Lorenzo Tanada, Et Al (Petitioners)

Versus

Juan Tuvera, Et Al (Respondents)

GR No. L-63915 April 24, 1985

Facts:

Petitioners filed a petition for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent Officials to Publish
and/or cause the publication of numerous (a) Presidential Decrees, (b) Letter of Instructions, (c) General
Orders, (d) Proclamations, € Executive Orders, (f) Letter of Implementation and (g) Administrative
Orders.

Respondents countered that the petitioners had no legal personality/standing whatsoever and
are not directly affected by the non-publication of the assailed issuances and further contended that the
requirement of publication is not an essential requirement if said issuances themselves provide for their
own effectivity dates.

Issue:

Whether or not the assailed presidential issuances have force and effect despite non-
compliance to the requirement of publication.

Ruling:

No, the Supreme Court Held that publication is a must, since the act of publishing is construed
or considered as the official notice to the citizenry about the contents of the law. This requirement is
embodied in Article 2 of the Civil Code which provides that:
 “Article 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided”

Likewise, contrary to the contention of the respondents that the assailed issuances provided for
their own period of effectivity, the requirement of publication provided in the above-mentioned article
still stands, as without it, there will be no basis for the application of “ignorantia legis non excusat”,
wherein citizens may be punished for violating a law which they had no knowledge of whatsoever, not
even a construction notice of one.

Thus, the Supreme Court ordered the respondents to cause the publication of all the
unpublished the presidential issuances which are of “general application”, and further providing that
until the requirements as provided in Article 2 are complied with, said issuances shall remain to have no
force and effect. Lastly, the court clarified that the issuances which were merely internal in nature,
regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.
Hence, remained in effect.