EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.

200 June 18, 1987

WHEREAS, Article 2 of the Civil Code partly provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen
days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided . . .;"

WHEREAS, the requirement that for laws to be effective only a publication thereof in the
Official Gazette will suffice has entailed some problems, a point recognized by the Supreme
Court in Tañada. et al. vs. Tuvera, et al. (G.R. No. 63915, December 29, 1986) when it
observed that "[t]here is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be made
in the Official Gazette, considering its erratic release and limited readership"

WHEREAS, it was likewise observed that "[u]ndoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation

could better perform the function of communicating the laws to the people as such
periodicals are more easily available, have a wider readership, and come out regularly"; and

WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing premises Article 2 of the Civil Code should accordingly
be amended so the laws to be effective must be published either in the Official Gazette or in
a newspaper of general circulation in the country;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of

the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order:

Sec. 1. 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.

Sec. 2. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the "Civil Code of the
Philippines," and all other laws inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed
or modified accordingly.

Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately after its publication in the Official
Gazette.

Done in the City of Manila, this 18th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
and eighty-seven

Tañada, et al. v. Tuvera, et al., G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985

Petitioners Lorenzo Tañada and others files a writ of mandamus to compel

Respondent Juan Tuvera, et.al. to publish in the Official Gazette various
presidential decrees, letters of instruction, general orders, proclamations,
executive orders, letter of implementation, and administrative orders issued
by the Office of the President. They invoke the constitutional right of the
people to be informed, as well as the principle that laws are valid and
enforceable after their publication in the Official Gazette.

The Respondent opposed the petition by contending that the publication in

the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirements for the effectivity of the
laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. The
presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date
they are to take effect considering that Article 2 of the Civil Code provides
that laws shall take effect as well when otherwise provided. Thus, the
publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their effectivity.

Issue

1. Whether or not the publication in the Official Gazette is required in

order to for the presidential issuances to become valid and effective.
2. Whether or not non-publication shall render the presidential issuances
invalid and ineffective even though they have been enforced or
implemented prior to their publication.

Ruling

1. YES. The Supreme Court ruled that the Article 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. In fact,
Commonwealth Act 638 provides that laws shall be published in the
Official Gazette. Such publication is important because there shall be
no basis for the application of the Latin maxim, “ignoratia legis non
excusat”, without such notice and publication, especially when the law-
making process is not made in public.
3. Further, the word “shall” in Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638
imposes upon the Respondent an imperative duty to enforce the right
of the people to be informed of the matters of public concern. The
publication of all presidential is

Co vs Court of Appeals Case Digest

G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993

Chief Justice Narvasa

FACTS: Petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on

September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the Associated Citizens' Bank,
postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. 1 The check
was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the
tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT." A
criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was
filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial
Court of Pasay City. The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime
charged.
He argued on appeal that at the time of the issuance of the check on
September 1, 1983, some four (4) years prior to the promulgation of the
judgment in Que v. People on September 21, 1987, the delivery of a
"rubber" or "bouncing" check as guarantee for an obligation was not
considered a punishable offense, an official pronouncement made in a
Circular of the Ministry of Justice.

ISSUE: whether the decision issued by the Court be applied

retroactively to the prejudice of the accused.

HELD: No. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code "judicial decisions

applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part
of the legal system of the Philippines." But while our decisions form
part of the law of the land, they are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil
Code which provides that "laws shall have no retroactive effect unless
the contrary is provided." This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim
lex prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not backward. The
rationale against retroactivity is easy to perceive. The retroactive
application of a law usually divests rights that have already become
vested or impairs the obligations of contract and hence, is
unconstitutional

The weight of authority is decidedly in favor of the proposition that the

Court's decision of September 21, 1987 in Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160
(1987) 14 that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of
an obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22 — should not be
given retrospective effect to the prejudice of the petitioner and other
persons situated, who relied on the official opinion of the Minister of
Justice that such a check did not fall within the scope of B.P. Blg. 22