TUVERA [136 SCRA 27 (1985)] November 10, 2010 Nature: Petition to review the decision of the Executive Assistant to the President. Facts: Invoking the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 constitution, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette, of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. The respondents would have this case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality to bring this petition. Petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel public duty, they need not show any specific interest. Respondents further contend that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. Issue: WON publication in the Official Gazatte is an indispensable requirement for the effectivity of the PDs, LOIs, general orders, EOs, etc. where laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. Held: Yes. It is the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern & corollarily access to official records, & to documents & papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be afforded the citizens subject to such limitation as may be provided by law (§6 AIV, 1973 Constitution). Laws, to be valid & enforceable, must be published in the OG or otherwise effectively promulgated. The fact that a PD or LOI states its date of effectivity does not preclude their publication in the OG as they constitute important legislative acts. The publication of presidential issuances ―of public nature‖ or ―of general applicability‖ is a requirement of due process. Before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially informed of its contents. Judgment: Respondents ordered to publish in Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances of general application, and unless so published shall have no binding force and effect. Impt Point: It illustrates how decrees & issuances issued by one man— Marcos—are in fact laws of gen’l application & provide for penalties. The constitution afforded Marcos both executive & legislative powers.

The generality of law (CC A14) will never work w/o constructive notice. The ruling of this case provides the publication constitutes the necessary constructive notice & is thus the cure for ignorance as an excuse. Ignorance will not even mitigate the crime. Philippine International Trading Co. vs Angeles on November 20, 2010 263 scra 420 Publication – Administrative Orders PITC issued Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 under which applications to the PITC for importation from the People’s Republic of China must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed export program of Philippine products. PITC barred Remington and Firestone from importing products from China on the ground that they were not able to comply with the requirement of the said administrative order. Thereafter they filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus against the said order of PITC in which the trial court upheld and declared to be null and void for being unconstitutional. The court contends further authority to process and approve applications for imports SOCPEC and to issue rules and regulations pursuant to LOI 144 has already been repealed byEO 133 issued on February 27, 1987. Hence, the PITC filed a certiorari seeking the reversal of the said decision. ISSUE: Whether or not PITC’s Administrative Order 89-08-01 is valid. HELD: The Supreme Court held that PITC is empowered to issue such order; nevertheless, the said AO is invalid within the context of Article 2 of the New Civil Code. The Court cited Tanada vs Tuvera which states that all statues including those of localapplication and

1980 to July. Their official distribution continued after the filing of National Power Corporation (Napocor)'s motion for conversion on 27 June 1984 and even after PAEC had issued its order dated 26 February 1985 formally admitting the said motion for conversion. quasi-legislative power. 2002] Posted by Pius Morados on November 9. 1980 to September. These pamphlets continued to be distributed by PAEC as late as March 1985. 1984. The AO under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity since it is punitive in character. filing and publication) Facts: National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) granted Bayantel the provisional authority to operate a Cellular Mobile Telephone System/Service (CMTS) on its own initiative applying Rule 15. 72 Tanada v. (2) the validity of Napocor's motion/application for the conversion of its construction permit into an operating license for PNPP-1 was assailed. also Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition v. Section 3 of its 1987 Rules of Practice and Procedures. and Alejandro Ver Albano had already been appointed to their present positions. GR 147096. Other pamphlets entitled "Nuclear Power – Safe. Respondent Extelcom contends that the NTC should have applied the Revised Rules which were filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register where the phrase ―on its own initiative‖ were deleted and since the 1993 Revised Rules were filed with the UP Law Center. There is nothing in the Administrative Code of 1987 which implies that the filing of the rules with the UP Law Center is the operative act that gives the rules force and effect. Issue: Whether the PAEC Commissioner may sit in judgment in determining the safety of PNPP-1. and Commissioner Albano was PAEC Deputy Commissioner from March. Commissioner Eugenio was Acting Chief of the PAEC Department on Nuclear Technology and Engineering from June. but the majority of the Commissioners even then were already occupying positions of responsibility in the PAEC. 2005 ( 11 )Narratives (Berne Guerrero) prejudgment. The National Administrative Register is merely a bulletin of codified rules. 1984. [373 SCRA 316. Commissioner Navarro was PAEC Chief Science Research Specialist from May. and (3) PAEC Commissioners were charged with bias and Constitutional Law II. the competence of the PAEC Commissioners to pass judgment on the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) was questioned. Plana (J) : 5 concur. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission [GR 70632. Held: No. 11 February 1986]. and Available. Publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes. Issue: WON the 1993 Revised Rules which was filed in the UP Law Center is the law in force and effect in granting provisional authority." and ―Nuclear Power Plant and Environmental Safety‖ were issued earlier. 2011 (Administrative Law. 1984. Clean. Economical. 2 took no part Facts: The Official Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) pamphlet. entitled "The Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1" was published in 1985 when Commissioners Manuel Eugenio. Napocor [ GR L-68474] Resolution En Banc. rules and regulations can take effect.private laws shall be published as condition for their effectivity. Quirino Navarro. 1980 to September. proper procedure. January 15. Republic vs Extelcom. In GR 70632. Held: The PAEC Commissioners would be acting with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of . which shall begin 15 days after publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

averred that Anzaldo’s appointment was approved by the NIST evaluation Committee which gave 88 points to Anzalado and 66 points to Venzon. recommended the dismissal of the case. Dr Venzon contested the position.jurisdiction were they to sit in judgment upon the safety of the plant. Ombudsman Aniano A. Her appointment was approved by the CSC in 1978. Felicidad Anzaldo vs Jacobo Clave on November 25. Clave was also holding the chairmanship of the CSC. 3019 against petitioner Cayetano A. which clearly indicate the prejudgment that PNPP-1 is safe. Afterwards.. Ombudsman . 30 June 2005. Since Clave was holding the office of PEA he just affirmed his decision as the CSC chairman. the case was filed with the Sandiganbayan. Desierto. Special Prosecutor Micael. then the Special Prosecutor. or on January 5. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Anzaldo. It is not fair to Anzaldo that PEA Clave should decide whether his own recommendation as Chairman of the CSC. Pursuant to PD 807 or the Civil Service Decree. The PAEC Commissioners cannot escape responsibility from the official pamphlets. Upon reinvestigation. 55. Clave referred the issue to the CSC. should be adopted by the President of the Philippines. The issue was elevated to the Office of the president by Venzon. disapproved the recommendation for the dismissal of the . Anzaldo appealed to the Office of the President of the Philippines. concurred inthe approval of his subordinates on the filing of the proper information for violation of Section3(e) of Republic Act No.GR 159190. and spouses Juana and Vicente delaCruz. absent the requisite objectivity that must characterize such an important inquiry because they already have prejudged the safety of PNPP-1. the one who appointed Anzaldo. convinced that no probable cause existed to indict petitioner Tejano. Desierto. Clave issued Res 1178 appointing Venzon to the contested position. what he meant was that he was concurring with Chairman Clave’s recommendation: he was concurring with himself. It is evident that Anzaldo was denied due process of law when Presidential Executive Assistant Clave concurred with the recommendation of (himself) Chairman Clave of the Civil Service Commission. who earlier participated in the initial preliminaryinvestigation as Special Prosecutor. The position was previously held by Dr Kintanar who recommended Dr Venzon to his position. Dr Afable. petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan an Urgent Motion for a Period of Time to File Motion for Reinvestigation. Juana dela Cruz andVicente dela Cruz of V&G. 2010 Due Process – Administrative Due Process Dr Anzaldo. On 10 December 1999. Second Division. Jr. ISSUE: Whether or not there is due process in the case at bar. Due process of law means fundamental fairness. 1980. Clave was then the Presidential Executive Assistant. The official distribution of the pamphlets continued when the Commissioners had already been appointed to their present positions and and even after PAEC had issued its order dated 26 February 1985 formally admitting Napocor’s motion for conversion. Tejano vs. When PEA Clave said in his decision that he was ―inclined to concur in the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission‖. Chico-Nazario [J] FACTS: On 08 November 1994. Tejano. After the denial of her motion for the reconsideration of that resolution. had been working in the National Institute of Science and Technology for 28 years. Sandiganbayan granted the motion for reinvestigation and ordered the Officeof the Special Prosecutor to conduct the reinvestigation. Aniano A. She was holding the position Scientist Research Associate IV when she was appointed as Science Research Supervisor II. as to who between Anzaldo and Venzon should be appointed Science Research Supervisor II.

indubitably the head of governmental agencies such as the MIAA and PNCC. there was no receipt from the PNCC recognizing payment of debt. there was nothing in the Marcos Memorandum that may invite suspicion – there was no question about the lawfulness of the . the Court ruled that the dolo and culpa of the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. 2. NO. nisi mens sit rea – a crime is not commited if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent (malversation cases: US v. Marcos is undeniably the superior of Tabuena. hence this case. 3. ? Tabuena was only issued a receipt after the third delivery and it did not mention anything about the purpose of the receipt or the money being used to pay PNCC. 4. Ratio: 1. Issue: WON Tabuena. Having participated in the initial preliminary investigation of the instant caseand having recommended the filing of an appropriate information. Tabuena entitled to the justifying circumstance of ―any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose‖ because he is only acting in good faith. The Court. To constitute a crime. he would not be criminally liable. Due process dictates that one called upon to resolve a dispute may not review hisdecision on appeal. in good faith. Elvina). found that Tabuena had no other choice but to actually follow the order stated in the Marcos Memorandum. 5M – with Adolfo Peralta) and delivered them to Gimenez. as president of the Philippines.1985…‖ Tabuena withdrew the sum of 55M on three separate occasions (25M. the act must. SANDIGANBAYAN [121 SCRA 389 (1983)] November 10. Marcos’s private secretary. but merely acknowledged that Gimenez had received the sum of 55M from Tabuena on three occasions. Moreover. was guilty of malversation (or if because of the justifying circumstance of following the orders of his superior. except in certain crimes…be accompanied by criminal intent or such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences as is equivalent to criminal intent The maxim actus non facit reum. In short. PNCC said themselves that they didn’t receive the P55M. ‖ ISSUE: WON THE OMBUDSMAN IS JUSTIFIED IN DISAPPROVEDING THERECOMMENDATION FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE. On the defense of good faith: it is a valid defense against malversation because it would negate criminal intent. Furthermore. in his capacity as General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA). The same felony is still there and conviction thereof is proper. because. based on the evidence presented. 25M. 55M in cash. in following the orders of his with the marginal note ― assign the case to another prosecutor to prosecute the case aggressively. ? Sandiganbayan rejected Tabuena’s claim of good faith and found him guilty of malversation by negligence. US v. ? It is without dispute that Tabuena did not follow the normal procedures in withdrawal and delivery of the money (no disbursement slips and paid in cold cash). On the point raised by Tabuena that he cannot be charged with intentional malversation and be convicted by malversation by negligence. 2010 Facts: ? In a Presidential Memorandum (the Marcos Memorandum) dated Jan. ―to pay immediately the Philippine National Construction Corporation. Catolico. ? Tabuena claimed that he was only complying with the direct order of Marcos (plus the Marcos memorandum which contained same order) to immediately forward to the office of the President. The very fact that he was merely following the orders of his superior is a justifying circumstance. but merely civilly liable)? Held: Tabuena is merely civilly liable. ? Prosecution: there were no standing obligations in favor of the PNCC at the time of disbursement of 55M. that Tabuena acted in good faith. it behooved OmbudsmanDesierto to recuse himself from participating in the review of the same during thereinvestigatio CASE DIGEST ON TABUENA v. thru this Office (Office of the President). 1986. as partial payment of MIAA’s obligations to PNCC and that he believed that MIAA indeed had those liabilities to PNCC. 6. 7. the sum P55M in cash as partial payment of MIAA’s account with said company mentioned in a Memorandum of (Trade and Industry) Minister Robert Ongpin to this Office dated Jan. President Marcos allegedly commanded petitioner Tabuena. faithfully and efficiently carrying out orders from the highest official in the land. HELD.

probing and insinuation). paying immediately the PNCC. As a consequence of such violation of due process. through this office (office of the president) the sum of 55M. the Court itself raises the contention that the case involves a violation of the accused’s right to due process in the sense that it was obvious that the Sandiganbayan was overzealous in its attempt to convict parties involved – as seen in the volume of questions asked. Tabuena had reason to believe that the 55M was indeed part of a due and demandable debt. Tabuena case is a case concerning obedience in good faith of a duly executed order. while this allows for the negation of criminal intent. as Tabuena acted in good faith. he would not be liable because there would only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith. Note that this defense was not raised by Tabuena. he would still be civilly liable (but he’s not criminally liable anymore. So even if the order was illegal and Tabuena was not aware of the illegality. Marcos exercised supervision and control over governmental agencies (good faith in the payment of public funds relieves a public officer from the crime of malversation). To quote Justice Cruz.‖ Sandiganbayan was obviously biased. Furthermore. Tabuena followed the memorandum to the letter. On the other hand. and the manner the same were posed (cross examinations characteristic of confrontation. the order of Sandiganbayan was found void. Main Ratio: Furthermore. he is found to be excused from such because the Marcos Memorandum enjoined his IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE. ―Respect for the Constitution is more important that securing a conviction based on a violation of the rights of the accused. in effect allowing for the presumption that such order was regularly issued and patently legal. 9. 7. 5. denying Tabuena and parties involves the requirement of the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. While even Tabuena admitted that procedures were ignored and that the disbursement was unusual. There is no showing that Tabuena had anything to do with the creation of the Marcos Memorandum – that even if the real purpose behind the memorandum was to get 55M from public funds. 8. a portion of a bigger liability to PNCC (existence of such debts determined from testimonies). Tabuena had reasonable ground to believe that the President was entitled to receive the money because as Chief Executive. the wording of the memorandum expressed a certain urgency to its execution— Obedienta est legis essential (act swiftly without question). The order/memorandum came from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the president himself. escaping the harsher penalties) (see page 362). . it is clear that he did and would not profit from such and that he did not have anything to do with the creation of the memorandum.order contained in such a memorandum. 6.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful