ARTICLE 2

1. Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985

 Fact : The Petitioners, Lorenzo M. Tañada together with his group, filed for a
Writ of Mandamus to compel respondent, Public Officials, to publish all
Presidential Decrees, Letter of Instructions, General Orders, Proclamation #,
Executive Orders, Letters of implementation #, Administrative Orders THAT
are not published yet regardless if these decrees were able to provide for
their own effectivity
o for the Petitioners, it invoked the peoples right recognized in Section 6
of Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, which states “The right
of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decision, shall be afforded
the citizens subject to such limitations as may be provided by law
-However, respondents would like to have the case dismissed outright on
the ground that the petitioners have no legal personality to bring the
instant petition
 Issue : - 1`. WoN Petitioners have the legal personality or standing to bring
the instant petition”
- 2. “WoN Publication in the Official Gazette or any other form of is
required before any laws to take effect?”

 Ruling : - 1. YES, the court agrees with petitioners that although they are
private citizens, the subject of the petition is a PUBLIC
RIGHT.
- 2. YES, the court agreed that its essential for any Law or Statute
to be published first before they become effective as its
unconstitutional for someone to be punished for
violating a law which he received no notice about.
-Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of
publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself
provides for the date of its effectivity.
- This is because if laws are allowed to take effect without
publication, the public would not be informed of the existence of
the law that essentially governs them.
- Without publication, there would be no basis for the application
of the maxim “Ignoratia Legis, Nominem Excusat”

2. Basa v. Mercado, G.R. No. L-42226, July 26, 1935

 Fact : Hon. Hermogenes Reyes, Judge of Pampanga CFI, allowed and
probated the last will and testament of Ines Basa, decedent. The same judge
also approved the account of the administrator of the estate, declared him the
only heir, and closed the administration proceedings. Joaquin Basa, et al.,
filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, alleging that the court lacked
jurisdiction because there was failure to comply with the requirements as to
the publication of the notice of hearing. They contended that the hearing took
place only twenty-one days after the date of first publication instead of three
full weeks. Moreover, the Ing Katipunan where the notice was published was
not a newspaper of general circulation as contemplated by law

 Issue : 1. WoN there was compliance with the publication requirement

2. WoN Ing Katipunan is a newspaper of general circulation
  Ruling : 1. The language used in section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure
does not mean that the notice, referred to therein, should be
published for three full weeks before the date set for the
hearing of the will. In other words, the first publication of
the notice need not be made 21 days before the day
appointed for the hearing.

* NO, The first publication of the notice need not be made

tweny-one days before the day appointed for
the hearing as the language used in section
630 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not
mean that the notice, should be published for
three full weeks before the date set for the hearing on
the will.

2. The records show that Ing Katipunan is a newspaper of general

circulation in view of the fact that it is published for the
dissemination of local news and general information;
that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers; that it is published at regular intervals and
that the trial court ordered the publication to be made in Ing
Katipunan precisely because it was a newspaper of
general circulation in the Province of Pampanga.

 YES, The court defined “newspaper of general

circulation” as being published for the dissemination of
local news and general information; that it has a bona
fide subscription list of paying subscribers; that it is
published at regular intervals. It is therefore, lng
Katipunan is a newspaper of general circulation in the
province of Pampanga

3. De Roy v. CA, G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988

 Fact : The firewall of a burned out building owned by petitioners Feliza P.
De Roy and Virgilio Ramos collapsed and destroyed the
tailoring shop occupied by the family of the respondent Luis
Bernal resulting in injuries to private respondents to private
respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter.
Private respondents had been warned by petitioners to vacate
their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the
former failed to do. In the RTC, petitioners were
found guilty of gross negligence. The trial court’s order was
affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. On the last day of the
15 days period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied because it was no longer within
the grace period. Petitioners now contend that the rule in the
Habaluyas case should not be made to apply to the case at
bar owing to the nonpublication of the Habaluyas decision
in the Official Gazette at the time of the decision of the Court of
Appeals.

 Issue : “Whether or not the publication in the Official Gazette required

before SC decisions can become binding and effective?”

 Ruling : -No, publication is not required.

-There is no law requiring the publication of SC decisions in the
Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a
condition to their becoming effective.
-It is the bounden duty of counsel as a lawyer in active law practice
to keep abreast of decisions of the SC particularly where
issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and
 published in the advance reports of SC decisions and in such
publications as the SCRA and law journals.

- In this case, petitioner’s contention that the SC decision was

not binding and effective because it lacks publication is
without merit.
- Since publication is not required, the SC decision is binding and
effective even without being published in the Official Gazette
- There is no law requiring the publication of a Supreme Court
decision for it to be binding and effective. The counsel of the
petitioners should be responsible for keeping abreast
with Supreme Court decisions as a lawyer.

4. People v. Que Po Lay, G.R. No. L-6791, March 29, 1954

 Fact : The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of
US dollars, US checks and US money orders amounting to
about $7000 but failed to sell the same to the Central Bank
as required under Circular No. 20.
Circular No. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was published in
the Official Gazette only on Nov. 1951 after the act or
omission imputed to Que Po Lay.
Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower court finding
him guilty of violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in
connection with Sec 34 of RA 265 sentencing him to suffer 6
months imprisonment, pay fine of P1,000 with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
the costs.
 Issue : 1. WoN Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank, not being a statute or a
law should be subjected to publication requirement stated in Article
2 of the Civil Code
2. WoN The appellant is liable to the said Circular No. 20 when the
latter was only published after about three months of his
conviction

 Ruling : 1.  Circular No. 20 is not a statute or a law but it is being issued for
the implementation of the law authorizing its issuance,
therefore it has the force and effect of the law. Circulars
and regulations which prescribe a penalty for its violation
should be published before becoming effective. It is based on
the general principle that before the public is bound by
penal provisions, the people should be officially informed of
its contents and penalties.

2. No. The circular prescribes a penalty in the event of its violation.

Thus, it has the force and effect of law and therefore should
be published before it could have a binding effect. Before
publication, “in the eyes of the law, there was no circular to
be violated.” Que Po Lay therefore did not violate Circular
No. 20 and was acquitted.
5. NPC v. Pinatubo Commercial, GR No. 176006
 Fact : The NPC had published a public bidding for its scrap “aluminum
conductor steel-reinforced” cables or ASCR cables, of which
one of the aspiring bidders was Pinatubo Commercial whose
application for the pre-qualification was denied on the
basis of following Circular No.99-75, the
respondent, petitioned for the reconsideration but
was denied. The issue was brought before the RTC who
ruled in favor of the respondent and declared that the
Circular, particular items 3 & 3.1 as unconstitutional for being
unpublished and violating the equal protection clause, due
process, and restraining competitive free trade and
commerce.
- The NPC then brought the case before the SC questioning
the RTC’s Decision.
o The National Power Corporation (NPC) questions the decision
rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City,
declaring items 3 and 3.1 of NPC Circular No. 99-75
unconstitutional, which [allow] only partnerships or 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 as unconstitutional for being
violative of substantial due process and the equal protection clause
of the Constitution as well as for restraining competitive free trade
and commerce.

 Issue : 1. WoN the RTC erred in its decision that the Circular was
unconstitutional for not following the publication
requirements, violating due process, equal protection clause,
and restraining the competitive free trade and commerce.
2. WoN National Power Corporation (NPC) Circular No. 99-75 had
to be published?

 Ruling : 1. No. Because the circular in question was of general application

that was an internal regulation/rule within the staff of the
NPC, thus it not need to be published.
-The government also reserves the right to intervene in the market
whenever necessary to promote the general welfare and
curtail the practice of trafficking stolen government
property.

2. 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 NPC President to his
subordinates to regulate the proper and efficient disposal of
scrap ACSRs to qualified bidders. Thus, NPC Circular
No. 99-75 defined the responsibilities of the different
NPC personnel in the disposal, pre- qualification, bidding and
award of scrap ACSRS.
-Traders like Pinatubo could not claim similar treatment as direct
 manufacturers/processors especially in the light of their
failure to negate the rationale behind the distinction