CHAPTER 20

AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND REPEAL

Article 7 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that

"Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and their violation or non-
observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the
contrary." As such, only a law can repeal another law.!

Repeals may be express or implied. An express repeal is one

wherein a statute declares, usually in its repealing clause, that a
particular and specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed.
An implied repeal, on the other hand, transpires when there is a
substantial conflict between the new and prior laws. In the absence of
an
express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a
prior law unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in
the terms of the new and the old laws.2

A law that has been expressly repealed ceases to exist and

becomes
inoperative from the moment the repealing law becomes
effective.3

Repeals by implication are not favored because laws are

presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws
cxisting pertaining to the subject. An implied repeal is predicated upon
tne condition that a substantial conflict or repugnancy is found between
e w and prior laws. A subsequent law cannot b e construed as

lanca v. Court of Ppeals, G.R. No. December 1994.

vier v.Commission on Elections, G.R.106685, 2,
No. 215847, January 12,
Javier V.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 215847, January 12, 2010.
E
2Ulb.
 452 | LEGAL METHOD EssENTIALS 3.0

repealing a prior law unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and

repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws.4

By the revision or codification of laws, 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deemed repealed, unless the statute or code provides otherwise.5
For
example, the law on barangay conciliation created by Presidential
Decree No. 1508 was deemed repealed by codification by the Local
Government Code of 1991.

In Government Service Insurance

System v.
Commission on
Audit,7 the Supreme Court said that, unless the
intention to revoke is
clear and manifest, the
abrogation or repeal of a law cannot be
assumed. In that case, the Court
explained that the
Republic Act No. 8291 is not an express repealingrepealing
clause in
clause because it
fails to identify or
designate the statutes that are intended to be
repealed. It is clause which predicated the intended
a

condition that substantial conflict must be found in

a
repeal upon the
prior laws. The failure to add a specific existing and
Act No. 8291 indicates that repealing clause in Republic
the intent was not to
law, unless an irreconcilable repeal any existing
the terms of the inconsistency and
repugnancy exists in
new and old laws.
In the same
case, the Court also refused
argument that there
toaccommodate the
settled rule that to
was
repeal by implication. It said that it is a well-
bring about an
absolutely incompatible and clearlyimplied repeal, the two laws must be
repugnant that the later law cannot

Advocates for Truth in

January 15, 2013. Lending, Inc. v.
Bangko Sentral Monetary Board, G.R. No.
s

Manlangit Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

v.
14
Zzamora v. Heirs of 158014, August 28, 2007.
Republic Act No. 9337 lzquierdo,
on 1
G.R. No. 146195,
November 18, 2004. The endettment
"merely codified into law November 2005 which elevated aw

law. Such administrative regulations that provisions or

codification effect
Tegulations were not does not mean that prior to thealready
had the
to inistrative
Revenue, G.R. No. enforceable. See Microsoft Philippines, Inc. codification tne a
180173, April 6, 2011.
G.R. No. 162372, October v.
Comna
19, 2011.
Kemman Enterprises,
197676, February Inc. v.
4, 2014.
Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estale
 AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND REPEAL |453

without nullifying the prior law. Repeal by implication is not

exist

fauored and the intention of the legislature to repeal must by clear. As

was held in Mecano v. Commission on Audit,10 the repeal of laws must be
hased on the clear intent of the legislature and that repeals by
are not favored1
implication
In that case, Antonio Mecano, Director II of the National
Bureau of Investigation, was claiming reimbursement for his hospital
expenses under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.
However, his claim was denied by the Commission on Audit reasoning
that Section 699 has been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987,
the latter not reenacting the contents of the said provision.

The Supreme Court categorized the repealing provision in the

Administrative Code of 1987 as an implied repeal. It explained that
there are two kinds of repeal by implication: (1) where provisions in the
two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable conflict; and
(2) where the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is
clearly intended as substitute. The Court compared the two Codes and
found that the new one does not cover the entire subject matter of the
old Code. There was also no proof that the provisions of the two Codes
on the subject matter of claims are in irreconcilable conflict.

The same rule was followed in Berces v. Guingona.12 In that

case, Mayor Naomi Corral of Tiwi Albay was convicted by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan for abuse of authority and dishonesty.
Her appeal before the Office of the President was granted, and the
execution of the Sanggunian's decision was stayed in acordance
with Section 6 of Administrative Order No. 18. Private complainant
Achilles Berces, Sr. filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme
Court positing that Administrative Order No. 18 has been repealed

Lamora v. Heirs of Izquierdo, G.R. No. 146195, November 18, 2004. See also Martinez v.

Villanueva, G.R. No. 169196, July 6, 2011.

G.R. No. 103982,
December 11, 1992.
water law. general in terms and not expressly repealing or amending a prior special law
of
such earlier statute. Commissioner
Internal Dlarily aftect the special provisions of
K e v e n u e v. Philippine Airlines Lines, Inc., G.R. Nos. 212536-37, August 2/, 401
"G.R. No.
112099, February 21, 1995.
 METHOD ESSENTIALS
3.0
454 | LEGAL

by Republic Act No. 7160, the latter providing that an appeal shaln
not prevent a decision from becoming final and executor.

The Supreme Court held that Republic Act No. 7160 did not
expressly repeal Administrative Order No. 18. It pointed out that
the
failure of the repealing clause of Republic Act No. 7160 to identify the
executive orders intended to be repealed cannot result to the repeal of
Administrative Order No. 18, express or implied. The Court also notod
that the two laws are not irreconcilable and may in fact be taken
together. It is the construction of the Court that the reviewing authoritv
has the discretion whether or not to stay the execution of a decision.

Another illustrative case is Erectors Inc. v. National Labor

Relations Commission3 where the Court ruled that 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. The Court failed to perceive in the language of
Executive Order No. 797 an interntion to give it retroactive effect when
Florencio Burgos, an overseas Filipino worker, filed for underpayment
of wages and non-payment of overtime pay and contractual bonus
Inc. Initially, the Labor Arbiter rendered
against his employer, Erectors,
a favorable decision for Burgos. However, Erectors disputed the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter over the controversy through a special
civil action for certiorari, positing that under Executive Order No. 797, it
is the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration which is vested
with the original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving
employer-employee relations arising out of contracts involving Filipino
workers for overseas employment.
An illustration of a clear repeal can be found in the case of Cy

GOvernment of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes.14 In that case, MERALLD

was

under its legislative franchise, was granted tax exemption, but

neld liable for the p a y m e n t of a tax " e q u a l to two percent or lts gross
6**

whatever nature
receipts in lieu of all taxes and assessme of
However
e."
by any national or local authority on savings or
income City
upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code, u

13
G.R. No. 104215,
May 8, 1996.
4G.R. No. 127708, March 25, 1999.
 AMENDMENT, REVIsION, CODIFICATION AND
REPEAL |455

Caenment of San Pablo, Laguna imposed franchise tax at a rate of

wGty Dercent of one percent of the gross annual receipts." MERALCo
paid such taxes under protest but filed a petition for certiorari arguing
hat the Local Government Code did not expressly or impliedly repeal
the tax exemption/incentive that it enjoyed under its charter.
The Court upheld the position of the
City Government. It
ruled that Sections 137 and 193 of the Local Government
Code
effectively withdrew the exemption granted to MERALCO. The
language in Sections 137 and 193 is explicit, all-encompassing and
clear; it manifests the
legislative purpose of categorical withdrawal
of the exemptions not enumerated. The
Court concluded that under
the Local Government
Code, local government units
may now
impose local taxes within its territorial
jurisdiction, and within the
rate limits
provided for in the Code.
In addition,
the Court ruled in
that Republic Act No. 3019 was
Juan v. People of the Philippines1s
amended by Batas Pambansa
Rogelio Juan, Pedro De Jesus, Delfin Carreon and Blg.
In that case, 195.

Galguerra were criminally charged for violation of Section 261 Antonio

Omnibus Election Code due to their (o) of the
for election alleged use of barangay property
campaign purposes and other partisan political activities
during their incumbency as
barangay officials. The trial court
preventively suspended them for service for
sixty days. The accused, in
a
petition for review, assailed the
Suspension. They argued that they cannot propriety of the preventive
be
under
Republic Act No.
preventively suspended
3019 or the Anti-Graft and
Act since
the offense for which Corrupt Practices
Omnibus Election Code. they were
charged was under the
The
public officers
Supreme Court ruled that before the
amendment, only
charged with violation of
Republic Act No. 3019 or those
COvered by the Revised Penal
Code provision on bribery may be
preventively suspended. Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, when it amended
Nepublic Act No. 3019,
Under the amendmen expanded the preventive suspension provision.
ent, public officers may likewise be suspended if

G.R. No. 132378,

January 18, 2000.
 EssENTIALS 3.0
456 | LEGAL METHOD

they are charged with offenses under Title 7, Book II of the ised
Penal Code, or with any other form of fraud involving government
funds or property. The Court categorized the charges against the
accused as constituent of fraud involving government funds or
property. While the accused had been charged under the Omnibus
Election Code, the Code must be read with complementing law. The
Court posited that charges are not uni-dimensional, hence, are covered
by Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019. It upheld the validity of the
preventive suspension.

REPEALING CLAUSES

Repealing clauses are usually straightforward statements

reproduced in countless statutes. A general repealing clause reads like this:

SECTION 3. Repealing Clause.- All laws, decrees,

orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof
inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act are
hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.16

Other laws, such as the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008,

specify the laws and administrative issuances that are repealed.
ART. 143. Repealing Clause. - Except as expressly

provided by this Code, Presidential Decree No. 175

and all other laws, or parts thereof, inconsistent with
any provision of this Code shall be deemed repealed:
Provided, That the provisions of Sections 3, 5, and 7 of
Presidential Decree No. 1645, Executive Order No.
623, series of 2007, Revenue Regulation No. 20-2001,
and all laws, decrees, executive orders, implementing
rules and regulations, BIR circulars, memorandum
orders, letters of instruction, local government
ordinances, or parts thereof inconsistent with any of

1 Republic Act No. 10150 (2011)

1 Republic Act No. 9520 (2009).
 AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND REPEAL |4557

the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed,

amended or modified accordingly.
Another example, the "Graphic Helath Warnings Law,"k

provides
SEC. 20. Repealing Clause. - Section 13 on Warning on

Cigarette Packages of Republic Act No. 9211, DODH

Administrative Order No. 2010-0013 and BIR
Revenue Regulations No. 3-2006, Sections 18(e) and
23(a)(1)(b) are hereby repealed. All other laws,
decrees, executive orders and other administrative
issuances and parts thereof which are inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act are hereby modified,
superseded or repealed accordingly.
The Environmental Planning Act of 20131 contains the
following repealing clause:
SECTION 42. Repealing Clause. - Presidential Decree

No. 1308 is hereby repealed. All other laws, orders,

rules and regulations or resolutions or parts thereof
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed or amended accordingly.
In the case of this law, however, the title of the act made the
intent to repeal Presidential Decree No. 1308 clear:

AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, REPEALING FOR
THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
NUMBERED ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
AND EIGHT, ENTITLED "LAW REGULATING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROFESSION IN
THE PHILIPPINES", AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

iowever, repeals of existing laws are not always evident in

the
title of the law. Giron v. Commission on Elections,20 involved a challenge

Republic Act No. 10643 (2014).

Republic Act No. 10587 (2013).
 458 | LEGAL METHOD EsSENTIALS 3.0

to theconstitutionality of the repealing clause of the Fair Elections A

The petitioners argued that it violated Section 26 ct21
(1), Article VI of
1987 Constitution, or the "one subject-one title" rule. the
The Sinr.
Court upheld the statute: preme
...we find that the assailed Section 12
(Substitution of
Candidates) and Section 14 (Repealing Clause) are
indeed germane to the subject expressed in the title
of
R.A. 9006: An Act to Enhance the
Holding Free,
of
Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections
through Fair Election Practices. The title was worded
broadly enough to include the measures embodied in
the assailed sections.
Consequently, dismiss the
we
Petition and the
petitions-in-intervention for failure to
establish a clear breach of the Constitution.

In the grant of a franchise, repealing clauses appear different:

SECTION 14. Repealing Clause. - This franchise shall

be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the
Congress of the Philippines when the public interest
so requires and shall not be interpreted as an
exclusive grant of the privileges herein provided for.22

Congress may spell out the impact of laws on other existing

laws to foreclose the possibility of confusion in its implementation. The
Fair Elections Act23 goes far to state the of its
so as impact repealing
clause on other legislation:
SECTION 14. Repealing Clause. Sections 67 and 85
of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg.
881) and Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646
are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the first
proviso in the third paragraph of Section 11 ot
Republic Act No. 8436 is rendered ineffective. All

20
G.R. No. 188179,
21 January 22, 2013.
Republic Act No. 9006 (2001).
2Republic Act No. 7847 (1994).
3
Republic Act No. 9006 (2001).
 AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND REPEAL |459

laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and

regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified
or amended accordingly.

Occasionally, repealing clauses can contain more information.

The Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 197724 actually
contains provisos:

SEC. 3 Repealing Clause. - All laws and any other law

or parts of law specifically inconsistent herewith are

hereby repealed or modified accordingly: Provided,
That the rights under the existing laws, rules and
regulations vested upon or acquired by an employee
who is already in the service as of the effectivity of
this Act shall remain in force and effect: Provided,
further, That subsequent to the effectivity ofthis Act,a
new employee or an employee who has previously
retired or separated and is reemployed in the service
shall be covered by the provisions of this Act.

4Republic Act No. 8291 (1997).