the case of Tanada v Tuvera, the court ruled that publication is indispensable in every case,
but the legislature may, in its discretion, provide that the usual 15-day period be shortened or
extended. For example, the Civil Code did not become effective after 15 days from its
publication in the Official Gazette but one year after its publication. (Taada vs. Tuvera, G.R.
No. 63915, Dec. 29, 1986)

III
Philippine International Trading Corp. (PITC), a body organized to regulate international trading
issued Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 under which, applications to the PITC for
importation from the Peoples Republic of China (PROC) must be accompanied by a viable and
confirmed Export Program of Philippine Products to PROC carried out by the importer himself
or through a tie-up with a legitimate importer in an amount equivalent to the value of the
importation applied for. Remington, Inc.s application for importation was withheld for failure to
comply with the undertaking to submit export credits equivalent to the value of the importations,
hence, it questioned the validity of the Order as it was not published in the Official Gazette or in
a newspaper of general circulation. Is the contention correct? Why?

Yes.

Art 2 NCC.

The Administrative Order which was not published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation is not valid. That fact that it was filed with and published by the UP Law
Center in the National Administrative Register did not cure the defect related to the effectivity of

1|Page
such Order. In Taada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446, it was ruled that all statutes, including those
of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which
shall become effective 15 days after their publication, unless a different effectivity date is fixed
by legislation. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by
the President in the exercise of legislative powers or, at present, directly conferred by the
Constitution. Administrative Rules and Regulations must also be published if their purpose is to
enforce or implement existing laws pursuant to a valid delegation.

The publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the
public of the contents of the law. (Phil. International Trading Corp. vs. Judge Angeles, et. al.,
G.R. No. 108461, Oct. 21, 1996; Cojuango vs. Republic, G.R. No. 180705, Nov. 27, 2012;
National Electrification Administration vs. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 158761, Dec. 4, 2007).

IV
Is ignorance of the law a valid excuse for non-compliance with the same? Why?

No. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. (Art. 3, NCC). If ignorance
of the law is a valid excuse, then, it would be very easy to violate the law, there would be chaos
and disorder in society. It would invite deception and promote criminality.

V
May laws be given retroactive effect? Is the rule absolute? If it is not absolute, what are the
exceptions?

Laws as a general rule, have no retroactive effect. The rule is not absolute because it admits of
some exceptions, such as:
a) When the law itself provides for its retroactivity;
b) When the law is penal in nature and is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual
delinquent or recidivist;
c) When the law is procedural in nature;
d) When it creates new substantive rights;
e) When the law is curative in nature;
f) When it is interpretative of other laws.

VI
Accused was charged under RA 6425 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. While on appeal,
RA 7659, which reduced the penalty for the offense depending upon the weight, was enacted.
Can the law be applied to the accused? Why?

Yes,

Art 4 NCC, provides that as a general rule

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that pursuant to the rule that penal laws which
are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect for as long as they are favorable to the
persons guilty of a felony, provided they are not habitual delinquents. (Art. 22, RPC). The
provisions of Article 22, RPC are applicable even to special laws. (People vs. Bagares, G.R. No.
99026, Aug. 4, 1994 citing U.S. vs. Soliman, 36 Phil. 5)

VII
2|Page
May procedural laws be given retroactive effect? Why?

Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending
and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in the sense and
to that extent. (Municipal of Coron vs. Carino, G.R. No. 65894, Sept. 24, 1987). This is so
because there is no vested right in the rules of procedure.

VIII
May rights be waived? Are there exceptions?

The general rule is that rights may be waived. But this rule is not absolute. It admits of two
exceptions, such as:
a) When the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals good customs;
and
b) When the waiver is prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (Art. 6,
NCC)

IX
A student was granted a scholarship but agreed not to transfer to another school unless he would
refund all the benefits he derived out of his scholarship. Is the stipulation valid? Why?
No, it is void, because it is contrary to public policy and morals. (Cui vs. Arellano University, L-
15127, May 30, 1961)

The ruling in Cui vs. Arellano University is consistent with Art. 1306 of the Civil Code where
the parties to a contract are given the liberty to stipulate on its terms and conditions, provided,
the same are not contrary to law, public policy, public order, morals, and good customs, public
order or public policy are void.

X
A contract of sale with right to repurchase was entered into by the parties with a prohibition
against selling the property to any other person except the heirs of the vendor a retro. Is the
stipulation valid? Why?

No, it is void because it is contrary to law. It amounts to a perpetual restriction on the right of
ownership. (Leal vs. IAC, G.R. No. 65425, Nov. 5, 1987)

3|Page