NOTE: Circulars issued by the monetary board are required to be published if they are meant not to merely

“fill in details” of the Central Bank Act. As a rule, circulars which prescribe a penalty for violations should be
published before coming into effect. However, circulars which are mere statements of general policies as to
how the law should be construed do not need publication in the Official Gazette for their publication.
Where to publish
1. Official Gazette; or
2. Newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines

Newspaper of general circulation

For a newspaper to be considered of general circulation:
1. It must be published within the court’s jurisdiction;
2. It must be published at regular intervals for disseminating local news and general information;
3. It has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; and
4. It is not devoted to the interest or published for the entertainment of a particular class, profession, trade,
calling, race or religious denomination (Alvarez v. People, G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011).

Q: Honasan questions the authority and jurisdiction of the DOJ panel of prosecutors to conduct a
preliminary investigation and to eventually file charges against him, claiming that since he is a
senator with a salary grade of 31, it is the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, which has authority
and jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation. DOJ claims that it has concurrent
jurisdiction, invoking an OMB-DOJ Joint Circular which outlines the authority and responsibilities
among prosecutors of the DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman in the conduct of preliminary
investigations. Honasan counters that said circular is ineffective as it was never published. Is OMB-
DOJ Circular No. 95-001 ineffective because it was not published?
A: NO. OMB-DOJ Circular No. 95-001 is merely an internal circular between the two offices which outlines the
authority and responsibilities among prosecutors of the DOJ and of the Office of the Ombudsman in the
conduct of preliminary investigations. It does not contain any penal provision nor prescribe a mandatory act
or prohibit any under pain of penalty. It does not regulate the conduct of persons or the public, in general. It
need not be published (Honasan, II v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ, G.R. No. 159747, June
15, 2004).
Q: The Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy, Bulacan enacted an ordinance which increased the stall
rentals of the market vendors in Hagonoy. Art. 3 of the said ordinance provided that it shall take effect
upon approval. The ordinance was posted from November 4 to 25, 1996. In the last week of November
1997, petitioners were personally given copies and were informed that it shall be enforced in January
1998. The petitioners contended that the subject ordinance was not published as required by law. Did
the ordinance comply with the rule of publication?
A: YES. An ordinance which increased the stall rentals of the market vendors has complied with the
publication requirement when the same was posted in 3 conspicuous places (Sec. 188, Local Government
Code; Hagonoy v. Municipality, G.R. No. 137621, February 6, 2002).
NOTE: Within ten (10) days after their approval, certified true copies of all provincial, city, and municipal tax
ordinances or revenue measures shall be published in full for three (3) consecutive days in a newspaper of
local circulation: Provided, however, That in provinces, cities and municipalities where there are no
newspapers of local circulation, the same may be posted in at least two (2) conspicuous and publicly
accessible places (Sec. 188, Local Government Code).
Exceptions to the publication requirement
1. An interpretative regulation;
2. A regulation that is merely internal in nature; and
3. A letter of instruction issued by an administrative agency concerning rules or guidelines to be followed by
subordinates in the performance of their duties (Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, Inc. v.
Energy Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 192117, September 18, 2012).
Q: Judge Ferdinand Villanueva was appointed as a presiding judge of MTC, Compostela-New Bataan.
The following year, Judge Villanueva applied as Presiding Judge in several Regional Trial Courts. The
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) then informed him that he was not included in the list. The JBC’s
decision upheld GENERAL PRINCIPLES
3
its long-standing policy of opening the chance for promotion to second-level courts to those judges
who have served in their current positions for at least five years. Judge Villanueva then directly went
to Court to assail the said policy on the ground it is unconstitutional; it violates the procedural due
process for lack of publication. Did the JBC violate the procedural due process for not publishing the
questioned policy?
A: YES. The petition was dismissed but the SC directed the JBC to comply with the publication requirement of
the assailed policy. According to SC, it is but a natural consequence that potential applicants be informed of
the requirements to the judicial positions so that they would be able to prepare for and comply with them
(Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015).
Examples of administrative issuances which were not given force and effect for lack of publication
1. Rules and regulations issued by the Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment
Accreditation Committee regarding the accreditation of hospitals, media clinics and laboratories.
2. Letter of Instruction No. 416 ordering the suspension of payments due and payable by distressed copper
mining companies.
3. Memorandum Circulars issued by the POEA regulating the recruitment of domestic helpers to Hongkong.
4. Administrative Order No. SOSPEC 89-08-01 issued by Philippine International Trading Corporation
regulating applications for importation from the People’s Republic of China.
5. Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 issued by the Department of Budget and Management
discontinuing the payment of other allowances and fringe benefits to government officials and employees
(Ulep, 2006).
Q: “A” alleges violation of his right to due process considering that he is summoned to attend the
Senate hearings without being apprised not only of his rights therein through the publication of the
Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. Senate invoked 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. Did the publication of the assailed Rules of Procedure through
the Senate’s website satisfy the due process requirement of law?
A: NO. R.A 8792 – Electronic Act of 2000 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as a
functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary purposes. It does not make the internet a
medium for publishing laws, rules or regulations (Garcillano v. The House of Representatives Committee on
Public Information, Public Order and Safety, National Defense and Security, Information and Communications
Technology and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, G.R. No. 170338, December 23, 2008).
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
Presumption of knowledge of laws
GR: Everyone is conclusively presumed to know the law. Hence, ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith (NCC, Art. 3).
This conclusive presumption presupposes that the law has been published. Without such notice and
publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignoratia legis non excusat (Rabuya,
2009).
XPNs:
a. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith [NCC, Art. 526 (3)].
b. Payment by reason of a mistake in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law
may come within the scope of the preceding article (NCC, Art. 2155).
c. In order that fraud may make a contract voidable, it should be serious and should not have been employed
by both contracting parties. Incidental fraud only obliges the person employing it to pay damages (NCC, Art.
1344).

NOTE: The possession of the antichretic credit as possession in good faith since a difficult question of law was
involved – antichresis. In this case, the parties were not very knowledgeable of the law (Kasilag v. Rodriguez,
G.R. No. 46623, December 7, 1939).
Laws covered CIVIL LAW
4
U NIVERSITYOFSANTOT OMAS201 9GOLDENN OTES
The laws referred to under Art. 3 of the NCC are those of the Philippine Laws and it applies to all kinds of
domestic laws, whether civil or penal, substantive or remedial. However, the article is limited to mandatory
and prohibitory laws. It does not include those which are merely permissive (Rabuya, 2006).
Non-applicability to foreign laws
Ignorance of a foreign law is a mistake of fact. There is no presumption of knowledge of foreign laws. It must
be alleged and proved as a matter of fact; otherwise, the doctrine of processual presumption will apply.
Doctrine of Processual Presumption
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of
proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as
the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic
or forum law (ATCI Overseas Corporation, et al. v. Echin, G.R. No. 178551, October 11, 2010; See case of Del
Socorro v. Brinkman G.R. No. 193707 December 10, 2014).
Mistake of fact v. Mistake of law
Q: Eduardo was married to Ruby. He then met