Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters vs Feliciano 13 SCRA 377 Mar.

3, 1965 Facts: Respondent, Chairman and General Manager of the Rice and Corn Administration, herein wrote the President of the Philippines urging the immediate importation of rice. After the approval of the cabinet on the said importation, The President designated Rice and Corn Administration as the government agency authorized to undertake the importation. Considering that said importation is contrary to Republic Act 3452 which prohibits the government from importing rice and that there is no law appropriating funds to finance the same, herein petitioners seek to restrain the approved importation. Respondents anchor the validity of the importation on the provisions of Republic Act 2207 which, in their opinion, still stand. Issue: Whether or not R.A. 2207 is repealed by R.A. 3452? Ruling: While the two laws are geared towards the same ultimate objective, their methods of approach are different; one is by a total ban of rice importation and the other by a partial ban, the same being applicable only to the government during normal period. In short, Republic Act 3452 only authorizes importation during normal times, but when there is a shortage in the local supply of such gravity as to constitute a national emergency, we have to turn to Republic Act 2207. These two laws therefore, are not inconsistent and so implied repeal does not ensue. Conversely, in order to effect a repeal by implication, the latter statute must be irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant to the prior existing law. The old and the new laws must be absolutely incompatible. A mere difference in the terms and provisions of the statutes is not sufficient to create a repugnancy between them. There must be such a positive repugnancy between the provisions of the old and the new statutes that they cannot be made to reconcile and stand together.