Tanada vs.

Tuvera 146 s 446

Facts:

Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. invoked due process in demanding the
disclosure of a number of Presidential Decrees which they claimed had not been
published as required by Law. The government argued that while publication was
necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was otherwise provided, as when the decrees
themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon approval.
The court decided on April 24, 1985 in affirming the necessity for publication of some of
the decrees. The court ordered the respondents to publish in the official gazette all
unpublished Presidential Issuances which are of general force and effect. The
petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general
applicability and those which are not. The publication means complete publication, and
that publication must be made in the official gazette. In a comment required by the
solicitor general, he claimed first that the motion was a request for an advisory opinion
and therefore be dismissed. And on the clause unless otherwise provided in Article 2
of the new civil code meant that the publication required therein was not always
imperative, that the publication when necessary, did not have to be made in the official
gazette.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not all laws shall be published in the official gazette.

(2) Whether or not publication in the official gazette must be in full.

Held:

(1) The court held that all statute including those of local application shall be published
as condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a
different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

(2) The publication must be full or no publication at all since its purpose is to inform
the public of the content of the laws.