What is a repeal?
exemption of penal laws, it is holds all the more true
It is the abrogation of annulling of a previously existing
law by enactment of a subsequent statute which declares
that the former law shall be revoked and abrogated (an
express repeal) or which contains provisions so contrary
or irreconciliable with those of the earlier law that only
one of the two statutes can stand in force (an implied
repeal). (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., p. 1463; cited in
Dean JJ Laurel's book on Statutory Construction)
What is that in English?
A repeal simply means we're not following the old law
anymore because of the new one.
What is the difference between a repeal and an
amendment?
Repeal means complete abrogation or abandonment of
the law while amendment is merely a modification of it,
leaving some parts intact.
What about a repeal and a suspension?
Repeal is permanent while suspension is merely
temporary.
What is the rule on repeals in the Philippines?
According to Article 7 (1) of the Civil Code:
Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and their
violation and non-observance shall not be excused by
disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.
Can you give an example?
Well, the law against jaywalking can only be repealed by
a law to the contrary (a law allowing anyone to cross any
point of the road). Whether people don't follow this rule or
not anymore does not repeal this law.
What are the kinds of repeal?
There are two flavors:
1. Express
2. Implied
What is an express repeal?
A repeal is express when it literally and categorically
states so.
For example:
This Proclamation 1021 expressly repeals Proclamation
1017.
What is an implied repeal?
A repeal is implied, without saying it is a repealling law,
when the second law is so contrary to the first one that it
cannot be reconciled.
For example:
First law: One plus one shall be two.
Second Law: One plus one shall be three.
(If the second law does not say, "This law implies the first
law," then it repeals that law impliedly.
What is the presumption as regards implied repeals?
The Philippine legal system frowns upon implied repeals.
Hence, there is a presumption here against it. With the
because the lawmakers would have expressly repealed
outright such law if they really wanted it repealed.
Are repeals retroactive?
As a general rule, a repeal is not retroactive except in
penal laws, if it is in favor of the accused.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 9346 June 24, 2006
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH
PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippine Congress Assembled:
SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is
hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight
Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177),
otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal
Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven
Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659),
otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other
laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they
impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or
amended accordingly.
AN ACT IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY ON
CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, REPEALING FOR THE
PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9346, ENTITLED 'AN
ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH
PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES' AND AMENDING ACT
NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE 'REVISED PENAL CODE,' AND OTHER SPECIAL
PENAL LAWS
Mother Bill Status: HB04727
Status: Substituted by HB04727
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 103982. December 11, 1992.]
ANTONIO A.
MECANO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIO
N ON AUDIT, respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; STATUTES; KINDS
OF REPEALS. — The question of whether a particular
law has been repealed or not by a subsequent law is a
matter of legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly
repeal a law by incorporating therein a repealing provision
which expressly and specifically cites the particular law or
laws, and portions thereof, that are intended to be
repealed. A declaration in a statute, usually in its
repealing clause, that a particular and specific law,
identified by its number or title, is repealed is an express
repeal; all others are implied repeals.
2. ID.; ID.; REPEALS BY IMPLICATION; NECESSITY OF
A CLEAR INDICATION OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO
REPEAL. — 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, since the new statute may merely be cumulative or a
continuation of the old one. What is necessary is a
manifest indication of legislative purpose to repeal.
Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that
where a statute of later date clearly reveals an intention
on the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the
subject, that intention must be given effect. Hence, before
there can be a repeal, there must be a clear showing on
the part of the lawmaker that the intent in enacting the
new law was to abrogate the old one. The intention to
repeal must be clear and manifest; otherwise, at least, as
a general rule, the later act is to be construed as a
continuation of, and not a substitute for, the first act and
will continue so far as the two acts are the same from the
time of the first enactment.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CATEGORIES THEREOF. — There are
two categories of repeal by implication. The first is where
provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are
in an irreconcilable conflict, The later act to the extent of
the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier
one. The second is if the later act covers the whole
subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a
substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. Implied
repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when
the 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 is, that one law cannot be
enforced without nullifying the other. The second category
of repeal — the enactment of a statute revising or
codifying the former laws on the whole subject matter.
This is only possible if this revised statute or code was
intended to cover the whole subject to be a complete and
perfect system in itself. It is the rule that a subsequent
statute 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.
Furthermore, before there can be an implied repeal under
this category, it must be the clear intent of the legislature
that the later act be the substitute to the prior act.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT IMPLIED REPEAL OF SECTION
699 OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987; CASE AT BAR. —
Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new
Code does not cover nor attempt to cover the entire
subject matter of the old Code. There are several matters
treated in the old Code which are not found in the new
Code, such as the provisions on notaries public, the leave
law, the public bonding law, military reservations, claims
for sickness benefits under Section 699, and still others.
Moreover, the COA failed to demonstrate that the
provisions of the two Codes on the matter of the subject
claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. In fact, there can be
no such conflict because the provision on sickness
benefits of the nature being claimed by petitioner has not
been restated in the Administrative Code of 1987.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF LAWS;
WEIGHT OF OPINIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE ON STATUTES IN PARI MATERIA; CASE AT
BAR. — According to Opinion No. 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 the RAC decades of years ago. The COA
challenges the weight that this opinion carries in the
determination of this controversy inasmuch as the body
which had been entrusted with the implementation of this
particular provision has already rendered its decision. The
COA relied on the rule in administrative law enunciated in
the case of Sison vs. Pangramuyen that in the absence of
palpable error or grave abuse of discretion, the Court
would be loathe to substitute its own judgment for that of
the administrative agency entrusted with the enforcement
and implementation of the law. This will not hold water.
This principle is subject to limitations. Administrative
decisions may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing
that the decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition or
mistake. It has been held that Opinions of the Secretary
and Undersecretary of Justice are material in the
construction of statutes in pari materia.
6. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; REPEALS BY
IMPLICATION NOT FAVORED. — Lastly, it is a well-
settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of
statutes by implication are not favored. The presumption
is against 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. This Court, in a case, explains the principle in
detail as follows: "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 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 from the language used, unless the later act
fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or unless
the reason for the earlier act is beyond peradventure
renewed. Hence, 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."
7. LABOR CODE; ARTICLE 173 THEREOF;
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION; PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION THEREUNDER NOT A BAR TO
RECOVERY OF BENEFITS UNDER SEC. 699 OF THE
REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. — Regarding
respondent's contention that recovery under this subject
section shall bar the recovery of benefits under the
Employees' Compensation Program, the same cannot be
upheld. The second sentence of Article 173, Chapter II,
Title II (dealing on Employees' Compensation and State
Insurance Fund), Book IV of the Labor Code, as
amended by P.D. 1921, expressly provides that "the
payment of compensation under this Title shall not bar
the recovery of benefits as provided for in Section 669 of
the Revised Administrative Code . . . whose benefits are
administered by the system (meaning SSS or GSIS) or by
other agencies of the government."
New Law New Remedy
4) "It is an established principle of statutory
interpretation that "a statute prescribing a new
remedy for an existing right should never be
construed to abolish a pre-existing remedy in
the absence of express words or necessary
implication. Further, " 'when a statute gives a
new remedy, and contains no negative, express
or implied, of the old remedy, the new one
provided by it is cumulative, and the party may
elect between the two.'
a. "When testing the constitutional validity of
statutes, courts shall presume the statute to be
valid." Consequently, the burden to show the
constitutional defect is on the challenger."Every
act of the legislature is presumed to be
constitutional, and the Constitution is to be
given a liberal construction so as to sustain the
enactment in question, if practicable." "When
the constitutionality of an act is challenged, a
heavy burden of proof is thrust upon the party
making the challenge. All laws are presumed to
be constitutional and this presumption is one of
the strongest known to the law.

REPEALS OF STATUTE MAY BE

EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
Express repeal – b. "Another rule of statutory construction
is the abrogation or annulling of a requires the presumption that, in enacting
previously existingl a w by the statutes, the CONGRESS has full knowledge of
enactment of a subsequent statute existing law and interpretations thereof .
w h i c h d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e former law shall Although the repeal of statutes by implication is
be revoked and abrogated. not favored, if two statutes are in pari materia,
Implied repeal then to the extent that their provisions are
– when a later statute contains provisions so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant, the
contrary latter enactment repeals or amends the earlier
toi r r e c o n c i l a b l e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e enacted statute.
earlier law that only one of the t
w o statutes can stand in force. T h e r e p e a l o f
a penal law deprives the court of
j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p u n i s h persons charged
with a violation of the old penal law prior to its
repeal.
Only a law can repeal a law
. The intention to repeal must be clear and
manifest, otherwise, at least,as a general
rule, the later act is to be construed as a
continuation of,and not a substitute for, the
first act. Two (2) categories of repeal by
implication:1.Where provision in the two
acts on the same subject matter are in
anirreconcilable conflict; 2.If
the later act covers the whole
subject of the
e a r l i e r o n e a n d i s clearly intended as a
substitute – to be a complete and perfect
systemin itself.

1. Presumption of Correctness