1- Preliminaries (Art. 1-18) Flashcards
Article 2
Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines unless otherwise provide
What are the two views regarding the “unless otherwise provided” in Art. 2
which is governing?
[1] Referring to Date of Effectivity - shortening or extending the usual 15-day period. Publishing is Required
1 - IS GOVERNING
[2] Referring to Publication Req. - law making body, in its discretion, chooses to forego with the requirement publication and it is binding and valid
Views on “unless otherwise provided” >
what is the controlling doctrine re: publication?
Tanada v. Tuvera (1986)
Publication is an indispensable requirement before they can become effective, valid and binding.
is Tanada v. Tuvera absolute?
No, as held by the SC in the case of PVB Employees v. Vega (2001), the legislative has the discretion to provide for an exc as when the law itself provides that it be effective upon approval of the president
a new law RA 7169 which mandated the rehabilitation of the PVB
TN: liquidation is prelude to death, rehabilitation is reviving a dying corporation.
There is conflicting judicial decisions between Tuvera and PVB cases, which SC ruling is controlling?
- Statutory Construction - recent decision is controlling
- Art. 8 Sec 4(3) of the Constitution, no [doctrine or principle of law] laid down in a decision rendered by the SC en banc or in division, may be modified or reversed except by the [SC sitting en banc]
- PVB discussed Requirement for Publication in passing (obiter dictum)
TN: Tanada v. Tuvera (en banc)
PVB v. Vega (in division)
P.S.
None of the parties in the case ever raised the issue of lack of publication nor did they challenge the validity of RA 7169 on the ground that it was not published, and yet the SC made a statement about it. Obviously any discussion made by the SC involving the need of publication and its exception is more of an obiter dictum. Hence, it cannot be cited as an authority, not a binding precedent and neither can it revoke the ruling of Tanada.
Fariñas and other petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006, also known as the “Fair Election Act,” which repealed a provision of the Omnibus Election Code. This provision mandated that any elective official running for a different office would be deemed resigned from their current office upon filing a certificate of candidacy. The petitioners argued that Section 14’s “Effectivity Clause,” stating that the law “shall take effect immediately upon its approval,” was unconstitutional due to the lack of a required publication period.
How would you rule?
LB: Farinas vs. Exec. Sec
Generally, the publication requirement is indispensable and the provision in Art. 2 of the CC “unless otherwise provided” refers to the shortening or extension of the usual 15-day period
However, the court ruled in Farinas v. Exec. Sec that RA 9006 is DEFECTIVE but does not render it invalid even when a provision provides that it takes effect immediately upon approval by the President.
The requirement of publication applies to
- Statutes
- Presidential issuances
- Rules & Regulations promulgated by administrative bodies pursuant to a valid delegated authority to implement or fill in the details of law
- Supreme Court decisions
- Ordinances/local laws
Re: publication > 3 > Exc
- R&R are interpretative in nature
- R&R are internal in nature that do not involve/affect the public
FACTS: The Social Security Commission (SSC) issued Circular No. 22, amending the definition of “compensation” to include bonuses and overtime pay in the computation of employee premiums, effective November 1, 1958. Victoria Milling Company, Inc. challenged the circular, arguing it contradicted a previous circular and was invalid due to lack of Presidential approval and publication in the Official Gazette.
ISSUE: Whether Circular No. 22 was valid despite the claims of lack of authority and publication
Valid.
When an administrative agency promulgates R&R, it “makes” new law with the force and effect of a valid law, however in this case, the SSC is rendering a statement of policy, which merely interprets a [pre-existing law]
As ruled in the case of Victorias Milling Company vs. SSC 1962
Circular No. 22 did not add any duty or detail that was not already in the law as amended. It merely stated and circularized the opinion of the Commission as to how the law should be construed
Thus it did not require presidential approval and publication in the Official Gazette for its effectivity.
Do judicial decisions need to be published in the Official Gazette?
JP
No, as held in the case of Roy v. CA where the SC ruled that decisions of the same part take of the nature of law but the requirement of publication is not compulsory
Re: publication > 5 > when are ordinances/local laws made effective?
- 10 days after posting a copy in the bulletin board of the
- Provincial Capital
- City
- Municipal, or
- Brgy. Hall, [and] - at least (2) conspicuous places in the LGU concerned
(Sec. 59, 7160)
Article 3 of the NCC
“Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”
Question: If the policy is knowledge of the law is presumed, why is there a need for publication of laws?
Publication serves as a CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE to the people of the existence of the law. There can be no Article 3 when Article 2 is complied with.
IOW, if law is compliant with Art. 2, then Art. 3 is presumed
how to validly raise the defense of **Mistake of FACT*
1910 Ruling
is a defense which can exonerate liability when the requisites are present
- the act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be
- acted in good faith, w/o malice, nor criminal intent
- act is not tainted w/ negligence
as illustrated in the case of US v. Ah Chong
which element of a crime will mistake of fact negate?
Generally, the element of INTENT
In the case of Salvador v. Sandiganbayan, what are the requisites in order to properly invoke the defense of mistake of LAW?
2012 Ruling
!!mistake of law wasn’t mentioned in the full text!!
- the mistake was honest & reasonable
- that it be a matter of fact
- it negates the culpability required to commit the crime or the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense
Art. 15 > Gen Rule > Nationality Principle > What happens when a party who invokes a foreign law is not duly proved?
Principle of [Processual Presumption] applies wherein a foreign law is relevant in the issue is NOT DULY PROVEN, it shall be presumed that such foreign law is the same with our laws therefore the application of Philippine law
As illustrated in the case of Yao Kee v. Gonzalez since the foreign law was not duly proven regarding marriage, Philippine law on marriage now applies
Article 4
Laws shall have no retroactive application, unless the contrary is provided
Exceptions to article 4
- when the law provides for its retroactive application
- Law is penal/criminal in nature, provided it is favorable to the accused [w/ exc.]
- Law is remedial/procedural in nature [w/ exc.]
- Law is curative in nature
- Narzolez - law enacted in exercise of police power
Art 4 > Exc 1 “When the law expressly provides that it apply retroactively > Exc of the exc?
- No Ex Post Facto Law shall be allowed
Art 4 > Exc 2 “criminal/penal laws that are favorable to the accused > Exc of the exc?
- when the accused is a habitual delinquent
- when the accused himself denies the benefits of the new law
- when the law itself expressly provides that its provisions should not cover existing cases or pending actions even if favorable to the offender
TN:
habitual delinquent - Art. 62 w/in 10 years from last conviction/release of the crimes is again found guilty of the crimes serious or less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, falsification, estafa, is found guilty of any of said crimes the third time or oftener)
Art 4 > Exc 3 “procedural/remedial laws > Exc of the exc?
- impairs substantial rights
- when the decision is final & executory
Art 4 > Exc 4 > Curative Laws > EXC-EXC?
- vested rights are violated
- final judgments are altered
(based on ppt)
What is the nature of Supreme Court decisions? LB
Prospective.
As shown in the case of DBP v. CA & Pe (1992)
At the time of the foreclosure and sale of the land (1977-1979), the prevailing doctrine (from the cases of Monge v. Angeles and Tupas v. Damasco) was that the five-year period for repurchase was counted from the date of the foreclosure sale
1988 - Since the Belisario case was decided after the foreclosure sale and transfer of the land, it could not be retroactively applied to transactions that were governed by the earlier jurisprudence.
- 1970: Benito Salvani Pe acquires the land and mortgages it shortly after.
- 1977: The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) forecloses the mortgage on the land.
- 1978: The foreclosure sale is registered.
- 1979: DBP sells the land to the spouses Gauvain and Bernardita Benzonan.
- 1982: The right to repurchase for Pe, based on the prevailing jurisprudence at the time (Monge and Tupas), expires.
- 1988: The Belisario case establishes a new doctrine regarding the counting of the five-year period for repurchase, stating it should start after the one-year redemption period.
- 1992: The Supreme Court rules in the DBP case, stating that the Belisario doctrine should not apply retroactively to revive Pe’s lost right to repurchase, as the spouses had already acquired vested rights based on the earlier rulings.