CASE DIGESTS CLA
petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop
Cases:
1. Tanada v. Tuvera
 Petitioners demand the disclosure or 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 their approval.
 In the decision of this case on April 24, 1985, the Court
affirmed the necessity for the publication of that
decision. Petitioners move for the clarification of the
decision.
 Whether or not publication for laws to be effective is
mandatory? Yes.
 SC: 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
on any other date, without its previous
publication.chanro
bles virtu
 Publication is indispensable in every case, but the
legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual
fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended.
2. De Roy v. CA
 The firewall of a burned-out building owned by
occupied by the family of Bernal, resulting to injuries
and the death of Marissa Bernal, daughter
 De Roy already warned Bernals to vacate their shop
due to the proximity to the weakened wall but they
failed to do so.
 RTC held De Roy guilty of gross negligence and
awarded damages to respondents. CA affirmed on
August 17, 1987, a copy of which was received by
petitioners on August 25, 1987.
 On September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day
period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration,
which was eventually denied by the appellate court in
the Resolution of September 30, 1987.
 Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on
September 24, 1987 but this was denied in the
Resolution of October 27, 1987.
 SC: the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a
motion for reconsideration cannot be extended.
 Halabuyas case: allowed a 1 month grace period from
the promulgation of resolution
 In this case, petitioners' motion for extension of time
was filed on September 9, 1987, more than a year after
the expiration of the grace period on June 30, 1986.
3. People v. Que Po Lay
 QPL is appealing from the decision of CFI, finding him
guilty of CB Circular no. 20.
 Appellant who was in possession of foreign exchange
consisting of U.S. dollars, U.S. checks and U.S. money
orders amounting to about $7,000 failed to sell the
 same to the Central Bank through its agents within one
day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as
required by Circular No. 20
 QPL claims that circular No. 20 was not published in
the Official Gazette prior to the act or omission imputed
to the appellant so it had no force and effect.
 Article 2 of the new Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)
equally provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen
days following the completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided.
 It is true that Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank is not
a statute or law but being issued for the implementation
of the law authorizing its issuance, it has the force and
effect of law according to settled jurisprudence.
 Circulars and regulations especially like the Circular
No. 20 of the Central Bank in question which
prescribes a penalty for its violation should be
published before becoming effective
 the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal
provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be
published and the people officially and specifically
informed of said contents and its penalties.
 Although circular No. 20 of the Central Bank was
issued in the year 1949, it was not published until
November 1951, that is, about 3 months after
appellant's conviction of its violation. It is clear that said
circular, particularly its penal provision, did not have
any legal effect and bound no one until its publication
in the Official Gazzette or after November 1951
4. NPC v. Pinatubo Commercial
 National Power Corp (NPC) questions RTC’s decision
declaring items 3 and 3.1 of NPC Circular
unconstitutional
 The provision allow partnerships and corporations that
directly use aluminum as the raw material in producing
finished products either purely or partly out of
aluminum to participate in the bidding for the disposal
of ACSR wires
 Said that it is violative of due process and equal
protection clause for restraining competitive free trade
and commerce
 Pinatubo, a trader of scrap materuals submitted a pre-
qualification from to NPC which NPC denied
 Pinatubo asked for the annulment of the circular. RTC
decalred it unconstitutional being violative of
substantive due process as it created rights in favor of
third parties but the circular was never published.
 In this case, NPC Circular No. 99-75 did not have to be
published since it was merely an internal rule or
regulation. It did not purport to enforce or implement an
existing law but was merely a directive issued by the
 All these guidelines were addressed to the NPC
personnel involved in the bidding and award of scrap
ACSRs. It did not, in any way, affect the rights of the
public in general or of any other person not involved in
the bidding process. Assuming it affected individual
rights, it did so only remotely, indirectly and
incidentally.
 Participation in the bidding process is a privilege
inasmuch as it can only be exercised under existing
criteria imposed by the government itself. As such,
prospective bidders, including Pinatubo, cannot claim
 any demandable right to take part in it if they fail to
meet these criteria.
5. Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers
 Romulo Neri appeared before the respondent Senate
Committees on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations, Trade and Commerce, and National
Defense and Security and testified on matters
concerning the National Broadband Project (NBN)
 He disclosed that COMELEC Chairman Benjamin
Abalos offered him P200M in exchange for his approval
of the NBN Project. He informed President Arroyo of
the bribery attempt and she instructs him not to accept
the bribe.
 When the Committees probed further on the petitioner
and President’s discussions, he refused to answer the
questions on whether Arroyo followed up the NBN
Project, whether she prioritized it, whether she directed
him to approve it
 The committee required him to appear and testify once
more but exec secretary Ermita wrote to respondent
committees and requested to dispense with the
testimony on the ground of executive privilege.
 Committees issued the Order citing petitioner in
contempt and ordered his arrest
 Issue is whether through the issuance of the order,
they violated Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution
because their inquiry was not in accordance with the
“duly published rules of procedure,”
 Questions were considered subject to executive
privilege
 Section 136 of the Senate Rules quoted above takes
into account the new composition of the Senate after
an election and the possibility of the amendment or
revision of the Rules at the start of each session in
which the newly elected Senators shall begin their
term.
 However, it is evident that the Senate has determined
that its main rules are intended to be valid from the
date of their adoption until they are amended or
repealed. Such language is conspicuously absent from
the Rules.
 The Rules simply state "(t)hese Rules shall take effect
seven (7) days after publication in two (2) newspapers
of general circulation."59 The latter does not explicitly
provide for the continued effectivity of such rules until
they are amended or repealed.
 In view of the difference in the language of the two sets
of Senate rules, it cannot be presumed that the Rules
(on legislative inquiries) would continue into the next
Congress. The Senate of the next Congress may easily
adopt different rules for its legislative inquiries which
come within the rule on unfinished business.
 The language of Section 21, Article VI of the
Constitution requiring that the inquiry be conducted in
accordance with the duly published rules of
procedure is categorical. It is incumbent upon the
Senate to publish the rules for its legislative inquiries in
each Congress or otherwise make the published rules
clearly state that the same shall be effective in
subsequent Congresses or until they are amended or
repealed to sufficiently put public on notice.
 It should likewise be stressed that not all orders issued
or proceedings conducted pursuant to the
 subject Rules are null and void. Only those that result
in violation of the rights of witnesses should be
considered null and void, considering that the rationale
for the publication is to protect the rights of witnesses
as expressed in Section 21, Article VI of the
Constitution. Sans such violation, orders and
proceedings are considered valid and effective.
6. Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the Whole
 Before the Court is the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and restraining order filed by Pimental, Villar
Arroyo, Pangilinan, Pia Cayetano and Alan Peter
Cayetano.
 Senator Pimentel called to attention the double
insertion of 200Million appropriated separately for the
construction of Carlos P. Garcia Ave and C-5 Road
which was said to cover the same stretch
 Lacson further stated that when he investigated on the
double entry, it led to Senator Villar, then Senate
President.
 On October 8, 2008 Senator Madrigal introduce P.S.
Resolution 706, which states that there was indeed
double entry of said project, with overwhelming
evidence of abuse of authority of the Senate President
(Villar) to profit from such project. Acts of the Senate
President are indirect violation of the Constitution,
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of
Conduct and Ethical standards of
Public Officers. Ethics Committee investigated on Villar
 On Nov. 17, 2008, Senator Enrile was elected Senate
President and the Ethics Committee was reorganized
with the Election of Lacson as Chairperson.
 On Dec. 16, 2008, Senator Lacson inquired whether
the Minority was ready to name their representatives.
 After consultation, Senator Pimentel informed the body
that there would be no members from the Minority in
the Ethics Committee.
 Senator Lacson reiterated his appeal to the Minority to
nominate their representative to the Ethics Committee.
 Senator Pimentel stated that it is the stand of the
Minority no to nominate any of their members to the
Ethics Committee.
 The Senate adopted the Rules of the Senate
Committee on the Ethics and Privileges.
 Senator Villar on a privilege speech where he stated
that he would answer the accusations against him on
the floor and not before the Ethics Committee.
 Senator Lacson stated that the Ethics Committee is not
a kangaroo court. However, due to the accusation that
the Ethics Committee could not act with fairness on
Senator Villar’s Case, Senator Lacson moved that the
responsibility of the Ethics Committee be undertaken
by Senate, acting as a whole.
 Issue: Whether Senate Committee of the Whole
violated the due process clause of the Constitution
when it refused to publish the Rules of the Senate
Committee of the Whole in spite of its own provision
[which] require[s] its effectivity upon publication?
 Sec. 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives
or any of its respective Committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure.
 The Constitution does not require publication of the
internal rules of the House or Senate. Since rules of the
House or the Senate that affect only their members are
internal to the House or Senate, such rules need not be
published, unless such rules expressly provide for
their publication before the rules can take effect
 In this case, the proceedings before the Senate
Committee of the Whole affect only members of the
Senate since the proceedings involve the Senate’s
exercise of its disciplinary power over one of its
members. Clearly, the Rules of the Senate Committee
of the Whole are internal to the Senate. However,
Section 81, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Senate
Committee of the Whole provides: These Rules shall
be effective after publication in the Official Gazette or in
a newspaper of general circulation.
 Hence, in this particular case, the Rules of the Senate
Committee of the Whole itself provide that the Rules
must be published before the Rules can take effect.
Thus, even if publication is not required under the
Constitution, publication of the Rules of the Senate
Committee of the Whole is required because the Rules
expressly mandate their publication.
7. Valeroso v. People
 Valeroso was charged with violation of PD 1866 for
the possession of one cal. 38 charter arms revolver
with 5 live ammo.
 Testimony: Disuanco received a Dispatch Order
from the desk oicer directing him and 3 othr
policemen to serve a warrant of arrest issued by
Judge Salvador against Valeroso for a case of
kidnapping with ransom.
 After conducting surveillance, team members went
to the police station in Culiat QC where they saw
Valeroso about to board a tricycle. Disuanco and
his team approached valeroso. When they
searched him, they found a revolver with 5 pieces
live ammunition tucked in his waist.
 Upon questioning, the firearm was not issued to
him bu to Raul Salvaterria of Sampaloc, Manila.
 Defense: raided his house “hoy may nakita akong
baril sa loob”
 Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of
arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At that
time, Valeroso was sleeping inside the boarding
house of his children. He was awakened by the
arresting officers who were heavily armed. They
pulled him out of the room, placed him beside the
faucet outside the room, tied his hands, and then
put him under the care of Disuanco.43 The other
police officers remained inside the room and
ransacked the locked cabinet44 where they found
the subject firearm and ammunition.45 With such
discovery, Valeroso was charged with illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition.
 In this case, the police officers did not just
accidentally discover the subject firearm and
ammunition; they actually searched for evidence
against Valeroso.
 Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of
Valeroso’s right against unreasonable search and
seizure. Consequently, the evidence obtained in
violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence
against him
8. PNB v. Office of the President inferred from the unmistakable intent of the law to
protect innocent lot buyers from scheming subdivision
 Private respondents were buyers on installment of developers.
subdivision lots from Marikina vill  As between these small lot buyers and the gigantic
 Notwithstanding the land purchase agreements, the financial institutions which the developers deal with, it
subdivision developer mortgaged the lots in favor of is obvious that the law — as an instrument of social
PNB justice — must favor the weak.
 Unaware of the mortgage, private respondents
complied with their obligations as buyers and 9.
constructed their houses on the lots in question
 The subdivision developer defaulted and PNB
foreclosed on the mortgage, the bank then became the
owner of the lots
 HLURB held that PNB may collect from private
respondents only the remaining amortizations in
accordance with the land purchase agreements they
previously entered into and cannot compel the
respondents to pay all over again for the lots they had
already bought from the subdivision developer.
 Issue: whether it is proper to apply PD 957, being
enacted only in 1976, while the mortgage was
executed in 1975?
 Normally, pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil Code,
"(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the
contrary is provided." However, it is obvious and
indubitable that P.D. 957 was intended to cover even
those real estate mortgages, like the one at issue here,
executed prior to its enactment, and such intent must
be given effect if the laudable purpose of protecting
innocent purchasers is to be achieved. (whereas
clauses)
 While P.D. 957 did not expressly provide for
retroactivity in its entirety, yet the same can be plainly