CHAPTER

10
REVISION
and
CODIFICATION

ce B. Alcomendras, CPA, REB, REA

Definition of Terms
Amendment
-change

or
modification
by addition,
deletion, or
alteration, of a
statute which
survives in its
amended form

Repeal
-renders
another statute
or provision as
inoperative;
revokes
another statute
or provision

PURPOSE
To restate the
existing laws into
one statute,
simplify
complicated
provisions,
and make the laws
on the subject easily
found.

10.12 Construction to harmonize

different provisions
PRESUMPTION:
Author has maintained a consistent

philosophy or position
The different provisions of a revised statute or
code should be read and construed together

RULE:
A code enacted as a single,
comprehensive statute, and is to be
considered as such and not as a
series of disconnected articles or
provisions

Where
there
is
an
irreconcilable
conflict
between parts of a revised
statute or 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 the LATER in
physical position, being the
latest
expression
of
legislative will , will prevail.

Lichauco & Co. v. Apostol

G.R. No. L-19628

FACTS:
Petitioner, a corporation duly
organized under the Phil. laws,
engaged for several years in the
business of importing carabao and
other draft animals, and was desirous
of importing, from Pnom-Pehn, a
shipment of draft cattle and bovine
cattle for the manufacture of serum.
However,
respondent
Director
of
Agriculture refused to admit said
cattle except upon condition that
drafts
be
immunized.
Petitioner

On the other hand, relying upon

section 1770 of the Admin. Code,
Admin. Order No. 21 of the Bureau of
Agriculture, and Dept. Order No. 6 of
the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural
Resources,
respondent

maintained
its decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not section 1770 (and other
similar acts) has been repealed by
implication by Act 3052 and hence
cannot be applied with the case at bar?

 HELD: We are of the opinion that the contention of the

petitioner is UNTENABLE, for the reason that section

1762, as amended, is obviously of a general nature,
while section 1770 deals with a particular contingency
not made the subject of legislation in section 1762.
Section 1770 is therefore not to be considered as
inconsistent with section 1762, as amended; on the
other hand, it must be treated as a special qualification
of section 1762.
Of course the two provisions are different, in the sense
that if section 1762, as amended, is considered alone,
the cattle which the petitioner wishes to bring in can be
imported without restriction, while if section 1770 is still
in force the cattle, under the conditions stated in the
petition, can be brought in only upon compliance with
the requirements of Administrative Order No. 21.
But this difference between the practical effect of the
two provisions does not make then inconsistent in the
sense that the earlier provision (sec. 1770) should be

That Sec. 1770 is special, in the sense of dealing

with a special contingency not dealt with in section

1762, is readily apparent upon comparing the two
provisions.
Thus, we find that while section 1762 relates
generally to the subject of the bringing of animals
into the Island at any time and from any place,
section 1770 confers on the Dept. Head a special
power to deal with the situation which arises when a
dangerous communicable disease prevails in some
defined foreign country, and the provision is
intended to operate only so long as that situation
continues.
Sec. 1770 is the backbone of the power to enforce
animal quarantine in these Islands in the special
emergency therein contemplated; and if that
section should be obliterated, the administrative

10.13 What is omitted is deemed

repealed
All parts and provisions of the old laws that

are omitted in the revised statute or code are

deemed repealed, unless the statute or code
provides otherwise, expressly or impliedly
Reason: A revision or codification is, by its
very nature and purpose, intended to be a
complete enactment on the subject and an
expression of the whole law thereon, which
thereby indicates an intent on the part of the
legislature to abrogate those provisions of
the old laws that are not reproduced in the
revised statute or code.

 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 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
provision of the prior act that are omitted
from the revised act are deemed repealed.
It must be the clear intent of the
legislature that the later act be the
substitute to the prior act before there can

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
govt. 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 bec. 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

1. Provisions in the two acts on the same subject
matter that are in irreconcilable conflict.
The later act to the extent of the conflict
constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier.
2. 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.

10.14 Change in phraseology

It is a well settled rule that in the revision or
codification of statutes, neither an alteration in
phraseology nor the omission or addition of words in
the later statute shall be held necessarily to alter
the construction of the former acts.
Very frequently, words which do not materially
affect the sense will be omitted from the statute as
incorporated in the revised statute or code, or that
some general idea will be expressed in brief cases.
No design of altering the law itself could rightly be
predicated upon such modification of the language.

 If there has been a material

change or omission, which clearly

indicates an intent to depart from
the previous construction of the old
laws, then such construction as will
effectuate such intent will be
adopted.

10.15 Continuation of existing

laws
A codification should be construed as a

continuation of the existing statutes.

The presumption obtains that the codifiers
did not intend to change the law as it
formerly existed.
The rearrangement of sections or parts of
a statute, or the placing of portions of what
formerly was single section in separate
sections, does not operate to change the
operation, effect or meaning of the statute,
unless the changes are of such nature as
to manifest clearly and unmistakably a

Daghang
Salamat sa
Pagpaminaw
mga umaabot
nga

LAWYERS!