Validity of publication in the On Line Gazette

Facts Given:  E.O No. 4 was issued by the office of the President providing that the official gazette is now in electronic form at (http.www.gov.ph). 

                                                                                                       

If a law is published in the web gazette would it satisfy the requirements of Art. 2 of the Civil Code in relation to the Tañada vs. Tuvera case.

Validity of a law’s publication in the online Official Gazette

Publication in the on-line Official Gazette alone is contrary to Philippine law and jurisprudence. 

1.        It is violative of the due process clause enshrined in the highest law of the land which states that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” (Sec.1 Art.3 1987 Constitution)

Due process is a rule of fairness and equality.  It requires that a person who must obey a command must first know what the command is.  On line publication of laws does not reach out to all the people of the country.  In a third world country like the Philippines it’s sad to say that not all Filipino’s have internet access, can afford one or even knows how to operate or access the net.  If publication is only in the web gazette it would deprive those who do not have access to such and violate one’s right to be informed of the laws which he is expected to know and obey.

2.        It does not satisfy the publication requirement of Art. 2 of the Civil Code which states that “Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.  ( As amended by E.O. No. 200)

The aim of E.O. NO. 200 is to provide a better way of communicating the laws to the most number of people which could not be achieved through mere on line publication alone. It’s whereas clauses provides that “WHEREAS, the requirement that for laws to be effective only a publication thereof in the Official Gazette will suffice has entailed some problems, a point recognized by the Supreme Court in Tañada. et al. vs. Tuvera, et al. (G.R. No. 63915, December 29, 1986) when it observed that "[t]here is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be made in the Official Gazette, considering its erratic release and limited readership";

WHEREAS, it was likewise observed that "[u]ndoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation could better perform the function of communicating the laws to the people as such periodicals are more easily available, have a wider readership, and come out regularly";

3.        It’s contrary to the jurisprudence laid down in the case of Tañada vs. Tuvera (146 SCRA 446) because when such decision was promulgated the Supreme Court was referring to the printed Official Gazette and not to the web gazette which became accessible on line  last July 2010.

In the case of Tañada vs. Tuvera (146 SCRA 446) the court ruled that “Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non 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.”

If a law is published in the on line Official Gazette alone such law is not effective and valid for failure to comply with the publication requirements laid down in Art. 2 of the Civil Code and enunciated in the Tañada vs. Tuvera case.  In the absence of a law amending Art. 2 of the Civil Code the doctrine laid down in the case of Garcillano v. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 170338 December 23, 2008)could preclude such a claim.

“ The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect. R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary purposes. In other words, the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data messages and/or electronic documents. It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations.  Given this discussion, the respondent Senate Committees, therefore, could not, in violation of the Constitution, use its unpublished rules in the legislative inquiry subject of these consolidated cases. The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate has to be deferred until it shall have caused the publication of the rules, because it can do so only “in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.”

In the words of the late former president Magsaysay let us be reminded of the people’s right to be informed of the laws which will govern them no matter what their status in life is “  Those who have less in life, should have more in law.”