Nagkakaisang Maralita v. Military Shrine Services
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the classification of certain parcels of land within Fort Bonifacio, originally reserved for military purposes. Proclamation No. 423 established the military reservation, which was later renamed Fort Andres Bonifacio. Subsequent proclamations amended this reservation. Proclamation No. 208 excluded an area for the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Proclamation No. 2476, issued in 1986, excluded barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan, and Signal Village, declaring them open for disposition. A handwritten addendum by President Marcos to Proclamation No. 2476 stated, “P.S. – This includes Western Bicutan.” However, this addendum was omitted when the proclamation was published in the Official Gazette. Years later, Proclamation No. 172, issued by President Aquino, reiterated Proclamation No. 2476 as published, excluding Lots 1 and 2 of Western Bicutan from the operation of Proclamation No. 423 and declaring them open for disposition. Procedural History: Informal settlers occupied portions of Fort Bonifacio, including areas near the Libingan ng mga Bayani. In response, Task Force Bantay was created to prevent unauthorized occupation. Petitioner Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. (NMSMI) filed a petition with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) in 1999, seeking the reclassification of their occupied areas (Lot 3 of SWO-13-000-298, Western Bicutan) as alienable and disposable land. Petitioner Western Bicutan Lot Owners Association, Inc. (WBLOAI) intervened in 2000, seeking similar relief for the area they occupied (Lot 7 of SWO-00-001302, Western Bicutan). COSLAP granted the petitions in 2006, ruling that the handwritten addendum was an integral part of Proclamation No. 2476 and thus controlling. The respondent, Military Shrine Services – Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (MSS-PVAO), moved for reconsideration, which was denied. MSS-PVAO then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the COSLAP resolutions in 2009, dismissing the petitions for lack of merit. Both NMSMI and WBLOAI appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The consolidated Petitions for Review were filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision. Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Proclamation No. 2476 did not include Western Bicutan because the handwritten notation by President Marcos was not published in the Official Gazette. They contend that the addendum was an integral part of the proclamation and that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering COSLAP's broad powers. The principal issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the subject property was not declared alienable and disposable by virtue of Proclamation No. 2476 due to the omission of the handwritten addendum from its publication. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that publication is indispensable for a law to take effect and that a handwritten addendum, not included in the official publication, has no legal force.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Proclamation No. 2476 did not include any portion of Western Bicutan because the handwritten notation by President Marcos was not published in the Official Gazette. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Proclamation No. 172 likewise excluded the portion of land occupied by members of the petitioner. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not considering that the COSLAP has broad powers to recommend to the President innovative measures to resolve expeditiously various land cases.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petitions for lack of merit and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Proclamation No. 2476 included Western Bicutan due to the handwritten addendum: The Court ruled that the handwritten addendum of President Marcos to Proclamation No. 2476, not having been published in the Official Gazette, did not have the force and effect of law. Article 2 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise provided. The requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the law, as settled in Tañada v. Hon. Tuvera. The Court emphasized that publication is essential to inform the public of the laws that govern them, and that laws must come out in the open, not skulking in the shadows. Without publication, the addendum never acquired legal force, and the courts cannot speculate on the President's intent apart from the words appearing in the law as published. On the issue of whether Proclamation No. 172 excluded the subject land: The Court found this issue moot given the ruling on the primary issue. Since the handwritten addendum was not legally effective, Proclamation No. 172, which reiterated Proclamation No. 2476 as published, correctly excluded the portions of Western Bicutan. The Court reiterated that it cannot create law but only interpret it, and that the remedy sought by the petitioners would require legislation to amend the law, which is beyond the Court's power. On the issue of COSLAP's powers: The Court implicitly ruled that while COSLAP has powers to recommend measures, these powers do not extend to giving legal effect to unpublished provisions or amending laws. The Court's role is to interpret and apply the law as published and enacted, not to legislate or supply omissions. The Court cannot speculate on legislative intent beyond the published text of the law.
Main Doctrine
A handwritten addendum to a presidential proclamation, not included in its official publication in the Official Gazette, does not have the force and effect of law. Publication is indispensable for a law to take effect, as mandated by Article 2 of the Civil Code and settled jurisprudence, to ensure public knowledge and due process.