Under Parts of Statute – (g) Effectivity Clause

I. Tañada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985

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

BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI]
Respondents: HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, et al. (Tuvera was the Executive Assistant to the President)

FACTS:
 Petitioners seek for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to publish various PDs, LOIs, EOs, AOs, general
orders, proclamations and letter of implementation in the Official Gazette, based on Sec. 2 of the Civil Code and
the right of people to information as provided in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution.

 Respondents and the SolGen repudiate the locus standi of petitioners arguing that they fail to qualify for the
petition for mandamus absent the fact that they were prejudiced by the non-publication.

 Petitioners: the matter pertains to a public right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, thus
showing of any specific interest may not be necessary to proceed with the petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioners have relative locus standi.
2. Whether or not publication is required.

HELD:
 1910 case of Severino vs. Gov.Gen.: "when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is
to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest…”

 Article 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the
law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. Also, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 imposes upon
officials an imperative duty on the publication of statutes and special laws.

 Petition granted. The respondents were ordered to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential
issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect.

II. Tañada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986 (same petitioners and respondents)

FACTS:
 This time, petitioners move for reconsideration/clarification of the Decision in the same case on April 24, 1985.

 Petitioners: there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not; that
publication means complete publication; and that the publication must be made forthwith in the Official Gazette.

 SolGen: the motion be dismissed as it was a request for an advisory opinion, and, on the merits, that the clause
"unless it is otherwise provided" meant that the publication required therein was not always imperative; that
publication, when necessary, did not have to be made in the Official Gazette.

ISSUES:

 Whether or not the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the
requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted.
 Whether or not issuances intended only for the internal administration of a government agency or for particular
persons have to be published.

HELD:
 The clause “unless otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity. Publication is indispensable in every case,
but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended.

 On the reconsideration of the promulgated Decision with respect to the clause, “general application,” all statutes,
including those of local application and private laws, shall be published in full as a condition for their effectivity.

PUERTObry071818