People v.
Appellant was charged with having  We agree with the SG that the law did not require publication of circulars,
Que Po Lay possession foreign exchange (US
checks, money orders) amounting to 7k
and failed to sell the same to the
Central Bank within 1 day from receipt
as required under Cir. No 20. He was
found guilty of violating Central Bank
Cir. No. 20, in relation to Sec 34, RA
265.
The appeal is based on the claim that
Cir. No 20 was not published in the
Official Gazette prior to the act or
omission under C.A. 638 and Act 2930
Philippine Phil. Blooming employs Japanese
Blooming technicians under pre-arranged
Mills v. SSS employment contracts. It inquired SSS
(1966) whether they are covered by the
compulsory coverage.
SSS answered that they are covered
however those temporarily employed,
upon their departure, shall be entitled
to a rebate of the proportionate
amount of their contribution and the
employers are entitled to the same
proportionate rebate of their
regulations or notices mentioned to be binding. The laws cited only make a list
of what should be published in the O.G. for the guidance of the different
branches of government issuing the same, and of the Bureau of Printing.
 However, the RAC and Art 2 of NCC provides that laws shall take effect after
15 days following the completion of their publication in the O.G, unless it is
otherwise provided
 True, Cir No 20 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. Further,
as a rule, circulars and regulations prescribing a penalty for its violation should
be published to be binding. Before 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.
 ITC, while Cir. No 20 was issued in 1949, it was not published until Nov 1951 (3
months after the conviction) Thus, the Cir No 20 did not have a binding effect
and appellant could not be held liable for its violation
SG contends that the issue on non-publication was raised for the first time on appeal
 The non-publication is fundamental and decisive. If the Cir No 20 was not
published, in the eyes of law there was no law to be violated, and
consequently no violation. It may be said that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction. Thus this issue may be raised at any stage of the proceeding.
Petitioners contend that the amendment insofar as eliminating the provision on
return of premium-contributions constituted an impairment of obligation of
contracts. It claimed that when the employees became members, it was subject to
the condition that upon their departure, these employees and their ER are entitled to
a rebate.
 NO. Membership in this institution is not a result of contract where the rights
and obligations are defined by the parties. It is a requirement under law and
the compulsory coverage is an exercise of police power.
Whether due process was observed – YES
 The IRRs promulgated by SSS were promulgated pursuant to its rule-making
powers under the law. The IRRs were published in the OG on Sept 15, 1957.
However, it was amended and approved by the President on Jan 14, 1958.
These Rules were published in the O.G. on Nov 10, 1958.
contributions on behalf of the aliens.  The publication occurred after the employment of the Japanese technicians
had ceased and corresponding refund was filed with the System.
When the Japanese employees left, the  The original IRRs of SSS specifically provide that any amendment adopted by
Phil Blooming filed a claim with SSS for the Commission shall take effect on the date of its approval by the President.
refund of premiums (Oct. 7, 1958) on Therefore, the delayed publication of the amended Rules in the O.G. did not
the ground of the termination of the affect the date of effectivity which is Jan 14, 1958. Thus, when the Japanese
member’s employment. It was denied technicians were separated from employment, in Oct 1958, they were already
hence they filed a petition with the governed by the amended Rules and Regulations.
Social Security Commission. SSS
controverted alleging that Rules of the
System requires membership in the
System for at least 2 years before a
separated or resigned employee may
be allowed a return of his personal
contributions. Under the same rule,
the ER is not also entitled to a refund
of the premium-contributions.

The Commission denied the petition

because while under the Rules, alien-
EEs and their ERs are entitled to a
rebate of the proportionate amount of
their contributions, the rule was
amended be eliminating that portion
granting a return of the premium
contributions. The amendment became
effective on Jan 14, 1958 or before
termination of the CoEs. Thus, under
the present Rules, return of premiums
are allowed only if they have been
members for at least 2 years.
Tanada v. Petitioners filed a writ of mandamus to Standing
Tuvera compel respondent public officials to  “when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to
publish/cause publication in the O.G. procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real
various PDs, LoIs, GOs, Procs., EOs, Aos. party in interest…need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the
result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in
the execution of the laws
Respondents contend that publication is not a sine qua non requirement for the
effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates
 The interpretation of respondent is in accord with the Court’s construction of
Art. 2 NCC. The Court has held that publication in the O.G. in cases where the
law does not itself provide for its effectivity date – the date of publication is
material to determine the date of effectivity.
 However, they are correct insofar as it equates effectivity of laws with the fact
of publication. Art 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication even if
the law itself provides for its date of effectivity.
 However, Sec 1 CA 638 mandates publication in the O.G. The use of the word
“shall” imposes an imperative duty. This duty must be enforced if the right of
the people to be informed of matters of public concern is to be given
substance. The clear object is to give the general public adequate notice of the
various laws which regulate their actions. Without such notice, there will be no
basis for “ignorance of the law excuses no one” It would be the height of
injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law
of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
 Without publication people have no means of knowing that PDs have been
promulgated. It is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before
a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically
informed of its contents.
 The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application,
which have not been published, shall have no force and effect.
What about the PDs which have been enforced and implemented prior to their
publication?
 It is an operative fact and may have consequences that cannot be ignored. The
past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration…that an all-
inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be
justified."
Fernando
 My point is that such publication required need not be confined to the O9cial
Gazette. Such a pronouncement would lend itself to the interpretation that
such a legislative or presidential act is bereft of the attribute of effectivity
unless published in the Official Gazette. There is no such requirement in the
Constitution
Plana
 The Constitution does not require publication. Due process does require
notice, but not necessarily the O.G. Neither is the publication of laws in the
Official Gazette required by any statute as a prerequisite for their effectivity, if
said laws already provide for their effectivity date.
 Art 2 says unless otherwise provided meaning (1) Art 2 does not apply if it has
a provision on when it will take effect (2) it recognizes that each law may
provide a different period for its effectivity and also a different mode of notice.
 CA 638 does not show that it must be published in the O.G. for effectivity. The
law only "An Act to Provide for the Uniform Publication and Distribution of the
O9cial Gazette." It is also noted that what are required to be in the O.G. are
“important” legislative acts “of a public nature”
 Moreover, the said law does not provide that publication in the O9cial Gazette
is essential for the effectivity of laws. This is as it should be, for all statutes are
equal and stand on the same footing. A law, especially an earlier one of general
application such as Commonwealth Act No. 638, cannot nullify or restrict the
operation of a subsequent statute that has a provision of its own as to when
 and how it will take effect. Only a higher law, which is the Constitution, can
assume that role.

MR
What is law of public nature or general applicability?
 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.
 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
 Publication cannot be dispensed with altogether. This would offend due
process and deny public knowledge of the laws.
Should there be a distinction between laws of general applicability and not?
 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
 To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest even if it might be
directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and not
to the public as a whole.
 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 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the
legislature.
o Presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the
President in the exercise of legislative powers
o Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid
delegation.
o Even the charter of a city must be published notwithstanding that it
applies to only a portion of the national territory and directly affects
only the inhabitants of that place.
o Circulars issued by the Monetary Board must be published if they are
meant not merely to interpret but to "Fll in the details" of the Central
Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce.
o Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is,
regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the
public, need not be published.
o Neither is publication required of… letters of instructions issued by
administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be
followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties
o However, no publication is required of the instructions issued by, say,
the Minister of Social Welfare on the case studies to be made in
petitions for adoption or the rules laid down by the head of a
 government agency on the assignments or workload of his personnel or
the wearing of office uniforms. Parenthetically, municipal ordinances
are not covered by this rule but by the Local Government Code.
What is publication?
 Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to
inform the public of the contents of the laws
Where made?
 4 were categorically for publication in O.G. The others were saying that it
should be made elsewhere.
 We don’t have a choice. Newspaper would have been better but its not in the
law.
When made?
Phil. PASEI is the largest private employment They are not unreasonable and oppressive. They are a valid exercise of police power.
Association and recruitment agency authorized by  A reading of the administrative issuances show that they are "administrative
of Service the POEA. and policing powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred" upon the
Exporters, respondents.
Inc. v. Torres Prompted by published stories of o Sec 36 LC  the power to restrict and regulate involves police power
abuses suffered by Filipino housemaids  The circulars do not prohibit PASEI from engaging in recruitment and
in HK, DOLE issued D.O. No. 16 deployment of OFWs. They are only restricted from recruitment and
temporarily suspending the deployment of Filipino domestic helpers for Hongkong. They can still deploy
recruitment of private employment other classes.This is a valid exercise of police power which involves general
agencies of Filipino domestic helpers welfare. It is a temporary suspension only.
going to HK. The DOLE itself took over o Under Sec 36, the SOL has the power to restrict (confine, limit or stop)
the business of deploying such HK
workers.
However, there was lack of publication
POEA issued Memo Cir. No 30
providing guidelines on the
Government processing and
deployment of Filipino domestic
helpers to HK. Memo Cir. 37 was also
issued for processing of employment
contracts of domestic workers for HK.
 all Hong Kong recruitment
agent/s hiring DHs from the
Philippines shall recruit under
the new scheme which requires
prior accreditation with the
POEA.
 Only those DHs in said list will
be allowed processing outside
of the HWPU manpower pool
and regulate (Power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, with due
regard for the interests of the public)
 They are legally invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of proper
publication and filing in the ONAR required in Article 2 of the Civil Code,
Article 5 of the Labor Code and Sections 3(1) and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the
Administrative Code of 1987
 Tanada v Tuvera:
o Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid
delegation
o Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is,
regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the
public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-
called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors
concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates
in the performance of their duties."

PASEI filed a petition for prohibition to

annul the DOLE and POEA circulars and
prevent implementation
 GAD
 Contrary to the Constitution,
unreasonable, unfair, and
oppressive
 Requirements of publication
and filing with ONAR not
complied with
`
 De Jesus v. Petitioners are employees of the Local
Torres Water Utilities Admin. (LWUA). Before
July 1, 1989, they were receiving
honoraria as members of the LWUA
Board Secretariat and the Pre-
Qualification, Bids, and Awards
Committee
RA 67581 provides for the
consolidation of allowances and
additional compensation into
standardized salary rates. Certain
additional compensations, however,
were exempted from consolidation.
Pursuant thereto DBM issued Corp.
Compensation Cir. 102 discontinuing all
allowances and fringe benefits granted
on top of basic salary.
Pursuant to these, Jamoralin
(corporate auditor) disallowed the
payment of honoraria to petitioners.
Petitioners:
 DBM CCC No 10 prohibiting fringe benefits and allowances is contrary to RA
6758 which authorizes payment of additional compensation not integrated
into the standardized salary which incumbents were enjoying prior to July 1,
1989.
Respondent COA:
 To allow honoraria would run counter to Sec 8, Art IX-B which proscribes
payment of “additional or double compensation, unless specifically authorized
by law” Thus, the grant of honoraria or like allowances requires a specific legal
or statutory authority. And DBM-CCC No. 10 need not be published for it is
merely an interpretative regulation of a law already published.
The Court refrained from ruling on the first issue (consistency between DBM Circular
and law it sought to implement) because ruling on the second issue (this one) in the
negative would make a discussion on the first issue unnecessary.
Publication
 Citing Tanada, DBM-CCC No 10 must be published since it is an administrative
circular. It is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. Before the
circular can be permitted to substantially reduce the income of government
EEs, they should be apprised and alerted by the publication in the O.G or
newspaper of general circulation – to the end that they be given amplest
opportunity to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate
their stance on the matter. To the end that they be given amplest opportunity
to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate their stance

1
Consolidation of allowances and compensation. Allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance
of marine officers and allowances on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign services personnel stationed abroad; and such other
additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such
other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to
be authorized."
2
"Payment of other allowances/fringe benefits and all other forms of compensation granted on top of basic salary, whether in
cash or in kind . . . shall be discontinued effective November 1, 1989. Payment made for such allowances/fringe benefits after
said date shall be considered as illegal disbursement of public funds."
 Thus, petitioners appealed to COA
questioning the validity of the DBM-
CCC 10.
 They contended that it is
inconsistent with RA 6758.
 Lack of publication
COA upheld the DBM-CCC No. 10.
Republic v. Bayantel filed an application for a
EXPRESS Certificate of Public Convenience to
Telecom operate a digital Cellular Mobile
Telephone System and prayed for a
Provisional Authority. NTC published a
Notice of Hearing and the application
was mailed to affected parties.
However, NTC archived the application
as there were no available frequencies
for the service
NTC issued two Memo Circs. re-
allocating available frequencies and
thus Bayantel filed a Motion to Revive
Case. NTC granted and set the case for
hearings.
Extelcom filed an Opposition with
MTD arguing that the revival of the
on the matter.
 Thus, no need to go into its statutory authority. It is invalid.
 In the present case under scrutiny, it is decisively clear that DBM-CCC No. 10,
which completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional
compensation to government officials and employees, is not a mere
interpretative or internal regulation. It is something more than that. And why
not, when it, tends to deprive government workers of their allowances and
additional compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul together. At the
very least, before the said circular under attack may be permitted to
substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees
concerned should be apprised and alerted by the publication
Extelcom contends that the NTC should have applied the 1993 Rules since they filed
with the ONAR. Those rules deleted the phrase “on its own initiative” thus, could
only issue the provisional authority upon filing of a motion.
NTC answered that it had not been applying the 1993 rules since it has not been
published in a newspaper, thus it had been applying the 1978 Rules.
 The ONAR is merely a bulletin of codified rules and it is furnished only to the
Office of the President, Congress, all appellate courts, the National Library,
other public offices or agencies as the Congress may select.
 The fact of publication in the ONAR does not cure the defect related to the
effectivity of the Administrative Order. The publication in the Official Gazette
or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before
statutes, rules or regulations can take effect.
 Hence the 1993 Rules must be published in the O.G. or newspaper of general
circulation before it can take effect. Even the 1993 Revised Rules itself
mandates that said Rules shall take effect only after their publication in a
newspaper of general circulation. In absence of such publication, the 1978
Rules govern.
 In any event, Bayantel did file a motion for issuance of a provisional
authority. Thus, it cannot be said that NTC granted the provisional authority
application from 8 years ago renders all
the allegations and documentary
evidence outdated. Furthermore, the
new frequencies were intended to be
applicated for by existing CMTS
operators.
Nevertheless, NTC issued an Order
granting Bayantel a provisional
authority to operate. Extelcom filed
with the CA seeking to annul the Order
of revival
motu propio
Revival of the application on an ex-parte motion.
 Allowed. The NTC rules provide that “Except for motions for provisional
authorization of proposed services and increase of rates, ex-parte motions
shall be acted upon by the Board only upon showing of urgent necessity
therefor and the right of the opposing party is not substantially impaired”
Therefore, the revival may be based on an ex-parte motion.
Due process
 The order referred to a simple revival. It cannot be said that Extelcom’s
procedural due process was prejudiced since it will have its opportunity to be
heard during the full-blown adversarial proceedings. The record shows that
hearings have been scheduled for this purpose.
 Extelcom had already entered its appearance as a party and filed its
Opposition to the application. It was neither precluded nor barred from
participating in the hearings thereon. The motion to revive could not have
possibly caused prejudice to Extelcom since the motion only sought the revival
of the application.
 Likewise, the requirements of notice and publication of the application is no
longer necessary because the application is a mere revival of an application
which has already been published earlier. At any rate, the records show that
all of the other CMTS operators in the country were duly notified and were
allowed to raise their respective oppositions to Bayantel's application
through the NTC's Order dated February 1, 2000
CA erred in annulling the order of NTC
 Administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the
courts. The exception is where the issuing authority had gone beyond its
statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted
arbitrarily and without regard to its duty or with GAD. None of the exceptions
apply.
 It has also been held that the exercise of administrative discretion is a policy

NASECORE v. Under Sec 36 of the EPIRA, distribution
ERC utilities were required to file its revised
rates for approval with the EPC. Thus,
MERALCO filed its application with the
ERC. Hence, ERC sent out notices and
conducted hearings with relevant
parties. Later, ERC approved
MERALCO’s unbundled rates. The
Order further directed MERALCO to
recover its costs for power purchased
from NAPCOOR through the new
adjustment scheme – GRAM
In a separate proceeding, ERC was
conducting public consultation on the
DÉCOR and DICER (precursor of the
GARM and ICERA). Many strongly
objected to the new adjustment
schemes. Later, the ERC, in an Order,
decision and a matter that can best be discharged by the government agency
concerned, and not by the courts.
 In the case at bar, we find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the NTC
which formed the basis for awarding the provisional authority to Bayantel. As
found by the NTC, Bayantel has been granted several provisional and
permanent authorities before to operate various telecommunications services
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies was violated
 As a general rule, where the law provides for the remedies against the action
of an administrative board, body or oIcer, relief to courts can be sought only
after exhausting all remedies provided. The reason rests upon the presumption
that the administrative body, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error,
may amend its decision on a given matter and decide it properly.
 Extelcom violated the rule when it filed a petition for certiorari with the CA
form the NTC Order without first filing an MR. The case does not fall under any
of the exceptions. That the Order of the NTC became immediately executory
does not mean that the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration is
foreclosed to the petitioner.
The amended application is covered by Sec 4(e), R3, of the IRR of EPIRA
 Respondents: the provision applies only to independent rate applications, not
to adjustment mechanisms like the GRAM, hence the amended application is
excluded
 NO. The provision is clear that it applies to "any application or petition for
rate adjustment or for any relief affecting the consumers." It does not make
any distinction.
 The provision requires two things (1) publication of the application itself (2)
comment requirements by customers and LGUs concerned. These
requirements are in keeping with EPIRA’s policies – among which is the protect
the public interest and ensure transparent and reasonable price changes.
Therefore, the lack of publication deprives consumers the right to file their
comments.
 adopted the Implementing Rules for
the GRAM and ICERA. The rules were
contained in the same Order which
provide that they shall take effect
immediately.
Pursuant to this, MERALCO filed an
amended application so to incorporate
the GRAM scheme. MERALCO updated
its generation charge from 3.1 to 3.4
pesos to conform with the formula as
provided in the GRAM Implementing
Rules.
The ERC approved the increase.
NASECORE sought to nullify this
approval for lack of publication of the
amended application, invoking Sec
4(e)3, R3 of the IRRs of EPIRA as it was
not published in a newspaper of
general circulation which rendered it
void.
MERALCO argued that the amended
application is not governed by Sec 4(e)
and the applicable rules are in GRAM
Implementing Rules. It explained the
nature and history of the PPA and
subsequent adoption of GRAM which
allows periodic adjustment of the
generation charge after review by the
ERC before costs are passed on the
3
Section 4(e), Rule 3 of the IRR of the EPIRA:
(e) Any application or petition for rate adjustment or for any relief affecting the consumers must be verified, and accompanied with an acknowledgement of receipt of a copy
thereof by the LGU Legislative Body of the locality where the applicant or petitioner principally operates together with the certification of the notice of publication thereof in a
newspaper of general circulation in the same locality.
 It is basic in due process that consumers be notified of any application that
would result in their economic burden. ITC, the consumers have the right to
be informed of the bases of the amended application and be able to contest
the same.
Respondent argues that to require it to comply with Sec 4(e) R3 of the IRR would be
a violation of MERALCO’s due process because it would be subjected to a long and
tedious process of recovering its fuel and purchased power costs.
 This is why the ERC’s has power to grant provisional adjustments or interim
rate regulation to be able to “swiftly and flexibly respond to the exigencies of
the times”
This is another reason why reliance on the GRAM Implementing Rules are unreliable.
 There is no showing that the GRAM IR were published in the Official Gazette
or newspaper of general circulation.
 In Tanada, Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.
 Here, there was nothing to show that the GRAM was published. Moreover, as
per certification from the ONAR, the IRRs were not filed with the ONAR as
required in the Administrative Code. Thus, the GRAM IR must be declared
ineffective
ERC pointed out that the parties, especially the distribution utilities and consumer
groups, were duly notified of the public consultation on the ERC’s proposed IRs.
These parties participated in public consultation and even submitted their comments
 However, this does not provide an excuse for non-compliance with the
publication requirement.
 Public consultation and submission were procedure prior to the adoption of
the GRAM IRs. Publication of statutes are requirements after their
promulgation or adoption.
 The purpose of the public consultation is to give the parties the opportunity to
express their concerns on the IRRs while publication requirement is to apprise
the public of the contents of the laws or rules promulgated or adopted.
 More importantly, the GRAM IRs lay down the procedure by which generation
costs of distribution are recovers which ultimately affect the public as
 customers.
GMA v. MTRCB issued an order of suspension
MTRCB against GMA for airing “Muro Ami: The
Making” without first securing a permit
as provided under PD 1986, Sec 7.
The penalty of suspension was based
on Memo Cir. 98-17 which provided for
penalties for exhibiting a program
without a permit from the MTRCB.
GMA MR and filed a letter protest
which was merely “noted” by MTRCB.
CA dismissed
Republic v. DOE is mandated to prepare, integrate, Citing Tanada, MOF Circular, as and administrative rule, is one of the issuances that
Shell coordinate, supervise and control all
plans, programs, projects and activities enforce PD 1956.
of the Government relative to energy
exploration, development, utilization,
distribution and conservation. The Oil
Price Stabilization Fund was created
under PD 1956 to minimize frequent
price changes due to changes in the
world market price of crude oil and
imported petroleum products.
The DOE informed Shell that its
contributions to the OPSF (on the forex
risk charge for 1989-1991) was
insufficient thus a surcharge was
imposed to Shell pursuant to MOF Cir.
1-85. Later, Shell paid its
underpayment but not the surcharges. Petitioner: Registration of the MOF with the ONAR no longer needed since Shell
DOE demanded payment of the
consumers of electricity. Being so, they had the right to be informed of the
contents of the GRAM
MTRCB has authority to review the show “Muro Ami” prior to its broadcasting
 Sec 3: screen, review, and examine all motion pictures, television programs,
including publicity materials.
…Since it did not fall under the exemptions in PD 1986, Sec 7.
 (1) television programs imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government
and (2) newsreels.
However while it has JD over the subject program, Memo Cir. 98-17 which was the
basis of the suspension order was not binding on GMA.
 Sec 3 of the Admin Code requires each agency to file with the ONAR 3 copies
of every rule adopted by it. Administrative issuances not filed with the ONAR
are ineffective and unenforceable.
 ITC, Memo Cir had not been filed and published with the ONAR, hence it is
unenforceable and GMA is not bound by its sanction.
must be filed before the ONAR before it becomes effective since it is intended to
 Sec 3 expressly provides that rules in force on the effectivity of the Admin Code
must also be published within 3 months from the date of effectivity
 These requirements of publication and filing were put in place as safeguards
against abuses on the part of lawmakers and as guarantees to the
constitutional right to due process and to information on matters of public
concern and, therefore, require strict compliance.
ITC, the certifications from the ONAR show that the issuances had not been filed.
Moreover, the Republic has not been able to controvert the allegation that neither of
the issuances had been published in the O.G. or newspaper of general circulation.
Thus, they are ineffective.
Petitioner: Shell waived the requisite registration of MOF Cir 1-85 when it paid the
underpayment amount.
 NO, MOF 1-85 imposes surcharges. The underpayment was based on MOF Cir.
11-85 (1985)
knew it was existing
 surcharges otherwise it would proceed
against Shell’s Irrevocable Standby
Letter of Credit to recover its unpaid
surcharges. Shell filed a Notice of
Appeal with the OP which affirmed the
DOE’s decision.
Before the CA, Shell presented
certifications issued by the ONAR that
the DOF Cir NO. and MOF Cir No. 1-85
(the basis for the surcharges) were not
filed with the ONAR. CA reversed and
held the issuances ineffective for
failure of filing with the ONAR. It ruled
that even if the circulars were issued
before the Admin Code was effective, it
must still be filed with the ONAR
Board of Respondents were administratively
Trustees GSIS charged and placed under preventive
v Velasco suspension for their alleged
participation in the demonstration held
by GSIS employees denouncing alleged
corruption in the GSIS and calling for
the ouster of its president and GM,
Garcia.
Respondent Molina requested the
GSIS SVP for his step increment under
Res. 306 but was denied, citing GSIS
Board Resolution 372 on the IRRs on
new GSIS salary structure which
provides that the step increment
adjustment of an employee under
preventive suspension will be withheld
during the pendency of the case.
 No, strict compliance with publication requirements cannot be annulled by
mere allegation that the parties were notified of its existence. It cited
National Association of Electricity Consumers v. ERC: the fact of participation in
the public consultation and submission of comments is not compliance with
the fundamental rule that administrative rules, whose purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law, must be published in the O.G or newspaper of general
circulation.”
Pet: Res. 372, 197 and 306 need not be filed since they are merely internal in nature –
regulating only personnel of the GSIS
 According to the UP-Law Center's guidelines for receiving and publication of
rules and regulations, "interpretative regulations and those merely internal in
nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the Administrative agency and
not the public," need not be filed with the UP Law Center.
 Not all rules and regulations adopted by every government agency are to be
filed with the UP Law Center. Only those of general or of permanent character
are to be filed.
 The Assailed resolutions are only internal rules. They need not be published
o Res. 372 – GSIS Salary Structure
o Res. 306 – Authority to pay the 2002 Christmas Package
o Res. 197 – GSIS merit selection and promotion
Pet: GSIS Board has power to issue the assailed resolutions. It was within their power
to disqualify respondents for step increment and from receiving the GSIS benefits from
the time of the administrative charges
 Note: We don’t rule on Res. 306 since it was a matter not raised before the
Trial Court
 A grant of step increment requires the EE must have rendered 3 years of
 Respondents also asked to avail of
their employee privileges but was
denied due to their pending
administrative case.
Later, GSIS Board issued Board Res.
No. 197 which disqualified those with
pending administrative case from (1)
promotion, (2) step increment (3)
performance-based bonus (4) other
benefits
continuous service.
 Preventive suspension is not a penalty. It is similar to an EE who has incurred
vacation leave without pay. Thus, the same rules should apply. On the matter
of step increment, if an employee is preventively suspended, he will still be
entitled to the step increment after serving the time of his preventive
suspension. The grant of step increment will only be delayed for the same
number of days, which must not exceed 90 days, that an official or employee
was serving the preventive suspension.

Respondents filed with the trial court

to restraint implementation of the
Resolutions 372 and 197 claiming they
were denied their benefits, as it
violates their right to be presumed
innocent. Respondents also argue that
the resolutions were ineffective as
they were not registered with the UP
Law Center.

The trial court granted. The trial court

found among others that the
resolutions were ineffective as they
were not registered as per certification
by the ONAR.

PUBLICATION SEC 3 – FILING  Every agency files with UP LAW CENTER; 3 certified copies of every rule
 Rules in Force on date of effectivity which are NOT filed within 3 months from
date shall NOT BE BASIS OF ANY SANCTION
SEC 4 – EFFECTIVITY  In addition to other rule making requirements provided by law,
 each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as
above provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in
cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of

SEC 5 – PUBLICATION AND RECORDING
SEC 6 – OMISSION OF SOME RULES
SEC 7 – DISTRIBUTION OF BULLETIN
SEC 8 JUDICIAL NOTICE
People v. Appellant was charged with having
Que Po Lay possession foreign exchange (US
checks, money orders) amounting to 7k
and failed to sell the same to the
Central Bank within 1 day from receipt
as required under Cir. No 20. He was
found guilty of violating Central Bank
Cir. No. 20, in relation to Sec 34, RA
265.
The appeal is based on the claim that
Cir. No 20 was not published in the
Official Gazette prior to the act or
which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule
UPLAWCENTER SHALL:
 Publish a quarter bulletin … [with] rules filed with it
 Up to date codification of all rules published
UPLAW CENTER MAY OMIT:
 Unduly cumbersome
 Expensive
 Inexpedient
BUT
 copies of that rule shall be made available on application to the agency which
adopted it, and
 the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the
omitted rule and new copies thereof may be obtained.
HOWEVER:
Every rule establishing an offense or de0ning an act which, pursuant to law is
punishable as a crime or subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full
text.
 shall furnish one (1) free copy each of every issue of the bulletin and of the
codi0ed rules or supplements to the O7ce of the President, Congress, all
appellate courts and the National Library
 The court shall take judicial notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed
or as published in the bulletin or the codified rules
 We agree with the SG that the law did not require publication of circulars,
regulations or notices mentioned to be binding. The laws cited only make a list
of what should be published in the O.G. for the guidance of the different
branches of government issuing the same, and of the Bureau of Printing.
 However, the RAC and Art 2 of NCC provides that laws shall take effect after
15 days following the completion of their publication in the O.G, unless it is
otherwise provided
 True, Cir No 20 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. Further,
as a rule, circulars and regulations prescribing a penalty for its violation should
be published to be binding. Before 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
 omission under C.A. 638 and Act 2930
People v. Several individuals were charged in the
Maceren municipal court for violating the
Fisheries Admin Order when they
resorted in electro fishing.
They filed a MTQ. The case was
dismissed. Prosecution appealed, CFI
affirmed.
Lower Court: electro fishing is not
obnoxious or poisonous substance
under Sec 11 of the Fisheries Law.
Since the law does not prohibit it, it
cannot be considered unlawful.
Note: The law does not really prohibit
electrofishing, however the Sec. of
Agriculture and Natural Resources
promulgated Fisheries Admin Order 84
which prohibited electro fishing.
and its penalties.
 ITC, while Cir. No 20 was issued in 1949, it was not published until Nov 1951 (3
months after the conviction) Thus, the Cir No 20 did not have a binding effect
and appellant could not be held liable for its violation
SG contends that the issue on non-publication was raised for the first time on appeal
 The non-publication is fundamental and decisive. If the Cir No 20 was not
published, in the eyes of law there was no law to be violated, and
consequently no violation. It may be said that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction. Thus, this issue may be raised at any stage of the proceeding.
[irrelevant] The CFI assumes it has JD that electrofishing is punishable under Sec 83 of
the Fisheries law which provides – any violation of law or rules and regulations
promulgated subjects the offender to a fine of 200
 This is incorrect. The Administrative Order imposes a fine of 500 thus the Sec.
and Commissioner of Fisheries prescribed their own penalty.
 We raise this because 500 falls within the concurrent JD of the CFI and
municipal court. Thus, the order of dismissal by the municipal court was
directly appealable to the SC. The CFI order affirming the municipal order is
void.
Prosecution argues that Admin Order 84 was not issued under Sec 11 of the Fisheries
law. He cites other provisions (1) rule making power of the Dept. Sec. (2) functions of
the Commissioner to enforce the Fisheries Law and execution of the law consistent
with its purpose (3) declared national policy to encourage, promote, conserve our
fishing resources (4) Sec 83 any other violation of the Fisheries law is subject to a fine
of 200.
 First, Sec 83 is not the same penalty, as already discussed.
 Second, The Fisheries law does not expressly prohibit electrofishing. There is
nothing in the law which punishes electrofishing.
 It does not fall under “other violations” because the penalty is also different.
However, at present electrofishing is already punished under PD 704.
An examination of the rule-making power of the executive officials and admin
agencies, particularly the Sec. of Agriculture and National Resources under the
Fisheries law shows that he exceeded his authority.
 Admin agencies are clothed with rule-making power because the lawmaking
body finds it impossible and impracticable to anticipate and provide for all

Interpretative Rules
Hillado v. Hilado filed his income tax return with
Collector the treasure of Bacolod, claiming
P12,800 is deductible from his gross
income pursuant to Gen. Cir. 123.
 This was his war damage claim
from losses during WWII which
remained unpaid. The circular
was issued pursuant to rules
laid down by the SOF.
On the basis of his return Hilado was
multifarious situations encountered in enforcing the law. All that is required is
that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the
law, and conform to the standards the law prescribes.
 Admin regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law and
should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions.
By such, the law itself cannot be extended. The rule-making power must be
confined to the details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into
effect the law as it has been enacted.
 The Sec. of Natural Resources has rule-making powers, however it must be in
conformity of law. Admin regulations issued by the Dept. Head in conformity
with law have the force of law.
 Art 7 NCC provides: admin or executive acts, orders, regulations shall be valid
only when not contrary to the laws or Constitution.
 A penal statute is strictly construed. While an administrative agency has the
right to make rules and regulations to carry into effect a law already enacted,
that power should not be confused with the power to enact a criminal
statute. An administrative agency can have only the administrative or policing
powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon it.
 To declare what shall constitute a crime and how it shall be punished is a
power vested exclusively in the legislature, and it may not be delegated to
any other body or agency.
In the instant case the regulation penalizing electro fishing is not strictly in
accordance with the Fisheries Law, under which the regulation was issued, because
the law itself does not expressly punish electro fishing. Therefore, the Sec. and
Commissioner are powerless to penalize it.
The war damage claim which was not paid is not deductible as a loss in 1951 because
the last installment from the WDC was in 1950. In this case, the amount would be
properly a deduction from his 1950 gross income.
Petitioner claimed that the amount represents a “business asset” which the meaning
of the Philippine Rehabilitation Act which he is entitled to deduct as a loss for his
return in 1951.
 No. Its collection is not enforceable as a matter of right but dependent on the
generosity of the US Government. Under the Phil. Rehab Act, the payments of
claims by the War Damage Commission depended merely on the discretion of
 sent an assessment notice of 9,400.
Meanwhile, the SOF, through the
Collector of Internal Revenue issued
Gen. Cir. 139 which revoked Gen Cir.
123 and laid down the rule that losses
of property which occurred during the
period of World War II from fires,
storms, shipwreck or other casualty, or
from robbery, theft, or embezzlement
are deductible in the year of actual
loss or destruction of said property.
Hence, the 12,800 was disallowed as a
deduction from his gross income and
Hilado was demanded payment of
3.5k deficiency income tax for the
year.
 SOF acted without authority in
revoking Gen Cir. 123
 139 cannot be given
retroactive effect as he has a
vested right to the damage
claim
Victorias Co SSC issued Cir. No 22 which provides: all
v. SSC ERs in computing premiums due, the
System will take into consideration in
the WDC.
 While under the NIRC, the SOF issued Gen Cir 123 as and implementation or
interpretation of Sec 30 of the NIRC where the amount of 12,800 was allowed
to be deducted "in the year the last installment was received with notice that
no further payment would be made until the United States Congress makes
further appropriation therefor" such circular was wrong and revoked.
 HOWEVER, the NIRC provides that loses sustained are deductible only within
the corresponding tax year.
 When doubts were had on Gen Cir 123, the SOF sought the opinion of the SOJ
which said: The Phil. Rehab. Act was passed long after the losses were
sustained. Thus, they couldn’t have been assured that they would be
compensated for their losses.
 Since we have already stated that the amount claimed does not represent a
"business asset" that may be deducted as a loss in 1951, it is clear that the loss
of the corresponding asset or property could only be deducted in the year it
was actually sustained. This is in line with section 30 (d) of the National Internal
Revenue Code which prescribes that losses sustained are allowable as
deduction only within the corresponding taxable year.
Pet: The power to pass on the validity of Gen. Cir. 123 is only with the courts and the
SOF acted without authority in revoking Gen. Cir 123 and issuing Gen Cir. 139.
 No, the SOF is vested with authority to revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or
previous rulings of his predecessor in office because the construction of a
statute by those administering it is not binding on their successors if thereafter
the latter become satisfied that a different construction should be given.
Pet: Gen Cir 139 cannot be given retroactive effect because it would affect his vested
right acquired by petitioner under the previous circular
 No. Gen. Cir 123 was issued on a wrong construction of law, which cannot be
give rise to a vested right that can be invoked by a taxpayer. A vested right
cannot spring from a wrong interpretation of law.
 Art 2254 – not vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions which
are against law

There is distinction between an administrative rule/regulation v. Administrative
interpretation
Rule Opinion/Statement of
EE’s renumeration all bonuses and OT
pay, as well as cash value of other media
of renumeration.
Petitioner Victorias Milling Co wrote to
SSC protesting that it is contradictory to
the previous Cir. No 7 which expressly
excluded OT and bonus in computations
of the ER’s and EE’s monthly premium
contributions. They also question SSC’s
authority to promulgate the Circular
without approval of the President and
lack of publication.
SSC ruled that Cir No 22 is not a
rule/regulation that needed approval of
the President and publication to be
effective, but a mere administrative
interpretation of the statute.
Policy/Interpretation
"makes" a new law with the force and merely interprets a pre-existing law
effect of a valid law,
A rule is binding on the courts so long as at best merely advisory, for it is the
the procedure fixed for its promulgation courts that finally determine what the
is followed and its scope is within the law means.
statutory authority granted by the
legislature, even if the courts are not in
agreement with the policy stated therein
or its innate wisdom
Cir 22 was issued by the SSC pursuant to an amendment of SSL defining the term
compensation.
 Prior to the amendment, bonuses, allowances and OT pay given in addition to
regular/based pay were EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED from the definition of
“compensation”. Thereafter, it was deleted by the amendatory law.
 Thus, the interpretation of the SSC had to affect the amendment. Thus, Cir 22
was issued to apprise those its understanding/interpretation of the law as
amended. It did not add any duty or detail that was not already in the law as
amended. It merely stated and circularized the opinion of the Commission as
to how the law should be construed.
Que Po Lay is not applicable (penalty publication) because the penalty that may be
incurred by ERs and EEs if they refuse to pay is not by reason of non-compliance with
Cir No 22 but RA 1161.
 We And, therefore, that Circular No. 22 purports merely to advise employers-
members of the System of what, in the light of the amendment of the law,
they should include in determining the monthly compensation of their
employees upon which the social security contributions should be based, and
that such circular did not require presidential approval and publication in the
Official Gazette for its effectivity.
Argument: previous cases of the Court held that bonuses is not demandable because
it is not part of wage, salary, compensation
 The issue here is not whether bonus is demandable or not as part of
compensation, but after giving the bonus, whether they will be considered
compensation under the Social Security Act after receipt by the EEs.
 
While it is true that terms or words are to be interpreted in accordance with
their well-accepted meaning in law, nevertheless, when such term or word is
specifically defined in a particular law, such interpretation must be adopted in
enforcing that particular law, for it cannot be gainsaid that a particular phrase
or term may have on meaning for one purpose and another meaning for some
other purpose. Thus, RA 1161 specifically says “compensation” should mean
“For the Purposes of this Act”
 By virtue of this express substantial change in the phraseology of the law,
whatever prior executive or judicial construction may have been given to the
phrase in question should give way to the clear mandate of the new law.
Peralta v. Petitioner was appointed Trade- ** During pendency of the case, CSC promulgated Res. Which amended the policy in
CSC Specialist in the DTI. He received his question – when an employee, regardless of whether he has leave credits or not, is
salary covering Sept 25 and Oct 31, 1989 absent without pay on day immediately preceding or succeeding Saturday, Sunday or
but salary deductions were made due to holiday, he shall not be considered absent on those days."
his absences.
For reasons of public interest, and public policy, the Court will make a formal ruling on
He was absent on Sept. 29 and Oct 20 the adopted policy is valid
(two/both Fridays) but deductions were
made inclusive of the Saturdays and The policy was embodied in a 2nd Indorsement dated 1965 of the CSC involving the
Saturdays thereafter. He inquired on the case of Mrs. Gonzales. It ruled that that an employee who has no leave credits in his
law on salary deductions, if the favor is not entitled to the payment of salary on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays unless
employee has no leave credits. such non-working days occur within the period of service actually rendered.

The Chief of the General Administrative
Service answered citing the Handbook of
Information on Phil. Civil Service which
states: "when an employee is on leave
without pay on a day before or on a
day immediately preceding a Saturday,
Sunday or Holiday, such Saturday,
Sunday, or Holiday shall also be without
pay.”
When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or issues a
statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative
interpretation of the law is at best advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine
what the law means. It has also been held that interpretative regulations need not
be published.
The law being interpreted is RA 26254. The interpretation is not in line with the law.
 CSC construed the law as referring to employees who have earned leave
credits as the law speaks of leaves of absence with full pay. The CSC ruled
that R.A. 2625 does not show that a government employee who is on leave of

4
…the President or proper head of department, …may, in his discretion, grant to an employee or laborer, whether permanent or temporary, of the national government, the
provincial government, the government of a chartered city, of a municipality, of a municipal district or of government-owned or controlled corporations … 15 days vacation
leave of absence with full pay, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, for each calendar year of service.
Petitioner sent a letter to the CSC absence without pay on a day before or immediately preceding a Saturday,
Chairman arguing that the CSC rule at Sunday or legal holiday is entitled to payment of his salary for said days.
issue is not supported by the General  HOWEVER, RA 2625 specifically provides that government employees are
Leave Law under the RAC and CSL. Thus, entitled to 15 days sick leave with full pay, EXCLUSIVE of Saturdays, Sundays
he should be paid for the intervening and Holidays in both cases. Thus, the law speaks of the granting of a right and
Saturday, Sundays and Holidays he was the law does not provide for a distinction between those who have
deprived of. accumulated leave credits and those who have exhausted their leave credits
in order to enjoy such right.
The CSC responded that the deduction  The intent of the law was to exclude computation of leave of Saturdays,
is in order. MR denied. Sunday and Holidays because they are really not entitled to go to office during
those days. Thus, they cannot be considered absent and be deprived of their
salary corresponding to these non-working days.
 Further, the prior law applied to all government employees, whether they
have or not accumulated leave credits. Thus, it still applies to all.
Hence, it is invalid. What is the effect?
 GR: legislation is that an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers not rights,
it imposes no duties, it afford no protection; it creates no office
 The actual existence of a statute, prior to such determination is an operative
fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored.
To allow all the affected government employees, similarly situated as petitioner herein,
to claim their deducted salaries resulting from the past enforcement of the herein
invalidated CSC policy, would cause quite a heavy financial burden on the national and
local governments considering the length of time that such policy has been effective.