Amendment, Revision, Codification and Repeal
AMENDMENTS
Quimpo v. Mendoza
·
Where a statute which requires that the annual
realty tax on lands or buildings be paid on or before the specified date,
subject to penalty of a percentage of the whole amount of tax in case of
delayed payment, is amended by
authorizing payment of the tax in four equal installments to become due on or
before specified dates.
·
The penalty provision of the earlier statute is
modified by implication that the penalty for late payment of an installment
under the later law will be collected and computed only on the installment that
became due and unpaid, and not on the whole amount of annual tax as provided in
the old statute.
·
Legislative intent to change the basis is clear
when the later law allowed payment in four installments.
People v. Macatanda
A statute punishing an act which is also a crime under the
RPC provides a penalty as prescribed in the said Code, such statute is not a
special law but an amendment by implication.
Estrada v. Caseda
Where a statute which provides that it shall be in force for
a period of four years after its approval, the four years is to be counted from
the date the original statute was approved and not from the date the amendatory
act was amended.
Victorias Milling Co.
v. SSS
A statutory definition of term containing a general rule and
an exception thereto is amended by eliminating the exception, the legislative
intent is clear that the term should now include the exception within the scope
of the general rule.
Parras v. Land
Registration Commissions
·
Section of a statute requiring the exact payment
of publication fees in land registration proceedings, except in cases where the
value of the land does not exceed P50,000 is amended by deleting the excepting
clause, it means that the statute as amended now requires payment of the
publication fees regardless of the value of the land involved.
·
Suppression of the excepting clause amount to
the withdrawal of the exemption allowed under the original act.
Imperial v. Collector
of Internal Revenue
A statute amending a tax law is silent as to whether it
operates retroactively, the amendment will not be giving retroactive effect so
as to subject to tax past transactions not subject to tax under the original
act.
Diu v. Court of
Appeals
Statutes relating to procedure in courts are applicable to
actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.
Rillaroza v. Arciaga
Absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary, a
subsequent statute amending a prior act with the effect of divesting the court
of jurisdiction may not be construed to operate but to oust jurisdiction that
has already attached under the prior law.
Iburaan v. Labes
Where a court originally obtains and exercises jurisdiction
pursuant to an existing law, such jurisdiction will not be overturned and
impaired by the subsequent amendment of the law, unless express prohibitory
words or words of similar import are used.
Erectors, Inc v. NLRC
PD 1691 and 1391 vested Labor Arbiters with original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving employer-employee relations,
including money claims arising out of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas employment
Facts: An
overseas worker filed a money claim against his recruiter, and while the case
is pending, EO 797 was enacted, which vested POEA with original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, arising out of law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment.
Issue: WoN the decision of the labor arbiter in favor of the
overseas worker was invalid
RULING: authority
to decide the cease because EO 797b did not divest the labor arbiter his
authority to hear and decide the case filed by the overseas worker prior to its
effectivity.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
law in force at the time of the commencement of the action; laws should only be
applied prospectively unless the legislative intent to give them retroactive
effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used.
Government v.
Agoncillo
Where the amendatory act is declared unconstitutional, it is
as if the amendment did not exist, and the original statute before the
attempted amend remains unaffected and in force.
REVISION AND
CODIFICATION
Lichauco & Co. v.
Apostol
A irreconcilable conflict between parts of a revised statute
or a code, that which is best in accord with the general plan or, in the
absence of circumstances upon which to base a choice, that which is later in
physical position, being the latest expression of legislative will, will
prevail.
Mecano v. Commission
on Audit
FACTS: Claim for
reimbursement by a government official of medical and hospitalization expenses
pursuant to Section 699 of the Revised Administration Code of 1917, which
authorizes the head of office to case a reimbursement of payment of medical and
hospital expenses of a government official in case of sickness or injury caused
by or connected directly with the performance of his official duty.
CoA denied the claim on the ground that AC of 1987 which
revised the old AC, repealed Sec. 699 because it was omitted the revised code.
RULING: The
legislature did not intend, in enacting the new Code, to repeal Sec. 699 of the
old code.
“All laws, decrees,
orders, rules and regulation, or portions thereof, inconsistent with this Code
are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.”
New code did not expressly repeal the old as the new Code
fails to identify or designate the act to be repealed.
Two
categories of repeal by implication
·
Provisions in the two acts on the same subject
matter that are in irreconcilable conflict.
·
Later
act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier
·
If the later act covers the whole subject of the
earlier one and is clearly intended as a statute, it will operate to repeal the
earlier law.
There is no irreconcilable conflict between the two codes on
the matter of sickness benefits because the provision has not been restated in
the New Code.
The whereas clause is the intent to cover only those aspects
of government that pertain to administration, organization and procedure, and
understandably because of the many changes that transpired in the government
structure since the enactment of the old code.
REPEAL
Agujetas v. Court of
Appeals
FACTS: Sec 28 of
RA 7166 pertaining to canvassing by boards of canvassers is silent as to how
the board of canvassers shall prepare the certificate of canvass and as to what
will be its basis, w/c details are provided in the second paragraph of Sec231
of the Omnibus Election Code, an earlier statute, “respective boards of canvassers
shall prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the imprint
of the thumb of the right hand of each member, supported by a statement of the
votes and received by each candidate in each polling place and on the basis
thereof shall proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the highest
number of votes coast in the provinces, city, municipality or barangay, and
failure to comply with this requirement shall constitute an election offense”
RULING: Did not
impliedly repeal the second paragraph of Sec 231 of OEC and render the failure
to comply with the requirement no longer an election offense.
Smith, Bell & Co.
v. Estate of Maronilla
A prior law is impliedly repealed by a later act where the
reason for the earlier act is beyond peradventure removed.
Mecano v. Commission
on Audit
Issue: WoN Sec. 699 of the Revised
Administrative Code has been repealed by the 1987 Administrative Code.
1987 Administration Code provides that: “All laws, decrees,
orders, rules and regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent with this code
are hereby repealed or modified accordingly
RULING: Court
ruled that the new Code did not repeal Sec 699:
·
Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency
takes place when two statutes cover the same subject matter, they are so
clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other that they cannot be
reconciled or harmonized, and both cannot be given effect, that one law cannot
be enforced without nullifying the other.
·
The new Code does not cover not attempt to the
cover the entire subject matter of the old Code.
·
There are several matters treated in the old
Code that are not found in the new Code. (provisions on notary public; leave
law, public bonding law, military reservations, claims for sickness benefits under
section 699 and others)
·
CoA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of
the two Codes on the matter of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable
conflict.
·
There can no conflict because the provision on
sickness benefits of the nature being claimed by petitioner has not been
restated in old Code.
·
The fact that a later enactment may relate to
the same subject matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself
sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior act new statute may merely
be cumulative or a continuation of the old one.
·
Second Category: possible only if the revised
statute or code was intended to cover the whole subject to be a complete and
perfect system in itself.
•
Rule: a subsequent is deemed to repeal a prior
law if the former revises the whole subject matter of the former statute.
·
When both intent and scope clearly evince the
idea of a repeal, then all parts and provisions of the prior act that are
omitted from the revised act are deemed repealed.
·
Before there can be an implied repeal under this
category, it must be the clear intent of the legislature that later act be the
substitute of the prior act.
·
Opinion 73 s.1991 of the Secretary of Justice:
what appears clear is the intent to cover only those aspects of government that
pertain to administration, organization and procedure, understandably because
of the many changes that transpired in the government structure since the
enactment of RAC.
·
Repeals of statutes by implication are not
favored. Presumption is against the inconsistency and repugnancy for the
legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the subject and not to
have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes.
Ty v. Trampe
Issue: whether PD 921 on real estate taxes has been repealed
impliedly by RA 7160, otherwise know as the Local Government Code of 1991 on
the same subject.
RULING: that
there has been no implied repeal. It is clear that the two law are not
coextensive and mutually inclusive in their scope and purpose. RA 7160 covers
almost all governmental functions delegated to local government units all over
the country. PD 921 embraces only
Metropolitan Manila Area and is limited to the administration of financial
services therein. Sec.9 PD921 requires
that the schedule of values of real properties in the Metropolitan Manila Area
shall be prepared jointly by the city assessors states that the schedules shall
be prepared by the provincial, city and municipal assessors of the
municipalities within Metropolitan Manila Area for the different classes of
real property situated in their respective local government units for enactment
by ordinance of the sanggunian concerned.
Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole
Sec.19 RA 6670, the Ombudsman Act grants disciplinary
authority to the Ombudsman to discipline elective and appointive officials,
except those impeachable officers, has been repealed, RA 7160, the Local
Government Code, insofar as local elective officials in the various officials
therein named.
RULING: both laws
should be given effect because there is nothing in the Local Government Code to
indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly.
The two statutes on the specific matter in question are not
so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to uphold one and
strike down the other.
Two laws must be incompatible, and a clear finding thereof
must surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn.
Interpretare et
concordare leges legibus, est optimus interpretandi modus, i. e every statute must be so construed and
harmonized with other statutes as to form uniform system of jurisprudence. The
legislature should be presumed to have known the existing laws on the subject
and not to have enacted conflicting statutes.
Initia, Jr v. CoA
·
Implied repeal will not be decreed unless there
is an irreconcilable inconsistency between two provisions or laws is RA 7354 in
relation to PD 1597.
·
RA 7354 – in part of the Postmaster General,
subject to the approval of the Board of Directors of the Philippines Postal
Corporation, shall have the power to “determine the staffing pattern and the
number of personnel, define their duties and responsibilities, and fix their
salaries and emoluments in accordance with the approved compensation structure
of the Corporation.”
·
Sec.6 PD 1597 – “ exemptions notwithstanding,
agencies shall report to the President, through the Budget Commission, on their
position classification and compensation plans, policies, rates and other
related details following such specifications as may be prescribed by the
President.”
Issue: WoN Sec6 of PD1597, the two laws being reconcilable.
RULING: While the
Philippine Postal Corporation is allowed to fix its own personnel compensation
structure through its board of directors, the latter is required to follow
certain standards in formulating said compensation system, and the role of DBM
is merely to ensure that the action taken by the board of directors complies
the requirements of the law.
Cebu Institute of
Technology v. Ople
Sec. 3(a) PD 451 and Sec. 42 of BP 232 illustrates repeal by
implication.
Sec 3(a) provides: “no increase in tuition or other school
fees or charges shall be approved unless 60% of the proceed is allocated to
increase in salaries or wages of the member of the faculty.”
BP 232: “each private school shall determine its rate of
tuition and other school fees or charges. The rates or charges adopted by
schools pursuant to this provision shall be collectible, and their application
or use authorized, subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry
of Education, Culture and Sports.”
ISSUE: WoN Sec.
42 of BP 232 impliedly repealed Sec. 3(a) of PD 451
HELD: There was
implied repeal because there are irreconcilable differences between the two
laws.
People v. Benuya
·
Where a statute is revised or a series of legislative
acts on the same subject are revised or consolidated into one, covering the
entire field of subject matter, all parts and provisions of the former act or
acts
·
that are omitted from the revised act are deemed
repealed.
Joaquin v. Navarro
·
Where a new statute is intended to furnish the
exclusive rule on a certain subject, it repeals by implication the old law on
the same subject
·
Where a new statute covers the whole subject
matter of an old law and adds new provisions and makes changes, and where such
law, whether it be in the form of an amendment or otherwise, is evidently
intended to be a revision of the old act, it repeals the old act by
implication.
People v. Almuete
·
Revision of the Agricultural Tenancy Act by the
Agricultural Land Reform Code.
·
Sec 39 of ATC (RA 1199) “it shall be unlawful
for either the tenant or landlord without mutual consent, to reap or thresh a
portion of the crop at any time previous to the date set, for its threshing.”
·
An action for violation of this penal provision
is pending in court, the Agricultural Land Reform Code superseded the
Agricultural Tenancy Act, abolished share tenancy, was not reproduced in the
Agricultural Land Reform Code.
·
The effect of such non-reenactment is a repeal
of Section 39.
·
It is a rule of legal hermeneutics that an act
which purports to set out in full all that it intends to contain, operates as a
repeal of anything omitted which was contained in the old act and not included
in the act as revised.
·
A substitute statute, and evidently intended as
the substitute for it, operates to repeal the former statute.
Tung Chin Hui v.
Rodriguez
ISSUE: whether
Sec.18 Rule 41 of the pre-1007 Rules of Court, which provided the appeal in
habeas corpus cases to be taken within 48 hours from notice of judgment, has
been replaced by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in Sec. 3
Rule 41 thereof, that appeal from judgment or final order shall be taken within
15 days from receipt thereof, in view of the fact that the Sec. 18 was
repealed, in accordance with the well-settled rule of statutory construction
that provisions of an old law that were
not reproduced in the revision thereof covering the same subject are deemed
repealed and discarded
HELD: SC in this
case to abrogate those provisions of the old laws that are not reproduced in
the revised statute or Code.
Parras v. Land
Registration Commission
·
Where a law amends a specific section of a prior
act by providing that the same is amended so as to read as follows, which then
quotes the amended provision, what is not included in the reenactment is deemed
repealed.
·
The new statute is a substitute for the original
section and all matters in the section that are omitted in the amendment are
considered repealed.
Valdez v. Tuason
·
“such a clause repeals nothing that would not be
equally repealed without it.
·
Either with or without it, the real question to
be determined is whether the new statute is in fundamental and irreconcilable
conflict with the prior statute on the subject.
·
A later general law will ordinarily not repeal a
prior special law on the same subject, as the latter is generally regarded as
an exception to the former.
·
With such clause contained in the subsequent
general law, the prior special law will be deemed repealed, as the clause is a
clear legislative intent to bring about that result.
US v. Palacio
·
Repeals by implication are not favored, and will
not be decreed unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended.
·
As laws are presumed to be passed with
deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing ones on the subject
·
It is but reasonable to conclude that in passing
a statute it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law
relating to some matter
·
Unless the repugnancy between the two is not
only irreconcilable, but also clear and convincing, and flowing necessarily
form the language used, the later act fully embraces the subject matter of the
earlier, or unless the reason for the earlier act is beyond peradventure
removed.
·
Every effort must be used to make all acts stand
and if, by any reasonable construction, they can be reconciled, the later act
will not operate as a repeal of the earlier.
NAPOCOR v. Angas
Illustrates the application of the principle that repeal or
amendment by implication is not favored.
Issue: WoN Central Bank Circular
416 has impliedly repealed or amended Art 2209 of the Civil Code
RULING: in
answering the issue in the negative, the court ruled that repeals or even
amendments by implication are not favored if two laws can be fairly reconciled.
The statutes contemplate different situations and apply to different
transactions involving loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits, as well
as judgments relating to such load or forbearance of money, goods, or credits,
the Central Bank Circular applies.
In cases requiring the payment of indemnities as damages, in
connection with any delay in the performance of an obligation other than those
involving loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits, Art 2209 of the CC
applies
Courts are slow to hold that one statute has repealed
another by implication and they will not make such adjudication if they can
refrain from doing so, or if they can arrive at another result by any
construction which is just and reasonable. Courts will not enlarge the meaning of one act
in order to decide that is repeals another by implication, nor will they adopt
an interpretation leading to an adjudication of repeal by implication unless it
is inevitable and a clear and explicit reason thereof can be adduced.
Manila Trading &
Supply Co. v. Phil. Labor Union
·
An act passed April 16th and in force April 21st
was held to prevail over an act passed April 9th and in effect July 4th of the
same year.
·
And an act going into effect immediately has
been held to prevail over an act passed before but going into effect later.
·
Whenever two statutes of different dates and of
contrary tenor are of equal theoretical application to a particular case, the
statute of later date must prevail, being a later expression of legislative
will.
Philippine National
Bank v. Cruz
·
As between the order of preference of credit set
forth in Articles 2241 to 2245 of the CC and that of Article 110 of the Labor
Code, giving first preference to unpaid wages and other monetary claims of labor, the former must yield to the latter,
being the law of the later enactment.
·
The later law repeals an earlier one because it
is the later legislative will.
·
Presumption: the lawmakers knew the older law
and intended to change it.
·
In enacting the older law, the legislators could
not have known the newer one and could not have intended to change what they
did not know.
·
CC: laws are repealed only by subsequent ones,
not the other way around.
David v. COMELEC
·
Sec. 1 of RA 6679 provides that the term of
barangay officials who were to be elected on the second Monday of May 1994 is 5
years
·
The later act RA 7160 Sec 43 (c) states that the
term of office of barangay officials who were to be elected also on the 2nd
Monday of May 1994 is 3 years.
·
There being a clear inconsistency between the two
laws, the later law fixing the term barangay officials at 3 years shall
prevail.
General law does not
repeal special law, generally
A general law on a subject does not operate to repeal a
prior special law on the same subject, unless it clearly appears that the
legislature has intended by the later general act to modify or repeal the
earlier special law.
Sto. Domingo v. De
los Angeles
The court invariably ruled that the special law is not
impliedly repealed and constitutes an exception to the general law whenever the
legislature failed to indicate in unmistakable terms its intent to repeal or
modify the prior special act.
NAPOCOR v. Arca
ISSUE: WoN Sec. 2
of Com. Act 120 creating the NAPOCOR, a government-owned corporation, and
empowering it “to sell electric power and to fix the rates and provide for the
collection of the charges for any services rendered: Provided, the rates of
charges shall not be subject to revision by the Public Service Act has been
repealed by RA 2677 amending the Public Service Act and granting the Public
Service Commission the jurisdiction to fix the rate of charges of public
utilities owned or operated by the government or government-owned corporations.
Held: a special law, like Com. Act
120, providing for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a
subsequent statute, general in its terms, like RA 2677, although the general
statute are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law, in
the absence of a clear intent to repeal.
·
There appears no such legislative intent to
repeal or abrogate the provisions of the earlier law.
·
The explanatory note to House Bill 4030 the
later became RA 2677, it was explicit that the jurisdiction conferred upon the
Republic Service Commission over the public utilities operated by
government-owned or controlled corporations is to be confined to the fixing of
rates of such public services
·
The harnessing and then distribution and sale of
electric power to the consuming public, the contingency intended to be met by
the legal provision under consideration would not exist.
·
The authority of the Public Service Commission
under RA 2677 over the fixing of rate of charges of public utilities owned or
operated by GOCC’s can only be exercised where the charter of the government
corporation concerned does not contain any provision to the contrary.
Philippine Railway
Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue
FACTS: PRC was
granted a legislative franchise to operate a railway line pursuant to Act No.
1497 Sec. 13 which read: “In consideration of the premises and of the operation
of this concession or franchise, there shall be paid by the grantee to the
Philippine Government, annually, xxx an amount equal to one-half of one per
centum of the gross earnings of the grantee xxx.”
Sec 259 of Internal Revenue Code, as amended by RA 39,
provides that “there shall be collected in respect to all existing and future
franchises, upon the gross earnings or receipts from the business covered by
the law granting a franchise tax of 5% of such taxes, charges, and percentages
as are specified in the special charters of the corporation upon whom suc
franchises are conferred, whichever is higher, unless the provisions hereof
preclude the imposition of a higher tax xxx.
Issue: WoN Section 259 of the Tax
Code has repealed Section 13 of Act 1497, stand upon a different footing from
general laws.
RULING: Once
granted, a charter becomes a private contract and cannot be altered nor amended
except by consent of all concerned, unless the right to alter or repeal is
expressly reserved.
Reason: the legislature, in passing a special charter, has
its attention directed to the special facts and circumstances in the particular
case in granting a special charter, for it will not be considered that the
legislature, by adopting a general law containing the provisions repugnant to
the provisions of the charter, and without any mention of its intention to
amend or modify the charter, intended to amend, repeal or modify the special
act. The purpose of respecting the tax rates incorporated in the charters, as
shown by the clause.
LLDA v. CA
FACTS: The LLDA
statute specifically provides that the LLDA shall have exclusive jurisdiction
to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any projects in or affecting
the said region, including the operation of fish pens.
RA 7160 the LGC of 1991 grants the municipalities the
exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters.
Issue: which agency of the
government, LLDA or the towns and municipalities compromising the region should
exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the
issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned.
HELD: two laws
should be harmonized, and that the LLA statute, being a special law, must be
taken as an exception to RA 7160 a general law,
Garcia v. Pascual
Clerks of courts municipal courts shall be appointed by the
municipal judge at the expense of the municipality and where a later law was
enacted providing that employees whose salaries are paid out of the municipal
funds shall be appointed by the municipal mayor, the later law cannot be said
to have repealed the prior law as to vest in the municipal mayor the power to
appoint municipal cleck of court, as the subsequent law should be construed to
comprehend only subordinate officials of the municipality and not those of the
judiciary.
Gordon v. CA
·
A city charter giving real estate owner a period
of one year within which to redeem a property sold by the city for nonpayment
of realty tax from the date of such auction sale, being a special law, prevails
over a general law granting landowners a period of two years to make the
redemption.
Sto. Domingo v. Delos
Angeles
·
The Civil Service law on the procedure for the
suspension or removal of civil service employees does not apply with respect to
the suspension or removal of members of the local police force.
Valera v. Tuason
·
A subsequent general law on a subject has
repealed or amended a prior special act on the same subject by implication is a
question of legislative intent.
·
Intent to repeal may be shown in the act itself
the explanatory note to the bill before its passage into law, the discussions
on the floor of the legislature,
·
Intent to repeal the earlier special law where
the later general act provides that all laws or parts thereof which are
inconsistent therewith are repealed or modified accordingly
·
If the intention to repeal the special law is clear,
then the rule that the special law will be considered as an exception to the
general law does not apply; what applies is the rule that the special law is
deemed impliedly repealed.
·
A general law cannot be construed to have
repealed a special law by mere implication admits of exception.
City Government of
San Pablo v. Reyes
FACTS: Sec. 1 PD
551 provides that any provision of law or local ordinance to the contrary, the
franchise tax payable by all grantees of franchise to generate, distribute, and
sell electric current for light, heat, and power shall be 25 of their gross
receipts.
Sec. 137 of the LGC states: Notwithstanding any exemption
granted by any law or other special law, the province may impose a tax on
business enjoying a franchise at a rate not exceeding 50% of 1% of the gross
annul receipts.
RULING: the
phrase is all-encompassing and clear that the legislature intended to withdraw
all tax exemptions enjoyed by franchise holders and this intent is made more
manifest by Sec. 193 of the Code, when it provides that unless otherwise
provided in this code tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently
enjoyed by all persons, except local water districts, cooperatives, and
non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are withdrawn
upon the effectivity of the Code.
Gaerlan v. Catubig
Issue: WoN Sec. 12 of RA 170 as
amended, the City Charter of Dagupan City, which fixed the minimum age
qualification for members of the city council at 23 years has been repealed by
Sec.6 of RA 2259
RULING: there was
an implied repeal of Sec. 12 of the charter of Dagupan City because the
legislative intent to repeal the charter provision is clear from the fact that
Dagupan City, unlike some cities, is not one of those cities expressly excluded
by the law from its operation and from the circumstance that it provides that
all acts or parts thereof which are inconsistent therewith are repealed. The last statute is so broad in its terms and
so clear and explicit in its words so as to show that it was intended to cover
the whole subject and therefore to displace the prior statute.
Bagatsing v. Ramirez
·
A charter of a city, which is a special law, may
be impliedly modified or superseded by a later statute, and where a statute is
controlling, it must be read into the charter, notwithstanding any of its
particular provisions.
·
A subsequent general law similarly applicable to
all cities prevails over any conflicting charter provision, for the reason that
a charter must not be inconsistent with the general laws and public policy of
the state.
·
Statute remains supreme in all matters not
purely local.
·
A charter must yield to the constitution and
general laws of the state.
Philippine
International Trading Corp v. CoA
FACTS: CoA
contended that the PITC charter had been impliedly repealed by the Sec. 16 RA
6758
RULING: that
there was implied repeal, the legislative intent to do so being manifest. PITC should now be considered as covered by
laws prescribing a compensation and position classification system in the
government including RA 6758.
Ramos v. Municipality
of Daet
·
BP 337 known as the LGC was repealed by RA 7160
known as LGC of 1991, which took effect on January 1, 1992.
·
Sec. 5 (d) of the new code provides that rights
and obligations existing on the date of the effectivity of the new code and
arising out of contracts or any other source of prestation involving a local
government unit shall be governed by the original terms and conditions of said
contracts or the law in force at the time such rights were vested.
Buyco v. PNB
Where a statute gives holders of backpay certificates the
right to use said certificates to pay their obligations to government financial
institutions, the repeal of the law disallowing such payment will not deprive
holders thereof whose rights become vested under the old law of the right to
use the certificates to pay their obligations to such financial institutions.
Un Pak Leung v.
Nigorra
A statute gives an appellant the right to appeal from an
adverse decision, the repeal of such statute after an appellant has already
perfected his appeal will not destroy his right to prosecute the appeal not
deprive the appellate court of the authority to decide the appealed case.
Republic v. Migrino
Issue: WoN prosecution for
unexplained wealth under RA 1379 has already prescribed.
RULING: “in his pleadings, private respondent contends that he may
no longer be prosecuted because of the prescription. It must be pointed out that Sec. 2 RA 1379
should be deemed amended or repealed by Art. XI, Sec. 15 of the 1987
Constitution.
People v. Almuete
Where the reenactment of the repealed law is not
simultaneous such that the continuity of the obligation and the sanction for
its violation form the repealed law to the reenacted law is broken, the repeal
carries with it the deprivation of the court of its authority to try, convict,
and sentence the person charged with violation of the old law to its repeal.
