MARICRIS W.

BISCARRA
JD 1-SECTION 2

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS ACTIVITY NO. 1 ( AUGUST 26, 2021)

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

I. What are the binding effects of an obiter dictum and a dissenting opinion?
 Obiter dictum and dissenting opinion do not have any binding effect. Both are
not necessary in the resolution or determination of a case. Obiter dictum is
merely side comments that do not resolve the actual issues presented in a case.
On the other hand, dissenting opinion is merely persuasive because the majority
opinion controls.

II. How can a decision of the Supreme Court be set aside?

 Supreme Court decisions may be set aside either by
(1) a subsequent decision expressly or implicitly abandoning a previous decision;
(2) a legislative act that makes the Court's interpretation legally inapplicable; or
(3) a constitutional amendment or revision that makes the Court's interpretation
of the constitutional inapplicable.

III. After a devastating storm causing widespread destruction in four Central Luzon
provinces, the executive and legislative branches of the government agreed to enact
a special law appropriating P1 billion for purposes of relief and rehabilitation for the
provinces. In view of the urgent nature of the legislative enactment, it is provided in
its effectivity clause that it shall take effect upon approval and after completion of
publication in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines. The law was passed by the Congress on July 1, 1990. signed into law by
the President on July 3, 1990, and published in such newspaper of general
circulation on July 7, 1990 and in the Official Gazette on July 10, 1990.

(a) As to the publication of said legislative enactment, is there sufficient

observance or compliance with the requirements for a valid publication?
Explain your answer.
 Yes, there is sufficient observance or compliance with the requirements for a
valid publication. Article 2, Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after
fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,
unless it is otherwise provided. Having said that, the special law itself provides
for its publication not only in the Official Gazette but also in a newspaper of
general circulation.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 200 June 18, 1987, further modified that Laws shall take
effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines,
unless it is otherwise provided.

(b) When did the law take effect? Explain your answer.
 The law took effect on July 25, 1990. Although the Civil Code requires for a law's
effectivity publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines, it must be noted that, if a statute requires
publication in both, such shall be the requirement for its effectivity. In this case,
the special law provided in its effectivity clause to be publish in both Official
Gazette and newspaper in general circulation.
 (c) Can the executive branch start releasing and disbursing funds appropriated
by the said law the day following its approval? Explain your answer.
 No, the executive branch cannot start releasing and disbursing funds
appropriated upon the approval of the special law.

Before its effectivity, a law has no force and effect. It is neither a source of right
nor a source of obligation.

Since the law requires publication in both the Gazette and in a newspaper, said
requirements must be complied with before the executive branch does anything
based on said special law. It was not yet effective when it was approved by
Congress on July 1, 1990 and approved by the President on July 3, 1990.

IV. Is there any difference in their legal effect between ignorance of the law and
ignorance or mistake of fact?
 Yes, there is difference in their legal effects.

According to the Civil Code, ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has said that
mistake of fact may excuse a person from liablity, especially under our penal law.
(People v. Ah Chong) In addition to this, under property law, mistake on a
doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. (Art. 526). In
contract law, mistake of fact may, furthermore, vitiate consent in a contract and
make it voidable. (Art. 1390)

Yes, ignorance of the law differs in legal effect from ignorance or mistake of fact.
The former does not excuse a party from the legal consequences of his conduct
while the latter does constitute an excuse and is a legal defense.