Scribd
Upload
28 views1 page

Tanada v. Tuvera

This case involved a challenge to the publication of presidential decrees. The petitioner claimed that some decrees had not been properly published as required by law. The court affirmed that publication is necessary for laws to take effect under Article 2 of the Civil Code. Laws take effect 15 days after full publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise provided. The court ordered the respondents to publish any unpublished presidential issuances of general application in the Official Gazette, or else they will have no binding force. Interpretative regulations and those internal to an agency need not be published.

Uploaded by

Snow Ibuki
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views1 page

Tanada v. Tuvera

This case involved a challenge to the publication of presidential decrees. The petitioner claimed that some decrees had not been properly published as required by law. The court affirmed that publication is necessary for laws to take effect under Article 2 of the Civil Code. Laws take effect 15 days after full publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise provided. The court ordered the respondents to publish any unpublished presidential issuances of general application in the Official Gazette, or else they will have no binding force. Interpretative regulations and those internal to an agency need not be published.

Uploaded by

Snow Ibuki
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

63915, December 29, 1986


Taṅada v. Tuvera CA G.R. 63915
December 29, 1986 [Per. J. Cruz, En Banc]

Issue:
1. Can Congress dispense with publication of a law before it becomes effective?
2. Must publication be in full in order for the law to become effective? Do interpretative
regulations need to be published?
Facts:
Taṅada sought due process in demanding the disclosure of a number of presidential
decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by law. Tuvera claimed
that the issuances were intended only for the internal administration of a government
agency or for particular persons which did not have to be published.

In the decision of this case, court affirmed the necessity for the publication.
Citing article. 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines affirms that, “Laws shall take effect
after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,
unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such
publication."

The court hereby orders respondents 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."

Ruling:
1. No. As clarified by the court, the clause in Article 2 of the Civil Code "unless it is
otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity of the law and not to the
requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause
does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon
approval, or on any
other date, without its previous publication.
2. A. Yes. Publication is indispensable in every case. The court noted that mysterious
pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless their
existence and contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full
disclosure and give proper notice to the people.

B. No. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is,
regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need
not be published.

You might also like