Tañada v. Tuvera

Invoking due process, the petitioners demanded the disclosure of presidential decrees that they claimed had not been published as required by law. The government argued that publication was not needed when a decree 'otherwise provided', for example by taking effect upon approval. In its April 24, 1985 decision, the Court ordered the respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances of general application, and held that unpublished issuances had no binding force. The petitioners then moved for reconsideration and clarification. They asked what 'law of public nature' or 'general applicability' means, whether laws should be distinguished by applicability, and what publication means, where it must be made, and when. The first Solicitor General called the motion a request for an advisory opinion. He also argued that publication, when necessary, need not be in the Official Gazette, and that the decision was not binding because only three justices concurred. After the February Revolution, the new Solicitor General agreed that publication must be in full and in the Official Gazette, but said issuances for internal administration or for particular persons were exempt, and that the 1985 decision was not binding because it lacked eight votes.

1. 1Whether the clause 'unless it is otherwise provided' in Article 2 of the Civil Code allows a law to take effect without publication.
2. 2Whether publication is required for all laws or only for those of general applicability, and what issuances are covered.
3. 3Whether publication must be in full and in the Official Gazette, and when it must be made.

The Court clarified its decision. The clause 'unless it is otherwise provided' in Article 2 of the Civil Code refers to the date of effectivity, not to the publication requirement, which cannot be omitted. "Publication is indispensable in every case". The legislature may only shorten or extend the fifteen-day period. Omitting publication would offend due process by denying the public knowledge of the laws that govern them. The Court also relied on the conclusive presumption that everyone knows the law and on the right to information on matters of public concern in Section 6 of the Bill of Rights. All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, must be published as a condition for effectivity. The rule covers presidential decrees and executive orders issued in the exercise of legislative powers, and administrative rules that enforce or implement existing law. Interpretative regulations, internal rules that regulate only agency personnel, and letters of instructions to subordinates need not be published. Municipal ordinances are governed by the Local Government Code. Publication must be in full; listing a decree's number and title is not even substantial compliance. Because the Justices in 1985 had split on where publication must be made, the Court laid down a binding rule: under Article 2 as it stood, publication had to be in the Official Gazette and not elsewhere, made forthwith or as soon as possible. The Court noted that any change of medium was for the legislature. It also rejected the advisory-opinion objection. Disposition: all laws as defined shall be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective fifteen days after publication or on another date fixed by the legislature.