c
 cc 


 c




 


!"
 
vs
"c"







  

c# $

%&'
(
$

Issue: The effectivity Of Executive Order No. 279
*Carabao case

Ruling: Ruling:

We hold that the said executive order should not be enforced

Sec. 8 of EO 279 provides that it shall take effect against the Pesigans on ‘
  because, as already
immediately after publication. Ptrs maintain that the 15 day noted, it 
 


published more than two
period under EO 200 is required. months later in the Official Gazette dated 
 It
There is nothing in E.O. No. 200 that prevents a law from
taking effect on a date other than even before the 15-day
period after its publication. Where a law provides for its own
date of effectivity, such date prevails over that prescribed by
E.O. No. 200. Indeed, this is the very essence of the phrase
"unless it is otherwise provided" in Section 1 thereof. Section
1, E.O. No. 200, therefore, applies only when a statute does
not provide for its own date of effectivity.
What is mandatory under E.O. No. 200, and what due process
requires, as this Court held in Tañada v. Tuvera,217 is the
publication of the law for without such notice and
publication, there would be no basis for the application of
the maxim "ignorantia legis n[eminem] 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.
While the effectivity clause of E.O. No. 279 does not require
its publication, it is not a ground for its invalidation since the
became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in
article 2 of the Civil Code and section 11 of the Revised
Administrative Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library
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.) chanrobles virtual law library
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.) chanrobles virtual law library
Constitution, being "the fundamental, paramount and Thus, in the  case, a person, convicted by the trial
supreme law of the nation," is deemed written in the court of having violated Central Bank Circular No. 20 and
law.218 Hence, the due process clause,219 which, so Tañada sentenced to six months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of
held, mandates the publication of statutes, is read into P1,000, was by this Court because the circular was
Section 8 of E.O. No. 279. Additionally, Section 1 of E.O. No. published in the Official Gazette





200 which provides for publication "either in the Official 

 He was not bound by the
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the circular.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
Philippines," finds suppletory application. It is significant to library
note that E.O. No. 279 was actually published in the Official
Gazette220 on August 3, 1987.
That ruling applies to a violation of Executive Order No. 626-
A because its 










E.O. No. 279 became effective immediately upon its


 
 

 Justice and fairness
publication in the Official Gazette on August 3, 1987. dictate that the public must be informed of that provision by
means of publication in the Gazette before violators of the
That such effectivity took place after the convening of the executive order can be bound thereby.chanroble
first Congress is irrelevant. At the time President Aquino
issued E.O. No. 279 on July 25, 1987, she was still validly
exercising legislative powers under the Provisional
Constitution.221 Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of the
1987 Constitution explicitly states:

Sec. 6. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise

legislative powers until the first Congress is convened.

The convening of the first Congress merely precluded the

exercise of legislative powers by President Aquino; it did not
prevent the effectivity of laws she had previously enacted.

There can be no question, therefore, that E.O. No. 279 is an

effective, and a validly enacted, statute.