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challenged the constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006, also known as the “Fair Election Act,” which repealed a provision of the Omnibus Election Code.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.
What is the nature of Supreme Court interpretations?
lm
Retrospective.
legis interpretado legis vim obtinet which means the interpretation of the law (of a competent court) has the force & effect of law
Why is SC interpretation retroactive?
It establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent of the law such that to interpret/construe it would constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute was enacted
Lorna filed a petition for the nullity of her marriage to Zosimo under Article 36 of the Family Code, citing Zosimo’s psychological incapacity.
While the case was pending, the Supreme Court rendered decisions in Santos v. CA (1995) and Republic v. Molina (1997), interpreting “psychological incapacity” and establishing guidelines for nullity of marriage.
The RTC ruled in Lorna’s favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, applying Santos and Molina retroactively. Lorna argues that these rulings should not have retroactive effect on her case.
Should the Santos and Molina rulings be treated as interpretations of law, warranting retroactive application, or should they be applied prospectively only?
It should be treated retroactively
In the case of Pesca v. Pesca, the SC explained/clarified the meaning of an existing law, that is in this case, psychological incapacity
On [August 3, 1998,] Juanita Narzoles filed a MR with the NLRC after her complaint for illegal dismissal was initially dismissed by the Labor Arbiter.
On [September 1, 1998,] Circular No. 39-98 amended Section 4, Rule 65, which changed the rules for filing a Petition for Certiorari, introducing a requirement for a minimum of five days after the denial of a MR.
On [October 19, 1998], Juanita received the NLRC Resolution denying her MR. She filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on December 17, 1998, which was beyond the deadline set by Circular No. 39-98.
While Juanita’s petition was pending, A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC took effect on September 1, 2000, reverting Section 4, Rule 65 to the previous rule, allowing a fresh sixty-day period for filing a Petition for Certiorari if a Motion for Reconsideration was filed and denied.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Juanita’s Petition for Certiorari as it was filed late according to the rules in effect at the time.
Should A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000, be applied retroactively to Juanita Narzoles’ case?
Aug 3 - MR filed (Fresh Period 60days for R65)
Sept 1 - Denial of MR; [a] remaining period for R65 [b] or 5 days in any event (Circ. # 39-98)
Oct 19 - MR denied
Dec 17 - R65 filed
Dec 17, 1988 - R65 denied
Sept 1, 2000 - Fresh Period Rule took effect (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC)
In short, the filing of the petition for certiorari in this Court on 17 December 1998 is deemed to be timely, the same having been made within the 60-day period provided under the curative Resolution. We reach this conclusion bearing in mind that the substantive aspects of this case involves the rights and benefits, even the livelihood, of petitioner-employees.
Narzolez v. NLRC
On May 15, 1985, Ortigas & Company sold a parcel of land to Emilia Hermoso under a contract of sale. The contract explicitly stated that the subject lot could only be used for residential purposes, a restriction that was annotated on Hermoso’s title. Several years later, on October 10, 1992, the Metropolitan Manila Commission (now Metropolitan Manila Development Authority) passed an ordinance reclassifying portions of Ortigas Avenue, where Hermoso’s lot was located, into a commercial zone.
In 1996, Hermoso leased the property to Ismael Mathay III. The lease contract did not specify the use of the property. Mathay then constructed a commercial building on the lot, which was used as an office for a car sales company. Ortigas & Company filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Hermoso and Mathay, seeking the demolition of the building for violating the residential-use restriction.
Argue for Ortigas Co. and
Argue for Hermosa
[Ortigas Co.]
Generally, laws are not be applied prospectively however the exception provided are among the 5. In this case however, for the ordinance to take precedence over the contract would violate the constitutional right of Non-impairment of Contracts (Sec. 10, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution).
[Hermosa]
While it is a constitutional right that there be no law impairing the obligation of contracts, the exception to this non-impairment is when the law is a valid exercise of police power which will take precedence to contracts created prior to its enactment (therefore retroactively apply) as illustrated in the case of Ortigas Co v. CA
Article 5 of the NCC
Acts executed against the provisions of MANDATORY [or] PROHIBITORY laws shall be VOID, except when the law itself authorizes their validity
ex
- entering into a contract of same sex marriage
- contract of sale of drugs
Exc of Art. 5
- if the law considers the act VOIDABLE
- law itself provides that it be VALID but subjects the wrongdoer to criminal liability
- Law provides that the act if void, but recognizes some legal effects flowing therefrom.
- law provides for its VALIDITY but generally it would have been void
Ex
(1) - 18 & 21 got married w/o parental consent - voidable
(2) impostor priest celebrating a marriage of man & woman who are in good faith subjects impostor to criminal liabliity and the marriage VALID
(3) - Marriage where both are psychologically incapacitated is void but under Art. 54 FC, children conceived before judgment of nullity is final & executory are considered legitimate
foreigner buys land in Phil, contrary to rule foreigners cannot own, but in turn, sells it to a Filipino curing the defect
(4) BWS is valid, although killing is generally void.
Article 6 of the NCC
Rights may be waived,
- unless waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, (Cui v. Arellano Uni)
[or]
- prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (Art. 1052 CC - Heir may waive his right but no effect if it prejudices the rights of his creditors
example of rights which may not be waived
right to receive future support from parents
right to future inheritance
Art 7
Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones [and] their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by [dcp] disuse, customs, or practice to the contrary
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter govern.
Administrative or Executive Acts, Orders, or Regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the [laws or the Constitution].
What is the effect of a repealing law to the repealed law
GEN: the later law prevails over the prior law, as the later one expresses the latest legislative will
Repeal Exc
Rule when former and the new law are of DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION
TN: GEN rule: Gen law repeals Gen law and Spl repeals Spl
EXC
- GEN then SPL: no repeal on GEN & SPL function as the GEN’s exception
- SPL then GEN: SPL remains unless:
a. express declaration to the contrary
b. irreconcilable conflict
c. GEN law covers whole subj [and] clearly intends to replace special law
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) v. CA, the LLDA was established by Republic Act No. 4850, enacted on June 18, 1966, which granted it exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for fishpens and other aquaculture structures.
However, with the enactment of the Local Government Code (LGC), or Republic Act No. 7160, on October 10, 1991, municipalities in the Laguna Lake area interpreted this new law as granting them exclusive authority to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters.
Does the enactment of the Local Government Code in 1991 repeal the provisions of the LLDA’s charter in 1966?
No, the enactment of the LGC does not repeal the LLDA’s charter of 1966
the LGC is a general law and the charter of LLDA is a special law. The general rule when a Special Law is enacted followed by a subsequent General Lawis that the Special Law remains valid unless:
a. there is an express declaration to the contrary
b. there is irreconcilable conflict
c. that the General Law clearly intends to repeal the Special law as it covers the entire subject
effect of repeal insofar as the repealed law is concerned
The repealed law does NOT render the previous law inoperative [nor] does it NOT undo effect prior to repeal unless a penal laws if repeal is TOTAL & ABSOLUTE
operative fact!
TN: a repealing law is a LAW therefore it should be prospective in application.
Art 7 > General Effect rule on Prospectivity > exceptions
LB
Penal laws if repeal is absolute & total (Pp v. Pimentel)
Art 7 > General Effect rule
> Exc: penal laws when repeal is total absolute > > exception to that exc?
- Repealing law provides for a SAVING/transitory CLAUSE
(Buscayno v. Military Commission) - repealing law reenacts the repealed statute (US v. Cuna) [reiterates]
TN:[2]
The repealing law on illegal drugs simply reiterated that the act was a crime and adjusted the types of penalties or clarify the scope of prohibited activities, but the intent is still to penalize those who commit drug-related crimes.