Tanada vs.

Tuvera
Facts: The petitioner ask the Honorable Court, demanding the respondent to
disclose the number of Presidential decrees which has not been published, invoking
Due process. The government argued that although publication is necessary as a
rule, it was not so when it was otherwise provided. They contended that the decrees
themselves have become effective immediately upon approval. The solicitor
general, furthermore contended that since under art 2 of the civil code, the phrase
unless otherwise provided was not always imperative and that publication, when
necessary, may not be made in an official gazette.
Issue: Whether or not laws and presidential decree has to be published and such
publication must be in the official gazette?
Held: The Supreme court ruled in affirmative.
Ratio: Upon examination of the court on Art. 2 of the NCC, the phrase unless
otherwise provided, refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of
publication, which cannot be omitted and does not make any law immediately
effective upon approval without previous publication. However, legislator may
provide that its effectivity may not be after 15 days after completion of its
publication, it may be shorten or longer. The contention of the respondent is
untenable since it would deny the public of due process and public knowledge. The
legal presumption that every person has knowledge of the law presupposes that the
law was published. Under sec. 6 of the Bill of Rights, the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern applies to legislative enactment. We hold
therefore that all statutes, including those local in application and private laws, shall
be published as a condition for its effectivity, which shall be given effect 15 days
after its publication unless the legislators otherwise provide. Included in this rule are
presidential decrees in exercise of legislative power whenever the same are validly
delegated by the legislator or directly conferred by the constitution. Administrative
rules and regulation should also be published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing laws pursuant to valid delegation. Interpretative rules and
regulation and those merely internal in nature, regulating only personnel in
administrative agency, need not be published. Neither those letter of instruction
issued by administrative superiors concerning rules and guidelines to be followed by
the subordinates in the performance of their duties. Circulars issued by the
Monetary Board must be published if they were not meant merely to interpret laws
but to fill the details of Central Bank Act.
We also agree that publication must be full or it is no publication at all since its
purpose is to inform the public of the law. Mere mention of its number or decree is
not sufficient.