TAADA v.

TUVERA [136 SCRA 27 (1985)]

Nature: Petition to review the decision of the Executive Assistant to the President.
Facts: Invoking the peoples right to be informed on matters of public concern, aright recognized in
Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 constitution, 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. The respondents would have this case
dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality to bring this petition. Petitioners
maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel
public duty, they need not show any specific interest. Respondents further contend that publication
in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves
provide for their own effectivity dates.
Issue: WON publication in the Official Gazatte is an indispensable requirement for the effectivity of
the PDs, LOIs, general orders, EOs, etc. where laws themselves provide for their own effectivity
dates.
Held: Yes. It is the peoples right to be informed on matters of public concern &c orollarily access
to official records, & to documents & papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,
shall be afforded the citizens subject to such limitation as may be provided by law (6 AIV, 1973
Constitution). Laws, to be valid & enforceable, must be published in the OG or otherwise
effectively promulgated. The fact that a PD or LOI states its date of effectivity does not preclude
their publication in the OG as they constitute important legislative acts. The publication of
presidential issuances of public nature or of general applicability is a requirement of due
process. Before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially informed of its contents.
Judgment: Respondents ordered to publish in Official Gazette all unpublished presidential
issuances of general application, and unless so published shall have no binding force and effect.
Impt Point: It illustrates how decrees & issuances issued by one manMarcosare in fact laws of
genl application & provide for penalties. The constitution afforded Marcos both executive &
legislative powers. The generality of law (CC A14) will never work w/o constructive notice. The
ruling of this case provides the publication constitutes the necessary constructive notice & is thus
the cure for ignorance as an excuse.
Ignorance will not even mitigate the crime.

Article 2
People v. Simon234 SCRA 555, 569 (1994)G.R. No. 93028
Facts: Accused-appellant Martin Simon was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article II of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, under
an indictment alleging he sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM)
poseur-buyer in consideration of the sum of P40.00.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant Simon should be given a lighter punishment of six
months to six years instead of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to the amendments of Republic Act
No. 7659 to Republic Act No. 6425
Held: Yes, since Republic Act No. 7659 was effected on December 31, 1993

People v. Godoy

250 SCRA 676, 732 (1995)G.R. Nos. 115908-09

Facts: Accused-appellant Danny Godoy was charged in two separate filings before theRegional
Trial Court, for Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 47, with rape andkidnapping with
serious illegal detention of 17-year-old Mia Taha.
Issue: Whether or not, if found guilty, accused-appellant Godoy will be subject to death
penaltyimposed by Republic Act No. 7659
Held: Yes, since Republic Act No. 7659 which reimposed the death penalty on certainheinous
crimes took effect on December 31, 1993, that is, fifteen days after itspublication in the December
16, 1993 issues of the Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star,Malaya and Philippine Times Journal and
not on January 1, 1994 as is sometimesmisinterpreted

GSIS v. Commission on Audit301 SCRA 731, 736 (1999)G.R. No. 125982

Facts: The case before the Court is a special civil action of certiorari seeking to review the
decision of the Commission on Audit that affirmed the ruling of Corporate Auditor Mariano C.
Gaborne disallowing in audit the payment of death benefits in the amount of P43,107.19, to the
heirs of the late Brig. General Arturo T. Asuncion, who died on November 16, 1987, in a helicopter
crash, for the reason that a reserve officer like him of the Armed Forces of the Philippines was not
at that time a compulsory member of the Government Service Insurance System.
Issue: Whether or not the heirs of Brig. General Asuncion should receive payment of death
benefits
Held: Yes, since E. O. No. 79 is effective fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
Gazette, or on January 7, 1987. At that time, the late General Asuncion was a reserve officer who
had rendered a total of ten (10) years of continuous active duty service commission in the AFP.
Hence, he was compulsorily covered as a member of the GSIS on the date he died on November
15, 1987, in line of duty in a helicopter crash. Consequently, his heirs are entitled to payment of
death benefits.

Taada v. Tuvera136 SCRA 27 (1985)G.R. No. L-63915

Facts: Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as well asthe
principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette, Lorenzo
Taada, et. al petitioned a writ of mandamus to compel Juan Tuvera, Executive Assistant to the
President et. al to publish a number of presidential decrees, letter of instructions and general
orders to the Official Gazette. Petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a
public right and its object is to compel public duty, they need not show any specific interest.
Respondents further contend that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the
effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates.
Issue: Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is an indispensable requirement for the
effectivity of PDs, LOIs, General Orders, Eos, etc, where laws themselves providefor their own
effectivity dates
Held: Yes, since the publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of
generalapplicability is a requirement of due process. Before a person may be bound by law,
hemust first be officially informed of its contents.

Article 3
Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis336 SCRA 747, 755 (2000)G.R. No. 138509
Facts: Respondent contracted a first marriage with Maria Javier. Without said marriage having
been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second marriage with
petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally
Hernandez.
Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of bigamy despite respondents claim of ignorance of
Article 40 of the Family Code
Held: Yes, since ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot even be
successfully invoked as an excuse. The contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements
of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is
an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code.

Article 7
Agujetas v. CA261 SCRA 17 (1996) G.R. No. 106560
Facts: Petitioners Florezil Agujetas and Salvador Bijis, former Chairman and Vice-Chairman,
respectively of the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of Davao Oriental assail the
decision of the public respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Mati, Davao Oriental finding them guilty as charged for failure to proclaim a winning
elected candidate.
Issue: Whether or not R.A. 7166 repeals Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code, saying that
winners should be proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers.
Held: No, since R.A. 7166 neither expressly or impliedly repeals Section 231 of the Omnibus
Election Code.

Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA251 SCRA 421 (1995)G.R. No. 120865-71
Facts: Towards environmental protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable
development, Republic Act No. 4850 created the "Laguna Lake Development Authority."
Issue: Whether or not R.A. 7160 and the Local Government Code of 1991 repealed R.A. 4850,
which established the LLDA
Held: No, since it has to be conceded that the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority
constitutes a special law. Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, is a
general law. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of al ater legislation which is a
general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. It is a well-settled rule in this
jurisdiction that "a special statute, provided for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed
by a subsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions and application, unless the intent to
repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the
cases embraced in the special law. "Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special
statute, the special statute should prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than
the general statute. The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in the
absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. This is because implied repeals
are not favored and as much as possible, effect must be given to all enactments of the legislature.

A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general law by mere
implication.
Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan263 SCRA 222 (1996)G.R. No. 79543
Facts: Petitioner Jose D. Filoteo, Jr. was a police investigator of the Western Police District
inMetro Manila, an old hand at dealing with suspected criminals. A recipient of various awards and
commendations attesting to his competence and performance as a police officer, he could not
therefore imagine that one day he would be sitting on the other side of the investigation table as
the suspected mastermind of the armed hijacking of apostal delivery van. Filoteo admitted
involvement in the crime and pointed to three other soldiers, namely,Eddie Saguindel, Bernardo
Relator and Jack Miravalles (who turned out to be a discharged soldier), as his confederates. At
1:45 in the afternoon of May 30, 1982,petitioner executed a sworn statement in Tagalog before
M/Sgt. Arsenio C. Carlos and Sgt. Romeo P. Espero. Peitioner however sought later that his
confession be inadmissible evidence, saying that the law should favour him as an accused.
Issue: Whether or not Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution shall be given a retroactive
effect and petitioners extrajudicial confession be held as inadmissible evidence
Held: No, since what he did was not a penal offense. Under the penal law, a person guilty of
felony who is not a habitual criminal may be given favor by the law