LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F.

SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FORBROTHERHOOD,

INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI) vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive
Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUINVENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the
President, MELQUIADES P. DE LACRUZ, ETC., ET AL.G.R. No. L-63915 December 29, 1986

FACTS:

This case is a move for reconsideration/clarification of the first Tanada vs. Tuvera case. Due
process was invoked by the petitioners 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 their approval. In
the decision of this case on April 24, 1985, the Court affirmed the necessity for the publication of some
of these decrees, declaring in the dispositive portion as follows:

WHEREFORE, 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unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall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.

The subject of the contention is Article 2 of the Civil Code providing as follows:

ART. 2. 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.

ISSUES:

a.) Whether or not the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on
any other date, without its previous publication.

b.) Whether or not the publication requirement covers all laws, including presidential decrees,
executive orders, administrative rules and regulations.

HELD:

a.) No. 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. 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. An example, as pointed out by the present
Chief Justice in his separate concurrence in the original decision, is the Civil Code which did not
become effective after fifteen days from its publication in the Official Gazette but "one year after
such publication. "The general rule did not apply because it was "otherwise provided."
b.) Yes. The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for
strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply
to them directly. We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and
private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days
after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
No. 104

Philippine International Trading Corporation (PITC) vs. Commission on Audit (COA)

309 SCRA 177
G.R. No. 132593 June 25, 1999

Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to annul
Decision No. 2447 dated July 27, 1992; and Decision No. 98-048 dated January 27, 1998 of the COA
denying PITC's motion for reconsideration.

The PITC is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Presidential Decree
(PD) No. 252 on July 21, 1973. On October 19, 1988, the PITC Board of Directors approved a Car Plan
Program for qualified PITC officers. Under such car plan program, an eligible officer is entitled to
purchase a vehicle, 50% of the value of which shall be shouldered by PITC while the remaining 50% will
be shouldered by the officer through salary deduction over a period of five (5) years. Maximum value of
the vehicle to be purchased ranges from P200,000.00 to P350,000.00, depending on the position of the
officer in the corporation. In addition, PITC will reimburse the officer concerned 50% of the annual car
registration, insurance premiums and costs of registration of the chattel mortgage over the car for a
period of five (5) years from the date the vehicle was purchased. On July 1, 1989, R.A. No. 6758 took
effect. Section 12 of said law provides for the consolidation of allowances and additional compensation
into standardized salary rates save for certain additional compensation such as representation and
transportation allowances which were exempted from consolidation into the standardized rate. Said
section likewise provides that other additional compensation being received by incumbents as by of July
1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.

The legislature has similarly adhered to this policy of non-diminution of pay when it provided for
the transition allowance under Section 17 or R.A. No. 6758. Based on the ongoing pronouncement,
petitioner correctly pointed out that there was no intention on the part of the legislature to revoke
existing benefits being enjoyed by incumbents of government positions at the time of the virtue of
Sections 12 and 17 thereof. There is no dispute that the PITC officials who availed of the subject car plan
benefits were incumbents of their positions as of July 1, 1989. Thus, it was legal and proper for them to
continue enjoying said benefits within the five-year period from date of purchase of the vehicle allowed
by their Car Loan Agreements with PITC.

Issue:

Whether or not the contention of COA is valid.

Held:
No. The repeal by Section 16 of R.A. No. 6758 of “all corporate charters that exempt agencies
from the coverage of the System” was clear and expressed necessarily to achieve the purposes for which
the law was enacted, that is, the standardization of salaries of all employees in government owned
and/or controlled corporations to achieve “equal pay for substantially equal work.” Henceforth, PITC
should now be covered by laws prescribing a compensation and position classification system in the
government including R.A. No. 6758. This, without prejudice. However, as discussed above, to the non-
diminution of pay of incumbents as of July 1, 1989 as provided in Sections 12 and 17 of said law. The
petition of PITC was granted and the assailed Decisions of COA are set aside. R.A. No. 6758 which is law
of general application cannot repeal provisions of the Revised Charter of PITC and its mandatory laws
expressly exempting PITC from OCPC coverage being special laws. Our rules on statutory construction
provide that a special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere
implication.