G.R. No.

L-64279 April 30, 1984

ANSELMO L. PESIGAN and MARCELINO L. PESIGAN, petitioners,
vs.
JUDGE DOMINGO MEDINA ANGELES, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City Branch
129, acting for REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of Camarines Norte, now presided over by
JUDGE NICANOR ORIÑO, Daet Branch 40; DRA. BELLA S. MIRANDA, ARNULFO V.
ZENAROSA, ET AL., respondents.
Quiazon, De Guzman Makalintal and Barot for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

AQUINO, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
At issue in this case is the enforceability, before publication in the Official Gazette of June 14,
1982, of Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A dated October 25, 1980, providing for
the confiscation and forfeiture by the government of carabaos transported from one province to
another.
Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L. Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in an Isuzu ten-
wheeler truck in the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from Sipocot,
Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia, Batangas, as the destination.
They were provided with (1) a health certificate from the provincial veterinarian of Camarines
Sur, issued under the Revised Administrative Code and Presidential Decree No. 533, the Anti-
Cattle Rustling Law of 1974; (2) a permit to transport large cattle issued under the authority of
the provincial commander; and (3) three certificates of inspection, one from the Constabulary
command attesting that the carabaos were not included in the list of lost, stolen and questionable
animals; one from the LIvestock inspector, Bureau of Animal Industry of Libmanan, Camarines
Sur and one from the mayor of Sipocot.
In spite of the permit to transport and the said four certificates, the carabaos, while passing at
Basud, Camarines Norte, were confiscated by Lieutenant Arnulfo V. Zenarosa, the town's police
station commander, and by Doctor Bella S. Miranda, provincial veterinarian. The confiscation
was basis on the aforementioned Executive Order No. 626-A which provides "that henceforth, no
carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be
transported from one province to another. The carabaos or carabeef transported in violation of
this Executive Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the
government to be distributed ... to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal
Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos" (78 OG 3144).
Doctor Miranda distributed the carabaos among twenty-five farmers of Basud, and to a farmer
from the Vinzons municipal nursery (Annex 1).
The Pesigans filed against Zenarosa and Doctor Miranda an action for replevin for the recovery
of the carabaos allegedly valued at P70,000 and damages of P92,000. The replevin order could
not be executed by the sheriff. In his order of April 25, 1983 Judge Domingo Medina Angeles,
who heard the case at Daet and who was later transferred to Caloocan City, dismissed the case
for lack of cause of action.
The Pesigans appealed to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and section 25 of the
Interim Rules and pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440, a 1968 law which superseded Rule 42 of
the Rules of Court.
We hold that the said executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans on April 2,
1982 because, as already noted, it is a penal regulation published more than two months later in
the Official Gazette dated June 14, 1982. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter as
provided in article 2 of the Civil Code and section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code.
The word "laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old Civil Code) includes circulars and regulations
which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of the
regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. (People vs. Que
Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; Lim Hoa Ting vs. Central Bank of the Phils., 104 Phil. 573; Balbuna vs.
Secretary of Education, 110 Phil. 150.)
The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that "bajo la denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden
tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordenes dictadas de
conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su potestad (1 Manresa, Codigo Civil,
7th Ed., p. 146.)
Thus, in the Que Po Lay case, a person, convicted by the trial court of having violated Central
Bank Circular No. 20 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,
was acquitted by this Court because the circular was published in the Official Gazette three
months after his conviction. He was not bound by the circular.
That ruling applies to a violation of Executive Order No. 626-A because its confiscation and
forfeiture provision or sanction makes it a penal statute. Justice and fairness dictate that the
public must be informed of that provision by means of publication in the Gazette before violators
of the executive order can be bound thereby.
The cases of Police Commission vs. Bello, L-29960, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 230
and Philippine Blooming Mills vs. Social Security System, 124 Phil. 499, cited by the
respondents, do not involve the enforcement of any penal regulation.
Commonwealth Act No. 638 requires that all Presidential executive orders having general
applicability should be published in the Official Gazette. It provides that "every order or
document which shag prescribe a penalty shall be deemed to have general applicability and legal
effect."
Indeed, the practice has always been to publish executive orders in the Gazette. Section 551 of
the Revised Administrative Code provides that even bureau "regulations and orders shall become
effective only when approved by the Department Head and published in the Official Gazette or
otherwise publicly promulgated". (See Commissioner of Civil Service vs. Cruz, 122 Phil. 1015.)
In the instant case, the livestock inspector and the provincial veterinarian of Camarines Norte
and the head of the Public Affairs Office of the Ministry of Agriculture were unaware of
Executive Order No. 626-A. The Pesigans could not have been expected to be cognizant of such
an executive order.
It results that they have a cause of action for the recovery of the carabaos. The summary
confiscation was not in order. The recipients of the carabaos should return them to the Pesigans.
However, they cannot transport the carabaos to Batangas because they are now bound by the said
executive order. Neither can they recover damages. Doctor Miranda and Zenarosa acted in good
faith in ordering the forfeiture and dispersal of the carabaos.
WHEREFORE, the trial court's order of dismissal and the confiscation and dispersal of the
carabaos are reversed and set aside. Respondents Miranda and Zenarosa are ordered to restore
the carabaos, with the requisite documents, to the petitioners, who as owners are entitled to
possess the same, with the right to dispose of them in Basud or Sipocot, Camarines Sur. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët

G.R. No. L-62243 October 12, 1984

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. REGINO VERIDIANO II, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Zambales and Olongapo City, Branch I, and BENITO GO BIO, JR., respondents.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Anacleto T. Lacanilao and Carmelino M. Roque for respondents.

RELOVA, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
Private respondent Benito Go Bio, Jr. was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
in Criminal Case No. 5396 in the then Court of First Instance of Zambales, presided by
respondent judge. The information reads: têñ.£îhqwâ£
That on or about and during the second week of May 1979, in the City of
Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, guaranteeing the authenticity and genuineness of the same
and with intent to defraud one Filipinas Tan by means of false pretenses and
pretending to have sufficient funds deposited in the Bank of the Philippine Island,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously make and issue Bank of
Philippine Island Check No. D-357726 in the amount of P200,000.00 Philippine
Currency, said accused well knowing that he has no sufficient funds at the Bank
of the Philippine Island and upon presentation of the said check to the bank for
encashment, the same was dishonored for the reason that the said accused has no
sufficient funds with the said bank and despite repeated demands made by
Filipinas Tan on the accused to redeem the said check or pay the amount of
P200,000.00, said accused failed and continues to fail to redeem the said check or
to pay the said amount, to the damage and prejudice of said Filipinas Tan in the
aforementioned amount of P200,000.00 Philippine Currency. (pp. 23-24, Rollo)
Before he could be arraigned respondent Go Bio, Jr. filed a Motion to Quash the information on
the ground that the information did not charge an offense, pointing out that at the alleged
commission of the offense, which was about the second week of May 1979, Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 has not yet taken effect.
The prosecution opposed the motion contending, among others, that the date of the dishonor of
the check, which is on September 26, 1979, is the date of the commission of the offense; and that
assuming that the effectivity of the law — Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 — is on June 29, 1979,
considering that the offense was committed on September 26, 1979, the said law is applicable.
In his reply, private respondent Go Bio, Jr. submits that what Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
penalizes is not the fact of the dishonor of the check but the act of making or drawing and issuing
a check without sufficient funds or credit.
Resolving the motion, respondent judge granted the same and cancelled the bail bond of the
accused. In its order of August 23, 1982, respondent judge said: têñ.£îhqwâ£
The Court finds merit to the contention that the accused cannot be held liable for
bouncing checks prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 although the
check may have matured after the effectivity of the said law. No less than the
Minister of Justice decreed that the date of the drawing or making and issuance of
the bouncing check is the date to reckon with and not on the date of the maturity
of the check. (Resolution No. 67, S. 1981, People's Car vs. Eduardo N. Tan, Feb.
3, 1981; Resolution No. 192, S. 1981, Ricardo de Guia vs. Agapito Miranda,
March 20, 1981).
Hence, the Court believes that although the accused can be prosecuted for
swindling (Estafa, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code), the Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 cannot be given a retroactive effect to apply to the above entitled case.
(pp. 49- 50, Rollo)
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner submitting for review respondent judge's
dismissal of the criminal action against private respondent Go Bio, Jr. for violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.
Petitioner contends that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was published in the April 9, 1979 issue of
the Official Gazette. Fifteen (15) days therefrom would be April 24, 1979, or several days before
respondent Go Bio, Jr. issued the questioned check around the second week of May 1979; and
that respondent judge should not have taken into account the date of release of the Gazette for
circulation because Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that for the purpose
of ascertaining the date of effectivity of a law that needed publication, "the Gazette is
conclusively presumed to be published on the day indicated therein as the date of issue."
Private respondent Go Bio, Jr. argues that although Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was published in
the Official Gazette issue of April 9, 1979, nevertheless, the same was released only on June 14,
1979 and, considering that the questioned check was issued about the second week of May 1979,
then he could not have violated Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 because it was not yet released for
circulation at the time.
We uphold the dismissal by the respondent judge of the criminal action against the private
respondent.
The Solicitor General admitted the certification issued by Ms. Charito A. Mangubat, Copy Editor
of the Official Gazette Section of the Government Printing Office, stating-têñ.£îhqwâ£
This is to certify that Volume 75, No. 15, of the April 9, 1979 issue of the Official
Gazette was officially released for circulation on June 14, 1979. (p. 138, Rollo)
It is therefore, certain that the penal statute in question was made public only on June 14, 1979
and not on the printed date April 9, 1979. Differently stated, June 14, 1979 was the date of
publication of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Before the public may be bound by its contents
especially its penal provisions, the law must be published and the people officially informed of
its contents and/or its penalties. For, if a statute had not been published before its violation, then
in the eyes of the law there was no such law to be violated and, consequently, the accused could
not have committed the alleged crime.
The effectivity clause of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 specifically states that "This Act shall take
effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette." The term "publication" in such
clause should be given the ordinary accepted meaning, that is, to make known to the people in
general. If the Batasang Pambansa had intended to make the printed date of issue of the Gazette
as the point of reference in determining the effectivity of the statute in question, then it could
have so stated in the special effectivity provision of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
When private respondent Go Bio, Jr. committed the act, complained of in the Information as
criminal, in May 1979, there was then no law penalizing such act. Following the special
provision of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, it became effective only on June 29, 1979. As a matter
of fact, in May 1979, there was no law to be violated and, consequently, respondent Go Bio, Jr.
did not commit any violation thereof.
With respect to the allegation of petitioner that the offense was committed on September 26,
1979 when the check was presented for encashment and was dishonored by the bank, suffice it to
say that the law penalizes the act of making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check and not
only the fact of its dishonor. The title of the law itself states:
AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
and, Sections 1 and 2 of said Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 provide: têñ.£îhqwâ£
SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. — Any person who makes or
draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time
of issue that he does not have sufficient funds ... shall be punished ...
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. — The making,
drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds ... . (Emphasis supplied)
ACCORDINGLY, the order of respondent judge dated August 23, 1982 is hereby AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët

G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985

LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF
ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC.
[MABINI], petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON.
JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President ,
MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Director, Malacañang Records Office,
and FLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing, respondents.

ESCOLIN, J.:
Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in
Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, 1 as well as the principle that laws to be
valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively
promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to
publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees,
letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation
and administrative orders.
Specifically, the publication of the following presidential issuances is sought:
a] Presidential Decrees Nos. 12, 22, 37, 38, 59, 64, 103, 171, 179, 184, 197, 200,
234, 265, 286, 298, 303, 312, 324, 325, 326, 337, 355, 358, 359, 360, 361, 368,
404, 406, 415, 427, 429, 445, 447, 473, 486, 491, 503, 504, 521, 528, 551, 566,
573, 574, 594, 599, 644, 658, 661, 718, 731, 733, 793, 800, 802, 835, 836, 923,
935, 961, 1017-1030, 1050, 1060-1061, 1085, 1143, 1165, 1166, 1242, 1246,
1250, 1278, 1279, 1300, 1644, 1772, 1808, 1810, 1813-1817, 1819-1826, 1829-
1840, 1842-1847.
b] Letter of Instructions Nos.: 10, 39, 49, 72, 107, 108, 116, 130, 136, 141, 150,
153, 155, 161, 173, 180, 187, 188, 192, 193, 199, 202, 204, 205, 209, 211-213,
215-224, 226-228, 231-239, 241-245, 248, 251, 253-261, 263-269, 271-273, 275-
283, 285-289, 291, 293, 297-299, 301-303, 309, 312-315, 325, 327, 343, 346,
349, 357, 358, 362, 367, 370, 382, 385, 386, 396-397, 405, 438-440, 444- 445,
473, 486, 488, 498, 501, 399, 527, 561, 576, 587, 594, 599, 600, 602, 609, 610,
611, 612, 615, 641, 642, 665, 702, 712-713, 726, 837-839, 878-879, 881, 882,
939-940, 964,997,1149-1178,1180-1278.
c] General Orders Nos.: 14, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64 & 65.
d] Proclamation Nos.: 1126, 1144, 1147, 1151, 1196, 1270, 1281, 1319-1526,
1529, 1532, 1535, 1538, 1540-1547, 1550-1558, 1561-1588, 1590-1595, 1594-
1600, 1606-1609, 1612-1628, 1630-1649, 1694-1695, 1697-1701, 1705-1723,
1731-1734, 1737-1742, 1744, 1746-1751, 1752, 1754, 1762, 1764-1787, 1789-
1795, 1797, 1800, 1802-1804, 1806-1807, 1812-1814, 1816, 1825-1826, 1829,
1831-1832, 1835-1836, 1839-1840, 1843-1844, 1846-1847, 1849, 1853-1858,
1860, 1866, 1868, 1870, 1876-1889, 1892, 1900, 1918, 1923, 1933, 1952, 1963,
1965-1966, 1968-1984, 1986-2028, 2030-2044, 2046-2145, 2147-2161, 2163-
2244.
e] Executive Orders Nos.: 411, 413, 414, 427, 429-454, 457- 471, 474-492, 494-
507, 509-510, 522, 524-528, 531-532, 536, 538, 543-544, 549, 551-553, 560, 563,
567-568, 570, 574, 593, 594, 598-604, 609, 611- 647, 649-677, 679-703, 705-707,
712-786, 788-852, 854-857.
f] Letters of Implementation Nos.: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11-22, 25-27, 39, 50, 51, 59, 76, 80-
81, 92, 94, 95, 107, 120, 122, 123.
g] Administrative Orders Nos.: 347, 348, 352-354, 360- 378, 380-433, 436-439.
The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the
ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition. The
view is submitted that in the absence of any showing that petitioners are personally and directly
affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances in
question 2 said petitioners are without the requisite legal personality to institute this mandamus
proceeding, they are not being "aggrieved parties" within the meaning of Section 3, Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, which we quote:
SEC. 3. Petition for Mandamus.—When any tribunal, corporation, board or
person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use a rd enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time,
to do the act required to be done to Protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay
the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
defendant.
Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public
right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not show any
specific interest for their petition to be given due course.
The issue posed is not one of first impression. As early as the 1910 case of Severino vs.
Governor General, 3 this Court held that while the general rule is that "a writ of mandamus
would be granted to a private individual only in those cases where he has some private or
particular interest to be subserved, or some particular right to be protected, independent of that
which he holds with the public at large," and "it is for the public officers exclusively to apply for
the writ when public rights are to be subserved [Mithchell vs. Boardmen, 79 M.e., 469],"
nevertheless, "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].
Thus, in said case, this Court recognized the relator Lope Severino, a private individual, as a
proper party to the mandamus proceedings brought to compel the Governor General to call a
special election for the position of municipal president in the town of Silay, Negros Occidental.
Speaking for this Court, Mr. Justice Grant T. Trent said:
We are therefore of the opinion that the weight of authority supports the
proposition that the relator is a proper party to proceedings of this character when
a public right is sought to be enforced. If the general rule in America were
otherwise, we think that it would not be applicable to the case at bar for the reason
'that it is always dangerous to apply a general rule to a particular case without
keeping in mind the reason for the rule, because, if under the particular
circumstances the reason for the rule does not exist, the rule itself is not
applicable and reliance upon the rule may well lead to error'
No reason exists in the case at bar for applying the general rule insisted upon by
counsel for the respondent. The circumstances which surround this case are
different from those in the United States, inasmuch as if the relator is not a proper
party to these proceedings no other person could be, as we have seen that it is not
the duty of the law officer of the Government to appear and represent the people
in cases of this character.
The reasons given by the Court in recognizing a private citizen's legal personality in the
aforementioned case apply squarely to the present petition. 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, considering that the Solicitor General, the
government officer generally empowered to represent the people, has entered his appearance for
respondents in this case.
Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non
requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own
effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain
special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is not
indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Article 2 of the Civil Code:
Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided, ...
The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with this Court's construction of said article.
In a long line of decisions,4 this Court has ruled that publication in the Official Gazette is
necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-for
then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the
fifteenth day following its publication-but not when the law itself provides for the date when it
goes into effect.
Respondents' argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of
laws with the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue
at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of
publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity.
Thus, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as follows:
Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all important
legisiative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the
Philippines; [2] all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except
such as have no general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of
sufficient importance to be so published; [4] such documents or classes of
documents as may be required so to be published by law; and [5] such documents
or classes of documents as the President of the Philippines shall determine from
time to time to have general applicability and legal effect, or which he may
authorize so to be published. ...
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.
Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of laws
taken so vital significance that at this time when the people have bestowed upon the President a
power heretofore enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass
media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pambansa—and for the diligent ones,
ready access to the legislative records—no such publicity accompanies the law-making process
of the President. Thus, without publication, the people have no means of knowing what
presidential decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing
themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. As the Supreme Court of Spain
ruled: "Bajo la denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales
decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordines dictadas de conformidad con las mismas por
el Gobierno en uso de su potestad.5
The very first clause of Section I of Commonwealth Act 638 reads: "There shall be published in
the Official Gazette ... ." The word "shall" used therein imposes upon respondent officials an
imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be
informed on matters of public concern is to be given substance and reality. The law itself makes
a list of what should be published in the Official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves
respondents with no discretion whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from such
publication.
The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is
mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties
for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue
measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular
persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on
the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned. 6
It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of
general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may
be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. As Justice
Claudio Teehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC 7:
In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letters of instructions which all form
part of the law of the land, the requirement of due process and the Rule of Law
demand that the Official Gazette as the official government repository promulgate
and publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructions so that the people
may know where to obtain their official and specific contents.
The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application, which have not
been published, shall have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quite apprehensive
about the possible unsettling effect this decision might have on acts done in reliance of the
validity of those presidential decrees which were published only during the pendency of this
petition, have put the question as to whether the Court's declaration of invalidity apply to P.D.s
which had been enforced or implemented prior to their publication. The answer is all too
familiar. In similar situations in the past this Court had taken the pragmatic and realistic course
set forth in Chicot County Drainage District vs. Baxter Bank 8 to wit:
The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having
been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative,
conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the
challenged decree. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442; Chicago, 1. & L.
Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566. It is quite clear, however, that such broad
statements as to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken
with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a
determination, is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot
justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
 The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in
various aspects-with respect to particular conduct, private and official. Questions
of rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations
deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in the light
of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand
examination. These questions are among the most difficult of those which have
engaged the attention of courts, state and federal and it is manifest from numerous
decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive
invalidity cannot be justified.
Consistently with the above principle, this Court in Rutter vs. Esteban 9 sustained the right of a
party under the Moratorium Law, albeit said right had accrued in his favor before said law was
declared unconstitutional by this Court.
Similarly, the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their publication in
the Official Gazette is "an operative fact which may have consequences which cannot be justly
ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration ... that an all-inclusive
statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified."
From the report submitted to the Court by the Clerk of Court, it appears that of the presidential
decrees sought by petitioners to be published in the Official Gazette, only Presidential Decrees
Nos. 1019 to 1030, inclusive, 1278, and 1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been so
published. 10 Neither the subject matters nor the texts of these PDs can be ascertained since no
copies thereof are available. But whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that none
of these unpublished PDs has ever been implemented or enforced by the government. In Pesigan
vs. Angeles, 11 the Court, through Justice Ramon Aquino, ruled that "publication is necessary to
apprise the public of the contents of [penal] regulations and make the said penalties binding on
the persons affected thereby. " The cogency of this holding is apparently recognized by
respondent officials considering the manifestation in their comment that "the government, as a
matter of policy, refrains from prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the same shall have
been published in the Official Gazette or in some other publication, even though some criminal
laws provide that they shall take effect immediately.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all
unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published,
they shall have no binding force and effect.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 179579 February 1, 2012

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and the DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF
SUBIC, Petitioners,
vs.
HYPERMIX FEEDS CORPORATION, Respondent.
DECISION
SERENO, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45,1 assailing the Decision2 and the Resolution3 of
the Court of Appeals (CA), which nullified the Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 27-
20034 on the tariff classification of wheat issued by petitioner Commissioner of Customs.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On 7 November 2003, petitioner Commissioner of Customs issued CMO 27-2003. Under the
Memorandum, for tariff purposes, wheat was classified according to the following: (1) importer
or consignee; (2) country of origin; and (3) port of discharge.5 The regulation provided an
exclusive list of corporations, ports of discharge, commodity descriptions and countries of origin.
Depending on these factors, wheat would be classified either as food grade or feed grade. The
corresponding tariff for food grade wheat was 3%, for feed grade, 7%.
CMO 27-2003 further provided for the proper procedure for protest or Valuation and
Classification Review Committee (VCRC) cases. Under this procedure, the release of the articles
that were the subject of protest required the importer to post a cash bond to cover the tariff
differential.6
A month after the issuance of CMO 27-2003, on 19 December 2003, respondent filed a Petition
for Declaratory Relief7 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. It anticipated the
implementation of the regulation on its imported and perishable Chinese milling wheat in transit
from China.8 Respondent contended that CMO 27-2003 was issued without following the
mandate of the Revised Administrative Code on public participation, prior notice, and
publication or registration with the University of the Philippines Law Center.
Respondent also alleged that the regulation summarily adjudged it to be a feed grade supplier
without the benefit of prior assessment and examination; thus, despite having imported food
grade wheat, it would be subjected to the 7% tariff upon the arrival of the shipment, forcing them
to pay 133% more than was proper.
Furthermore, respondent claimed that the equal protection clause of the Constitution was
violated when the regulation treated non-flour millers differently from flour millers for no reason
at all.
Lastly, respondent asserted that the retroactive application of the regulation was confiscatory in
nature.
On 19 January 2004, the RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effective for twenty
(20) days from notice.9
Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss.10 They alleged that: (1) the RTC did not have
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, because respondent was asking for a judicial
determination of the classification of wheat; (2) an action for declaratory relief was improper; (3)
CMO 27-2003 was an internal administrative rule and not legislative in nature; and (4) the
claims of respondent were speculative and premature, because the Bureau of Customs (BOC)
had yet to examine respondent’s products. They likewise opposed the application for a writ of
preliminary injunction on the ground that they had not inflicted any injury through the issuance
of the regulation; and that the action would be contrary to the rule that administrative issuances
are assumed valid until declared otherwise.
On 28 February 2005, the parties agreed that the matters raised in the application for preliminary
injunction and the Motion to Dismiss would just be resolved together in the main case. Thus, on
10 March 2005, the RTC rendered its Decision11 without having to resolve the application for
preliminary injunction and the Motion to Dismiss.
The trial court ruled in favor of respondent, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is GRANTED and the subject Customs
Memorandum Order 27-2003 is declared INVALID and OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT.
Respondents Commissioner of Customs, the District Collector of Subic or anyone acting in their
behalf are to immediately cease and desist from enforcing the said Customs Memorandum Order
27-2003.
SO ORDERED.12
The RTC held that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter, given that the issue raised by
respondent concerned the quasi-legislative powers of petitioners. It likewise stated that a petition
for declaratory relief was the proper remedy, and that respondent was the proper party to file it.
The court considered that respondent was a regular importer, and that the latter would be
subjected to the application of the regulation in future transactions.
With regard to the validity of the regulation, the trial court found that petitioners had not
followed the basic requirements of hearing and publication in the issuance of CMO 27-2003. It
likewise held that petitioners had "substituted the quasi-judicial determination of the commodity
by a quasi-legislative predetermination."13 The lower court pointed out that a classification based
on importers and ports of discharge were violative of the due process rights of respondent.
Dissatisfied with the Decision of the lower court, petitioners appealed to the CA, raising the
same allegations in defense of CMO 27-2003.14 The appellate court, however, dismissed the
appeal. It held that, since the regulation affected substantial rights of petitioners and other
importers, petitioners should have observed the requirements of notice, hearing and publication.
Hence, this Petition.
Petitioners raise the following issues for the consideration of this Court:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE WHICH IS
NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE
TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.
The Petition has no merit.
We shall first discuss the propriety of an action for declaratory relief.
Rule 63, Section 1 provides:
Who may file petition. – Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or
any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the
appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising,
and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
The requirements of an action for declaratory relief are as follows: (1) there must be a justiciable
controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the
party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue
involved must be ripe for judicial determination.15 We find that the Petition filed by respondent
before the lower court meets these requirements.
First, the subject of the controversy is the constitutionality of CMO 27-2003 issued by petitioner
Commissioner of Customs. In Smart Communications v. NTC,16 we held:
The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency
contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the
Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international
or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the
courts, including the regional trial courts. This is within the scope of judicial power, which
includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts
of the political departments. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis
supplied)
Meanwhile, in Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc. v. Department of Finance
Secretary,17 we said:
xxx [A] legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a
primary legislation by providing the details thereof. xxx
In addition such rule must be published. On the other hand, interpretative rules are designed to
provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing.
Accordingly, in considering a legislative rule a court is free to make three inquiries: (i) whether
the rule is within the delegated authority of the administrative agency; (ii) whether it is
reasonable; and (iii) whether it was issued pursuant to proper procedure. But the court is not free
to substitute its judgment as to the desirability or wisdom of the rule for the legislative body, by
its delegation of administrative judgment, has committed those questions to administrative
judgments and not to judicial judgments. In the case of an interpretative rule, the inquiry is not
into the validity but into the correctness or propriety of the rule. As a matter of power a court,
when confronted with an interpretative rule, is free to (i) give the force of law to the rule; (ii) go
to the opposite extreme and substitute its judgment; or (iii) give some intermediate degree of
authoritative weight to the interpretative rule. (Emphasis supplied)
Second, the controversy is between two parties that have adverse interests. Petitioners are
summarily imposing a tariff rate that respondent is refusing to pay.
Third, it is clear that respondent has a legal and substantive interest in the implementation of
CMO 27-2003. Respondent has adequately shown that, as a regular importer of wheat, on 14
August 2003, it has actually made shipments of wheat from China to Subic. The shipment was
set to arrive in December 2003. Upon its arrival, it would be subjected to the conditions of CMO
27-2003. The regulation calls for the imposition of different tariff rates, depending on the factors
enumerated therein. Thus, respondent alleged that it would be made to pay the 7% tariff applied
to feed grade wheat, instead of the 3% tariff on food grade wheat. In addition, respondent would
have to go through the procedure under CMO 27-2003, which would undoubtedly toll its time
and resources. The lower court correctly pointed out as follows:
xxx As noted above, the fact that petitioner is precisely into the business of importing wheat,
each and every importation will be subjected to constant disputes which will result into (sic)
delays in the delivery, setting aside of funds as cash bond required in the CMO as well as the
resulting expenses thereof. It is easy to see that business uncertainty will be a constant
occurrence for petitioner. That the sums involved are not minimal is shown by the discussions
during the hearings conducted as well as in the pleadings filed. It may be that the petitioner can
later on get a refund but such has been foreclosed because the Collector of Customs and the
Commissioner of Customs are bound by their own CMO. Petitioner cannot get its refund with
the said agency. We believe and so find that Petitioner has presented such a stake in the outcome
of this controversy as to vest it with standing to file this petition.18 (Emphasis supplied)
Finally, the issue raised by respondent is ripe for judicial determination, because litigation is
inevitable19 for the simple and uncontroverted reason that respondent is not included in the
enumeration of flour millers classified as food grade wheat importers. Thus, as the trial court
stated, it would have to file a protest case each time it imports food grade wheat and be subjected
to the 7% tariff.
It is therefore clear that a petition for declaratory relief is the right remedy given the
circumstances of the case.
Considering that the questioned regulation would affect the substantive rights of respondent as
explained above, it therefore follows that petitioners should have applied the pertinent provisions
of Book VII, Chapter 2 of the Revised Administrative Code, to wit:
Section 3. Filing. – (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center
three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of
this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the
bases of any sanction against any party of persons.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as
practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the
opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates
shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks
before the first hearing thereon.
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed.
When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing
further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has
already prescribed. When, on the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely
providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the
law but substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at
least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before
that new issuance is given the force and effect of law.20
Likewise, in Tañada v. Tuvera,21 we held:
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.
Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of laws
taken so vital significance that at this time when the people have bestowed upon the President a
power heretofore enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass
media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pambansa – and for the diligent ones,
ready access to the legislative records – no such publicity accompanies the law-making process
of the President. Thus, without publication, the people have no means of knowing what
presidential decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing
themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. (Emphasis supplied)
Because petitioners failed to follow the requirements enumerated by the Revised Administrative
Code, the assailed regulation must be struck down.
Going now to the content of CMO 27-3003, we likewise hold that it is unconstitutional for being
violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The equal protection clause means that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the
same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place in like
circumstances. Thus, the guarantee of the equal protection of laws is not violated if there is a
reasonable classification. For a classification to be reasonable, it must be shown that (1) it rests
on substantial distinctions; (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it is not limited to
existing conditions only; and (4) it applies equally to all members of the same class. 22
Unfortunately, CMO 27-2003 does not meet these requirements. We do not see how the quality
of wheat is affected by who imports it, where it is discharged, or which country it came from.
Thus, on the one hand, even if other millers excluded from CMO 27-2003 have imported food
grade wheat, the product would still be declared as feed grade wheat, a classification subjecting
them to 7% tariff. On the other hand, even if the importers listed under CMO 27-2003 have
imported feed grade wheat, they would only be made to pay 3% tariff, thus depriving the state of
the taxes due. The regulation, therefore, does not become disadvantageous to respondent only,
but even to the state.
It is also not clear how the regulation intends to "monitor more closely wheat importations and
thus prevent their misclassification." A careful study of CMO 27-2003 shows that it not only
fails to achieve this end, but results in the opposite. The application of the regulation forecloses
the possibility that other corporations that are excluded from the list import food grade wheat; at
the same time, it creates an assumption that those who meet the criteria do not import feed grade
wheat. In the first case, importers are unnecessarily burdened to prove the classification of their
wheat imports; while in the second, the state carries that burden.
Petitioner Commissioner of Customs also went beyond his powers when the regulation limited
the customs officer’s duties mandated by Section 1403 of the Tariff and Customs Law, as
amended. The law provides:
Section 1403. – Duties of Customs Officer Tasked to Examine, Classify, and Appraise Imported
Articles. – The customs officer tasked to examine, classify, and appraise imported articles shall
determine whether the packages designated for examination and their contents are in accordance
with the declaration in the entry, invoice and other pertinent documents and shall make return in
such a manner as to indicate whether the articles have been truly and correctly declared in the
entry as regard their quantity, measurement, weight, and tariff classification and not imported
contrary to law. He shall submit samples to the laboratory for analysis when feasible to do so and
when such analysis is necessary for the proper classification, appraisal, and/or admission into the
Philippines of imported articles.
Likewise, the customs officer shall determine the unit of quantity in which they are usually
bought and sold, and appraise the imported articles in accordance with Section 201 of this Code.
Failure on the part of the customs officer to comply with his duties shall subject him to the
penalties prescribed under Section 3604 of this Code.1âwphi1
The provision mandates that the customs officer must first assess and determine the classification
of the imported article before tariff may be imposed. Unfortunately, CMO 23-2007 has already
classified the article even before the customs officer had the chance to examine it. In effect,
petitioner Commissioner of Customs diminished the powers granted by the Tariff and Customs
Code with regard to wheat importation when it no longer required the customs officer’s prior
examination and assessment of the proper classification of the wheat.
It is well-settled that rules and regulations, which are the product of a delegated power to create
new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the
statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that the
regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; and that it be not in contradiction
to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law.23
In summary, petitioners violated respondent’s right to due process in the issuance of CMO 27-
2003 when they failed to observe the requirements under the Revised Administrative Code.
Petitioners likewise violated respondent’s right to equal protection of laws when they provided
for an unreasonable classification in the application of the regulation. Finally, petitioner
Commissioner of Customs went beyond his powers of delegated authority when the regulation
limited the powers of the customs officer to examine and assess imported articles.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice

G.R. No. 187587 June 5, 2013

NAGKAKAISANG MARALITA NG SITIO MASIGASIG, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
MILITARY SHRINE SERVICES - PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 187654
WESTERN BICUTAN LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., represented by its Board of
Directors, Petitioner,
vs.
MILITARY SHRINE SERVICES - PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, Respondent.
DECISION
SERENO, CJ.:
Before us are consolidated Petitions for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
Decision1 promulgated on 29 April 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97925.
THE FACTS
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
On 12 July 1957, by virtue of Proclamation No. 423, President Carlos P. Garcia reserved parcels
of land in the Municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Province of Rizal and Pasay City for a
military reservation. The military reservation, then known as Fort William McKinley, was later
on renamed Fort Andres Bonifacio (Fort Bonifacio).
On 28 May 1967, President Ferdinand E. Marcos (President Marcos) issued Proclamation No.
208, amending Proclamation No. 423, which excluded a certain area of Fort Bonifacio and
reserved it for a national shrine. The excluded area is now known as Libingan ng mga Bayani,
which is under the administration of herein respondent Military Shrine Services – Philippine
Veterans Affairs Office (MSS-PVAO).
Again, on 7 January 1986, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476, further amending
Proclamation No. 423, which excluded barangaysLower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan and Signal
Village from the operation of Proclamation No. 423 and declared it open for disposition under
the provisions of Republic Act Nos. (R.A.) 274 and 730.
At the bottom of Proclamation No. 2476, President Marcos made a handwritten addendum,
which reads:
"P.S. – This includes Western Bicutan
(SGD.) Ferdinand E. Marcos"2
The crux of the controversy started when Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official
Gazette3 on 3 February 1986, without the above-quoted addendum.
Years later, on 16 October 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino (President Aquino) issued
Proclamation No. 172 which substantially reiterated Proclamation No. 2476, as published, but
this time excluded Lots 1 and 2 of Western Bicutan from the operation of Proclamation No. 423
and declared the said lots open for disposition under the provisions of R.A. 274 and 730.
Memorandum Order No. 119, implementing Proclamation No. 172, was issued on the same day.
Through the years, informal settlers increased and occupied some areas of Fort Bonifacio
including portions of the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Thus, Brigadier General Fredelito Bautista
issued General Order No. 1323 creating Task Force Bantay (TFB), primarily to prevent further
unauthorized occupation and to cause the demolition of illegal structures at Fort Bonifacio.
On 27 August 1999, members of petitioner Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc.
(NMSMI) filed a Petition with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP),
where it was docketed as COSLAP Case No. 99-434. The Petition prayed for the following: (1)
the reclassification of the areas they occupied, covering Lot 3 of SWO-13-000-298 of Western
Bicutan, from public land to alienable and disposable land pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476;
(2) the subdivision of the subject lot by the Director of Lands; and (3) the Land Management
Bureau’s facilitation of the distribution and sale of the subject lot to its bona fide occupants. 4
On 1 September 2000, petitioner Western Bicutan Lot Owners Association, Inc. (WBLOAI)
filed a Petition-in-Intervention substantially praying for the same reliefs as those prayed for by
NMSMI with regard to the area the former then occupied covering Lot 7 of SWO-00-001302 in
Western Bicutan.5
Thus, on 1 September 2006, COSLAP issued a Resolution6 granting the Petition and declaring
the portions of land in question alienable and disposable, with Associate Commissioner Lina
Aguilar-General dissenting.7
The COSLAP ruled that the handwritten addendum of President Marcos was an integral part of
Proclamation No. 2476, and was therefore, controlling. The intention of the President could not
be defeated by the negligence or inadvertence of others. Further, considering that Proclamation
No. 2476 was done while the former President was exercising legislative powers, it could not be
amended, repealed or superseded, by a mere executive enactment. Thus, Proclamation No. 172
could not have superseded much less displaced Proclamation No. 2476, as the latter was issued
on October 16, 1987 when President Aquino’s legislative power had ceased.
In her Dissenting Opinion, Associate Commissioner Lina AguilarGeneral stressed that pursuant
to Article 2 of the Civil Code, publication is indispensable in every case. Likewise, she held that
when the provision of the law is clear and unambiguous so that there is no occasion for the court
to look into legislative intent, the law must be taken as it is, devoid of judicial addition or
subtraction.8 Finally, she maintained that the Commission had no authority to supply the
addendum originally omitted in the published version of Proclamation No. 2476, as to do so
would be tantamount to encroaching on the field of the legislature.
Herein respondent MSS-PVAO filed a Motion for Reconsideration,9 which was denied by the
COSLAP in a Resolution dated 24 January 2007.10
MSS-PVAO filed a Petition with the Court of Appeals seeking to reverse the COSLAP
Resolutions dated 1 September 2006 and 24 January 2007.
Thus, on 29 April 2009, the then Court of Appeals First Division rendered the assailed Decision
granting MSS-PVAO’s Petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The
Resolutions dated September 1, 2006 and January 24, 2007 issued by the Commission on the
Settlement of Land Problems in COSLAP Case No. 99-434 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. In lieu thereof, the petitions of respondents in COSLAP Case No. 99-434 are
DISMISSED, for lack of merit, as discussed herein. Further, pending urgent motions filed by
respondents are likewise
DENIED. SO ORDERED.11 (Emphasis in the original)
Both NMSMI12 and WBLOAI13 appealed the said Decision by filing their respective Petitions for
Review with this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
THE ISSUES
Petitioner NMSMI raises the following issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
RULING THAT PROCLAMATION NO. 2476 DID NOT INCLUDE ANY PORTION OF
WESTERN BICUTAN AS THE HANDWRITTEN NOTATION BY PRESIDENT MARCOS
ON THE SAID PROCLAMATION WAS NOT PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
RULING THAT PROCLAMATION NO. 172 LIKEWISE EXCLUDED THE PORTION OF
LAND OCCUPIED BY MEMBER OF HEREIN PETITIONER.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
CONSIDERING THAT THE HON. COSLAP HAS BROAD POWERS TO RECOMMEND TO
THE PRESIDENT >INNOVATIVE MEASURES TO RESOLVE EXPEDITIOUSLY
VARIOUS LAND CASES.14
On the other hand, petitioner WBLOAI raises this sole issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS NOT DECLARED ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE BY VIRTUE OF PROCLAMATION NO. 2476 BECAUSE THE
HANDWRITTEN ADDENDUM OF PRESIDENT FERDINAND E. MARCOS INCLUDING
WESTERN BICUTAN IN PROCLAMATION NO. 2476 WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
PUBLICATION.15
Both Petitions boil down to the principal issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling
that the subject lots were not alienable and disposable by virtue of Proclamation No. 2476 on the
ground that the handwritten addendum of President Marcos was not included in the publication
of the said law.
THE COURT’S RULING
We deny the Petitions for lack of merit.
Considering that petitioners were occupying Lots 3 and 7 of Western Bicutan (subject lots), their
claims were anchored on the handwritten addendum of President Marcos to Proclamation No.
2476. They allege that the former President intended to include all Western Bicutan in the
reclassification of portions of Fort Bonifacio as disposable public land when he made a notation
just below the printed version of Proclamation No. 2476.
However, it is undisputed that the handwritten addendum was not included when Proclamation
No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette.
The resolution of whether the subject lots were declared as reclassified and disposable lies in the
determination of whether the handwritten addendum of President Marcos has the force and effect
of law. In relation thereto, Article 2 of the Civil Code expressly provides:
ART. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in
the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after
such publication.
Under the above provision, the requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the
law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided. The phrase "unless otherwise provided" refers
to a different effectivity date other than after fifteen days following the completion of the law’s
publication in the Official Gazette, but does not imply that the requirement of publication may be
dispensed with. The issue of the requirement of publication was already settled in the landmark
case Tañada v. Hon. Tuvera,16 in which we had the occasion to rule thus:
Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that
the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. An example, as pointed out by the
present Chief Justice in his separate concurrence in the original decision, is the Civil Code which
did not become effective after fifteen days from its publication in the Official Gazette but "one
year after such publication." The general rule did not apply because it was "otherwise provided."
It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed with
altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny
the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. Surely, if the legislature could
validly provide that a law shall become effective immediately upon its approval notwithstanding
the lack of publication (or after an unreasonably short period after publication), it is not unlikely
that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as a result; and they would be so not because of
a failure to comply with it but simply because they did not know of its existence. Significantly,
this is not true only of penal laws as is commonly supposed. One can think of many non-penal
measures, like a law on prescription, which must also be communicated to the persons they may
affect before they can begin to operate.
xxxx
The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly
speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them
directly. An example is a law granting citizenship to a particular individual, like a relative of
President Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. It surely cannot be said that such a law
does not affect the public although it unquestionably does not apply directly to all the people.
The subject of such law is a matter of public interest which any member of the body politic may
question in the political forums or, if he is a proper party, even in the courts of justice. In fact, a
law without any bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class
legislation or as an ultra vires act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect
the public interest even if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the
people only, and not to the public as a whole.
We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be
published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication
unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President
in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature
or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must
also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid
delegation.
xxxx
Accordingly, even the charter of a city must be published notwithstanding that it applies to only
a portion of the national territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place. All
presidential decrees must be published, including even, say, those naming a public place after a
favored individual or exempting him from certain prohibitions or requirements. The circulars
issued by the Monetary Board must be published if they are meant not merely to interpret but to
"fill in the details" of the Central Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce.
xxxx
We agree that the publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to
inform the public of the contents of the laws. As correctly pointed out by the petitioners, the
mere mention of the number of the presidential decree, the title of such decree, its whereabouts
(e.g., "with Secretary Tuvera"), the supposed date of effectivity, and in a mere supplement of the
Official Gazette cannot satisfy the publication requirement.1âwphi1 This is not even substantial
compliance. This was the manner, incidentally, in which the General Appropriations Act for FY
1975, a presidential decree undeniably of general applicability and interest, was "published" by
the Marcos administration. The evident purpose was to withhold rather than disclose information
on this vital law.
xxxx
Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the shadows
with their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be
recognized as binding unless their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid publication
intended to make full disclosure and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law is like a
scabbarded saber that cannot feint, parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn. (Emphases
supplied)
Applying the foregoing ruling to the instant case, this Court cannot rely on a handwritten note
that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication, the note never had
any legal force and effect.
Furthermore, under Section 24, Chapter 6, Book I of the Administrative Code, "the publication
of any law, resolution or other official documents in the Official Gazette shall be prima facie
evidence of its authority." Thus, whether or not President Marcos intended to include Western
Bicutan is not only irrelevant but speculative. Simply put, the courts may not speculate as to the
probable intent of the legislature apart from the words appearing in the law.17 This Court cannot
rule that a word appears in the law when, evidently, there is none. In Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v.
Hon. Trajano,18 we ruled that "under 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.'
This does not mean, however, that courts can create law. The courts exist for interpreting the
law, not for enacting it. To allow otherwise would be violative of the principle of separation of
powers, inasmuch as the sole function of our courts is to apply or interpret the laws, particularly
where gaps or lacunae exist or where ambiguities becloud issues, but it will not arrogate unto
itself the task of legislating." The remedy sought in these Petitions is not judicial interpretation,
but another legislation that would amend the law ‘to include petitioners' lots in the
reclassification.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petitions are hereby DENIED for lack of
merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 97925 dated 29 April
2009 is AFFIRMED in toto. Accordingly, this Court's status quo order dated 17 June 2009 is
hereby LIFTED. Likewise, all pending motions to cite respondent in contempt is DENIED,
having been rendered moot. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice, Chairperson
WE CONCUR: