Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 14|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Reuben Bernard Soriano on Jun 15, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985)FACTS:Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the principle that laws to be valid andenforceable must be published in the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel respondent publicofficials to publish and/or cause to publish various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations,
executive orders, letters of implementations and administrative orders.The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of the case, contending that petitioners have nolegal personality to bring the instant petition.ISSUE:Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid and enforceable.HELD: Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself providesfor the date of its effectivity. The clear object of this provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various lawswhich are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for
the application of the maxim
ignoratia legis nominem excusat 
. It would be the height of injustive to punish or otherwiseburden a citizen for the transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the
Official Gazette…. The word “shall” therein
imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the constitutional right of the people tobe informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance and validity.The publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general applicability is a requirement of due process. It is a ruleof law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. The Court
declared that presidential issuances of general application which have not been published have no force and effect.
 146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)FACTS:This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on April 24, 1985. Respondent argued that while publication
was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise” as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to
become effective immediately upon their approval.ISSUES:1.
Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which are not as to theirpublication;
Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general circulation.HELD:
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. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately
upon approval, or in any other date, without its previous publication.
 “Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking, all laws relate to the p
eople ingeneral albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. A law without any bearing on the public would be invalid asan intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an
ultra vires 
act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably
affect the public interest eve if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and not to thepublic as a whole. All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which
shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the law.
 Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be made in the Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a
requirement for their effectivity. The Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to repeal or modifyit if it finds it impractical.The publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as possible.J. Cruz:Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deepsecrets. Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless their existence and contentsare confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full disclosure and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law islike a scabbarded saber that cannot faint, parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn
Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council(PARC), et al., G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011
 In 1958, the Spanish owners of Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera)sold Hacienda Luisita and the Central Azucarera de Tarlac, the sugar mill of the hacienda, to theTarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), then owned and controlled by the Jose CojuangcoSr. Group. The Central Bank of the Philippines assisted Tadeco in obtaining a dollar loan from
a US bank. Also, the GSIS extended a PhP5.911 million loan in favor of Tadeco to pay the pesoprice component of the sale, with the condition that
“the lots comprising the Hacienda Luisita be
subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold at cost to the tenants, should there be any, and 
whenever conditions should exist warranting such action under the provisions of the Land Tenure 
Tadeco however did not comply with this condition.On May 7, 1980, the martial law administration filed a suit before the Manila RTC againstTadeco, et al., for them to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform(MAR) so that the land can be distributed to farmers at cost. Responding, Tadeco alleged thatHacienda Luisita does not have tenants, besides which sugar lands
of which the haciendaconsisted
are not covered by existing agrarian reform legislations. The Manila RTC rendered judgment ordering Tadeco to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the MAR. Therefrom, Tadecoappealed to the CA.
On March 17, 1988, during the administration of President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino,
the Office of the Solicitor General moved to withdraw the government’s case against Tadeco,
The CA dismissed the case, subject to the PARC’s approval of Tadeco’s proposed stock
distribution plan (SDP) in favor of its farmworkers.
[Under EO 229 and later RA 6657, Tadeco had the option of availing stock distribution as an alternative modality to actual land transfer to the farmworkers.] 
On August 23, 1988, Tadeco organized a spin-off corporation, herein petitioner
HLI, as vehicle to facilitate stock acquisition by the farmworkers. For this purpose, Tadecoconveyed to HLI the agricultural land portion (4,915.75 hectares) and other farm-relatedproperties of Hacienda Luisita in exchange for HLI shares of stock.On May 9, 1989, some 93% of the then farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) complement of
Hacienda Luisita signified in a referendum their acceptance of the proposed HLI’s Stock
Distribution Option Plan (SODP). On May 11, 1989, the SDOA was formally entered into byTadeco, HLI, and the 5,848 qualified FWBs. This attested to by then DAR Secretary Philip Juico.
The SDOA embodied the basis and mechanics of HLI’s SDP, which was eventually approved by
the PARC after a follow-up referendum conducted by the DAR on October 14, 1989, in which5,117 FWBs, out of 5,315 who participated, opted to receive shares in HLI.
On August 15, 1995, HLI applied for the conversion of 500 hectares of land of thehacienda from agricultural to industrial use, pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 6657. The DAR approvedthe application on August 14, 1996, subject to payment of three percent (3%) of the gross selling
price to the FWBs and to HLI’s continued compliance with its undertakings under the SDP,
among other conditions.On December 13, 1996, HLI, in exchange for subscription of 12,000,000 shares of stocksof Centennary Holdings, Inc. (Centennary), ceded 300 hectares of the converted area to thelatter. Subsequently, Centennary sold the entire 300 hectares for PhP750 million to LuisitaIndustrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), which used it in developing an industrial complex. From this
area was carved out 2 parcels, for which 2 separate titles were issued in the name of LIPCO.Later, LIPCO transferred these 2 parcels to the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation(RCBC)
in payment of LIPCO’s PhP431,695,732.10 loan obligations to RCBC.
LIPCO’s titles
were cancelled and new ones were issued to RCBC. Apart from the 500 hectares, another 80.51hectares were later detached from Hacienda Luisita and acquired by the government as part ofthe Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX) complex. Thus, 4,335.75 hectares remained of theoriginal 4,915 hectares Tadeco ceded to HLI.Such, was the state of things when two separate petitions reached the DAR in the latterpart of 2003. The first was filed by the Supervisory Group of HLI (Supervisory Group), praying for
a renegotiation of the SDOA, or, in the alternative, its revocation. The second petition, praying forthe revocation and nullification of the SDOA and the distribution of the lands in the hacienda, wasfiled by
Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid ng Hacienda Luisita 
(AMBALA). The DAR thenconstituted a Special Task Force (STF) to attend to issues relating to the SDP of HLI. Afterinvestigation and evaluation, the STF found that HLI has not complied with its obligations underRA 6657 despite the implementation of the SDP. On December 22, 2005, the PARC issued theassailed Resolution No. 2005-32-01, recalling/revoking the SDO plan of Tadeco/HLI. It further
resolved that the subject lands be forthwith placed under the compulsory coverage or mandatedland acquisition scheme of the CARP.From the foregoing resolution, HLI sought reconsideration. Its motion notwithstanding,HLI also filed a petition before the Supreme
Court in light of what it considers as the DAR’s hasty
placing of Hacienda Luisita under CARP even before PARC could rule or even read the motion
for reconsideration. PARC would eventually deny HLI’s motion for reconsideration
via ResolutionNo. 2006-34-01 dated May 3, 2006.
Does the PARC possess jurisdiction to recall or revoke HLI’s SDP?
[Issue raised by intervenor FARM (group of farmworkers)] 
Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657, which allowsstock transfer in lieu of outright land transfer, unconstitutional?(3)
Is the revocation of the HLI’s SDP valid?
[Did PARC gravely abuse its discretion in revoking the 
subject SDP and placing the hacienda under CARP’s c 
ompulsory acquisition and distribution scheme?] 
those portions of the converted land within Hacienda Luisita that RCBC and LIPCOacquired by purchase be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC resolution?
the PARC gravely abuse i 
ts discretion when it included LIPCO’s and RCBC’s respective
properties that once formed part of Hacienda Luisita under the CARP compulsory acquisition scheme via the assailed Notice of Coverage?] 

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->