CHAPTER 10 Repeal by Implication In statutory construction, repeal by implication is not favoured.

It is a rule in statutory construction that in case of doubt as to whether a later statute has repealed a prior law on the same subject, doubt should be resolved against implied repeal. The reason behind this is because the legislature is presumed to have full knowledge of all existing statutes on the same subject. Between two laws, the later one prevails When two laws are irreconcilable or are inconsistent with each other, it is a rule of statutory construction that the later law prevails since it is the latest expression of the legislative will. The maxim for this rule is: leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant (later statute repeals prior ones which are repugnant thereto) General laws and special laws The general rule is: general laws do not repeal special laws on the same subject, except when it clearly appears that the legislature has intended by the later general act to modify the earlier special law. The principle is expressed in the maxim, generalia specialibus non derogant ( a general law does not nullify a special law) The rationale for the rule is that special laws are exceptions. When the legislature enacts a special law, it has considered and made provisions for all the circumstances of the particular case, Special laws are specific which is why the general law yields to it in cases of repugnancy. Where the special law is later, it will be regarded as a qualification of the general one; where the general law is later, the special law will be construed as an exception to its terms. When a later special law is inconsistent with a prior general law on the same subject, a partial repeal of the general law will be implied. There is always a partial repeal where the later act is a special law. However, there is intent to repeal the earlier special law where the later general act provides a repealing clause. If the intention is clear, special law is deemed impliedly repealed. In Gaerlan v. Catubig, the issue is whether Sec. 12 of RA No. 170 (City Charter of Dagupan City), which fixed the minimum age of qualification for members of the city council of Dagupan at twenty-three years, has been repealed by Sec. 6 of RA No. 2259 (An Act making elective elective the offices of mayor, vice mayor, and councillors in chartered cities) which fixed the age qualification for such at twenty-five years. The court ruled that there was implied repeal of Sec. 12 of RA No. 170 because of the clear legislative intent from the fact that Dagupan City is not one of those cities expressly excluded by law from its operation and from the circumstance that it provides that all acts or parts thereof which are inconsistent therewith are repealed.