Short answer. Yes. Rule 63, Section 3 requires the party assailing a statute, executive order, or other governmental regulation to notify the Solicitor General, who is then entitled to be heard on the constitutionality question, so the case should not be resolved on that issue until notice has actually been given.

What the law says

In any action which involves the validity of a statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation, the Solicitor General shall be notified by the party assailing the same and shall be entitled to be heard upon such question.

Rule 63, Section 3 — Notice on Solicitor General. Read the full provision →

Why the government gets a seat at the table

A declaratory relief action that questions the validity of a national law is not a purely private dispute; a ruling either way affects how that law is enforced against everyone, not just the parties in court. The rule makes sure the government's chief legal officer knows the challenge is happening and can defend the measure's validity, so the court does not decide the question after hearing only the challenger's side.

What triggers the notice requirement

The obligation applies broadly: it covers a statute, an executive order, and "any other governmental regulation," not just laws passed by Congress. So a challenge to an agency circular or a presidential issuance falls under the same notice duty, and it is the party assailing the measure — not the court on its own — who bears the burden of giving notice.

Practical effect of skipping it

Because the Solicitor General is "entitled to be heard," a case that proceeds to a ruling on the validity of a national measure without that notice risks the proceeding being incomplete or reopened. The safer practice is to serve a copy of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General as soon as the constitutional or statutory question is raised, giving it the real opportunity the rule contemplates. A court that proceeds to rule on the statute's constitutionality without giving the Solicitor General that chance leaves the judgment vulnerable to being set aside on that basis alone, since the requirement exists precisely to ensure the government's position was actually considered before the constitutional question is decided.

Who the requirement does not excuse

The notice duty falls on the party assailing the measure, not on the court or on the opposing private party, and it is not satisfied simply because the government agency that issued the regulation happens to already be a defendant in the case. The Solicitor General represents the government's interest in defending the validity of national measures generally, which is a distinct role from whatever position an individual government office may be taking as a party to that specific suit.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.