Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No.

63915, April 24, 1985

TANADA ET AL FILED A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL PUBLIC

OFFICIALS TO PUBLISH/ CAUSE THE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL
GAZETTE OF VARIOUS PDs, LETTER OF INSTRUCTION, GOs,
PROCLAMATIONS, EOs, LETTER OF IMPLEMENTATION & ADMIN. ORDERS

FACTS: * THERE ARE PRESIDENTIAL ISSUANCES DURING THE TIME OF

PRES. MARCOS THAT WERE NOT PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE.
*TANADA, REPRESENTING MABINI INVOKES THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO BE
INFORMED ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.

TUVERA
TANADA
*CONTENDS THAT
*ASSERTS THAT FOR THE
PETITIONERS ARE NOT BEING
LAWS TO BE VALID IT MUST
AGGRIEVED PARTIES – NO
BE PUBLISHED IN THE
LEGAL
OFFICIAL GAZETTE
PERSONALITY/STANDING

WON, THE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE REQUIRED BEFORE ANY

LAWS/ STATUTE BECOMES VALID AND ENFORCEABLE

RULING: THE COURT DECLARE THAT THE PRESIDENTIAL ISSUANCES OF GENERAL APPLICATION
WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED, SHALL HAVE NO FORCE AND EFFECT.

* Article 2 of 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. The
clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the general public adequate
notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as
citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the
application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." 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.

Court recognize a private citizen's legal personality in this case. Clearly, the
right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognized
by no less than the fundamental law of the land. If petitioners were not
allowed to institute this proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to conceive
of any other person to initiate the same. ("when the question is one of
public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement
of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest and
the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted 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 [High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3rd ed., sec. 431].) As cited in
1910 case of Severino vs. Governor General.