STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRE-FINALS NOTES
VIII. AMENDMENTS First, that Section 33 of P.D 1146 be expressly and categorically
Repeal, defined
- Recalling, revoking or abrogation of a statute by another
Repeal, who has authority
 The legislature, subject to constitutional limitations
Who has authority, ofcourse, only Congress.
Kani, what is the basis for legislative power? It is this:
Section 1, Article VI, The Legislative Department, 1987
Constitution
 “The legislative power shall be divested in the Congress of
the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people
by the provision on initiative and referendum.”
But it has constitutional llimitations.
Repeal, constitutional limitations
 Except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision
on initiative and referendum. (In other words, diba we said
that only congress has the power to legislate. Now we’re
saying here except those reserved to the people through
initiative and referendum.That is an exception.)
 Non-delegability of legislative power (In other words, since
the power to legislate was delegated by the Constitution to
Congress. Supposedly Congress cannot delegate that power,
however it is subject to exceptions. Remember the Tariff
powers of the President, emergency powers of the President.
The President can actually legislate during those times. And
also, the Local Government Units can actually legislate
locally. Adminstrative Bodies, diba remember? The doctrine
of subordinate legislation. Okay?)
 Prohibition against enactment of irrepealable laws (Okay?
But take note that non-delegability of legislative power and
prohibition against enactment of irrepealable laws, we call
them “Constitutional limitations.” However, the question is
this: If they are called constitutional limitations, can we find
them in the text or language of the constitution? We cannot.
By why do we call them constitutional limitations? Because
they are implied substantive limitations. Again, doctrine of
inferences and implication. It’s not there, but it’s supposed to
be there.)
 They are not found in the text of the Constitution because
they are mere corollaries in the nature of implied substantive
limitations. (Okay? implied substantive limitations. Except
ang first limitation, naa man gyud sa consti diba? Klaro naa
gyud. But the two other limitation, you can’t find that in the
texts of the constitution. But by implication, it has to be
there.)
City of Davao vs RTC
Okay, there was a law granting tax exemption to GSIS. But here comes
the LGC of 1991, which says that: “all tax exemptions in favor of
(inaudible) are now withdrawn.” Okay? But then, GSIS says, “ay dili
pwede, because actually the law says you can repeal or you can amend
this law provided you comply with two the conditions.” Diba? And here
are the conditions:
NIGEL ANGELICA GONZAGA
repealed by law. Pwede. Sayon ra nah diba? Just identify the law and it
is express repeal. The first condition could be complied with.
But the Second condition says, that a provision be enacted to substitute
the declared policy of exemption from (inaudible) all taxes as essential
factor for the solvency of the GSIS fund. Okay in other words, there is a
condition precedent before the law can be repealed. Now is this in the
nature of an irrepealable law? Given the fact that it actually allows
repeal provided you comply with the two conditions.
The Supreme Court said even if it allows repeal, it is still in the nature
of an irrepealable law because you set the conditions. And because you
set the conditions, it actually constitute restrained of the power of
congress to legislate, which includes the power to repeal or amend a
law. Okay? So in other words, the bottomline for this case is even if the
law itself allows repeal, but set conditions, it restrains the hand of
congress to legislate. In other words, the Supreme Court is saying “you
cannot predict the will of future legislatures.” That is in the nature of
an irrepealable law, even if by itself it allows to be repealed. Follow
ha?
Facts:
 GSIS refused to pay real property taxes to the local
government unit because of a prior exempting law setting two
conditions for repeal which were not met by the subsequent
law.
Held:
 The conditions set by the prior law place undue restraint on
the plenary power of Congress to amend or repeal laws in
violation of the prohibition against passage of irrepealable
laws.
 The present legislature cannot bind future legislatures to a
particular mode of repeal. It cannot declare in advance the
intent of future legislatures.
Here oh, this unorthodox condition effectively imposes restrictions on
the competency of congress to enact future legislation on the taxability
of GSIS. Here, this places undue restraint on the plenary power of
congress. Plenary, meaning comprehensive. Okay, plenary power of
congress to amend or repeal laws in violation of the prohibition against
the passage of irrepealable laws. Okay? They are prohibited because
they deprive succeeding legislatures of the fundamental best senses
carte blanche in crafting laws. What do you understand by carte
blanche? Full discretional power. Okay? Cart blanche. (inaudible
words) to be sure, there are no irrepealable laws just as there are no
irrepealable constitutions because it says that change is the predicate
of progess and we should not fear change. Very well written noh?
Change is the predicate of progress.
Present legislature cannot bind future legislatures to a particular mode
of repeal. Take note oh, particular mode of repeal. Diba, because it set
two conditions, so murag iyang gi-prescribe. You can change this law
but only this way. That is undue restraint on the power of congress to
legislate. Okay?
Oh City of Davao, here’s the digest. (Gi-present ra ni Atty. Gujilde ang
digest for photograph)
Repeal, kind of
 Total – revokes the statute completely
1
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRE-FINALS NOTES
 Partial – leaves unaffected portions in force (I already
mentioned about partial repeal as being parallel to
amendment. Okay?)
 Express – declaration in repealing clause that a particular and
specific law is sought to be repealed, by identifying the
number or title
 Implied – all other repeals are deemed implied repeals
Again, akong balikon ha? Express repeal if it identifies the specific law
and the specific provision of law. All others are deemed implied repeal.
But next question is, does it have to have a repealing clause? Not
necessarily. Even without the repealing clause, it can be considered
implied repeal if there is irreconcilable inconsistency. Okay?
 Failure to add the repealing clause indicates that there is no
intent to repeal any existing law
 Unless there is irreconcilable inconsistency
 In which case it is deemed an implied repeal
 Even if there is a repealing clause but it fails to identify or
specify the law ought to be repealed, it is still an implied
repeal
 Example: “All laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent
with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.”
(So actually, kani siya nagtinapulan ang congresso. It is
actually a (disclaimer?) on the part of congress. But at the
same time, it did not want to be specific. And it is found upon
or not encourage.)
 The intent is not to repeal any existing law on the matter,
unless there is irreconcilable inconsistency
 Laws are repealed only by the enactment of subsequent laws,
not by violation, non-observance, disuse of customs and
contrary practice (In other words, you cannot say that that
law has been there for the longest time, 15 years, but it was
never enforced due to lack of budget. In other words, that law
is considered useless. So it is considered rescinded or
repealed. Can you do that? You cannot do that because to
repeal is the sole prerogative of congress. You cannot repeal
a law by its relation, non-usage or customary practice.
Okay?)
Repeal by implication, conditions
 There must be sufficient revelation of the intent to repeal,
which must be very clear
Repeal by implication, categories or modes
 Irreconcilable conflict between provisions of two Acts
 Conditions: two statutes cover the same subject matter and
object
 clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other
 that they cannot be harmonized
 both cannot be given effect
 that is, that one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the
other
In other words, you cannot have both if there is irreconcilable
differences. You’ll have to sacrifice one law to make the other alive.
Repeal by implication, categories or modes
 If the subsequent Act covers the whole subject of the prior
Act and is clearly intended as a substitute
 If the same subject matter but different object, the two laws
can stand together, although they refer to the same subject
matter
NIGEL ANGELICA GONZAGA
Illustrative cases:
Agujeltas vs CA, 261 SCRA 17 (1996)
Remember this, Agujetas vs CA. Members of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers ni-proclamar sa losing candidate as the 8th Provincial
Board Member. Dako kaayo nga sala. Laliman ka nga ang pildi maoy
gipadaog, giproclamar, diba? That’s the price for manual elections.
Kay manual man toh, mag-add ka unya usahay masayup tungod sa
kakapuy. So ang No. 9 nahimung No. 8, ang No. 8 nahimung No. 9,
luoy kaayo. Unya once you are proclaimed, even if the proclamation is
so erroneous, it is so hard to overturn that because there is a long
process. Your opponent can actually employ all the delaying tactics in
the world so that if it will be ruled in your favor, humana ang term of
office.
Facts:
 The members of the Provincial Board of Canvassers were
convicted of an election offense under Section 231 of the
Ominibus Election Code (OEC).
 This after they proclaimed the losing candidate as the eighth
elected board member.
Contention of the canvassers:
 The election offense for which they were convicted is
repealed by R.A. 6646 and R.A. 7166 which amended the
OEC by deleting or adding certain provisions.
In other words, they are saying that “that law should take effect
retroactively because it is favorable to us.” Okay? That’s what they are
saying. Atong tanawon nganu man.
Okay, diri sila gi-charge. (Refer below, focus particularly on those
which are highlighted.)
Paragraph 2, Section 231 of the OEC states:
 “The respective board of canvassers shall prepare a certificate
of canvass duly signed and affixed with the imprint of the
thumb of the right hand of each member, supported by a
statement of the votes and received by each candidate in each
polling place and, on the basis thereof, shall proclaim as
elected the candidates who obtained the highest number
of votes cast in the province, city, municipality or barangay.
Failure to comply with this requirements shall constitute
an election offense.” (Kanang akong gi-highlight, mao na
ilang gi-ingon nga under sa new law, wala na nah. So in
other words, kay gi-wagtang naman, gi-repeal ang balaod,
mahug sad nga ang ilang sala mawala.)
 This was modified by Section 28 of R.A. 7166 by removing
the specific manner by which the winning candidates are
proclaimed.
 Thus, it repealed the second paragraph, Section 231 of the
OEC under which they were convicted.
Take note, unsa may nahitabo? Ilang gi-proclaim ang candidate who
did not obtain the 8th highest number of votes. Diba kabantay mo? Ang
No.9 ilang gi-No. 8. So in other words, that No. 9th place should never
have been proclaimed because he/she did not obtain the 8 th highest
number of votes. Also because of this, they were charge and convicted
under this law. But in the new law, ang kanang highlighted part (refer
again to the highlighted part earlier) gi-wagtang na. So they are now
saying that since there is now a repeal on the law under which they
were charged and convicted, “we should be released because it is
favorable to us.” That’s what they were saying.
2
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRE-FINALS NOTES
Okay atong tanawon ha. (Refer below) Ang repealing clause. Take
note that the repealing clause, amending of the repealing clause is very
specific. Express ha, iyang gi-enumerate. Likewise, express repeal. But
that particular provision under which they were convicted, is not
included there. So if it is not expressly repealed, it must be impliedly
repealed.
Now, diri ta sa implied repeal. Was there irreconcilable inconsistency?
No, walay irreconcilable inconsistency. So since there is no
irreconcilable inconsistency, there is no implied repeal because in
order to effect implied repeal, the two statutes must be so
irreconcilably repugnant and inconsistent with each other. Pero wala
man. As a matter of fact, gi-tangtang lang toh nga provision kung kinsa
dapat e-proclaim.
Held:
 Sec. 231 was not expressly repealed by the amending and
repealing clause of R.A. 7166 which says:
 “Sec. 39. Amending and Repealing Clause. – Sections 107,
108 and 245 of the Omnibus Election Code are hereby
repealed. x x x
 Neither is there implied repeal
 While Sec. 231 of the OEC and Sec. 28 of R.A. 7166 pertains
to the canvassing by the Board of Canvassers, this fact alone
is not sufficient to cause an implied repeal.
 While the two provisions differ in terms, neither is this fact
sufficient to cause repugnance.
 In order to effect implied repeal, the statutes must be so
irreconcilably repugnant and inconsistent with each other.
So here’s the standard.
 The following standard of irreconcilability resulting in
implied repeal must be satisfied:
 1. Both laws deal with the same subject matter
Pwede, diba?
 2. The latter law must be inconsistent with the earlier law.
Here lies the difference. It is not so entirely inconsistent. It merely
removed or deleted that portion which was made the basis for
proclamation. But again, by the doctrine of necessary inferences and
implication, it need not be there in the first place. Kay imung e-
proclaim kato ra gyud ang nakadaog. Diba? Common sense.
 3. Repugnancy is clear and convincing in character.
 4. The language used in the latter law must be such that as to
render it irreconcilable with the prior law.
 An inconsistency that falls short of this standard does not
suffice because implied repeal is not favored.
Okay, remember we said implied repeal if there is irreconcilable
differences between the two laws. And that should comply with this
standard. Anything that falls short of this standard is not implied
repeal. It is not repeal at all because implied repeal is not favored
under the law.
 The presumption is against inconsistency and accordingly,
against implied repeal because Congress is presumed to know
the existing laws on the same subject and not to enact
inconsistent statutes.
Remember we talked about presumptions, in favor of constitutionality.
Hagad vs Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 242 (1995)
NIGEL ANGELICA GONZAGA
Kani, remember this case? Mayor Ouano, he was suspended,
preventively suspended by the Ombudsman. But then he said that
”because of the LGC of 1991, the jurisdiction over elective officials
coming from highly urbanized cities, such as Mandaue City, has been
transferred from the Ombudsman to the office of the President. In
which case, the Ombudsman cannot now preventively suspend me
because it is now the office of the President that has jurisdiction.”
Facts:
 Criminal and administrative complaints were filed against
Mayor Alfredo Ouano and other members of the
Sangguniang Panglungsod (SP) with the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Visayas for violation of the Revised
Penal Code and R.A. 7613.
But here, the Supreme Court said, “there is no intention at all to strip
the Ombudsman of the power to hear, try, prosecute elective public
officials, regardless of from where, what place they belong to. Be it
independent component city, component city, highly urbanized city, it
does not matter. The Ombudsman has jurisdiction over all public
officers, elective or appointee. So here you will see, you will wonder,
dili man kay specific man ang LGC. It actually specifically enumerates
elective officials from independent component cities, component cities
and highly urbanized cities. Okay? But the Supreme Court said, “that
is not the intention, there is no irreconcilable inconsistency.” So the
end result is, the jurisdiction over elective officials coming from highly
urbanized cities, such as Mandaue city, is now shared or concurrent
between the office of the President and the Ombudsman because there
is no irreconcilable inconsistency.
Two laws on the same subject matter, which prevails
 Between two irreconcilably inconsistent laws, the subsequent
law prevails because it is the latest expression of the
legislative will, and Congress is presumed to know the earlier
law.
 Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant – subsequent
statute repeals earlier repugnant to it.
Illustrative cases: David vs Comelec, G.R. No. 127116, April 8,
1997
So katong sa Hagad-Dadole case, Mayor Ouano, there was no
irreconcilable inconsistency. But here in this David vs Comelec case,
let’s see if there is irreconcilable inconsistency. Remember that this
case is all about term of office for elective barangay officials.
At first, there were two laws saying that the term of office for elective
barangay officials is 4 years. But later on the LGC was passed, saying
that it is only 3 years now for elective barangay officials.
So take note that there is now question of whether 4 years or 3 years. Is
this irreconcilable inconsistency? Definitely. You cannot reconcile
them. As a matter of fact we said that the Supreme Court cannot
provide even a (inaudible word) solution and say that “okay average
nato 4 years, 3 years, aw 5 years, 3 years? We’ll make it 4 years.” We
cannot do that, otherwise it results in judicial legislation. Okay? So
that illustrates the principle that if there is an irreconcilable
inconsistency, it is considered implied repeal. Tanawon nato ha.
Take a look:
 The repealing clause of the LGC says: “includes all laws,
whether general or special, inconsistent with the provisions
of the Local Government Code.”
3
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRE-FINALS NOTES NIGEL ANGELICA GONZAGA

Implied repeal. So in other words, it cannot repeal even the old laws. sometimes these private acts is actually talking about contracts. These
That was the contention. Kay implied repeal man. But because there is are actually laws of private parties. It cannot be intervene just that.
an irreconcilable inconsistency between the two laws, that can be
considered an implied repeal.

Statutes in Pari Materia, defined: Repeal, effect on jurisdiction:

literal translation- pare means equal, materia means matters, equal neither repeal nor expiration of law divests the court of
matter or the same subject matter. jurisdiction.

How to determine: Jurisdiction to try and decide cases is determined by law in force
at the time it was filed.
it does not matter whether it is civil or criminal for as long as it
talk about the same subject matter.

---It must be understood or construed in tandem with one another. Effects of repeal and expiration of law, distinguished:
It should be read together in relation with each other.
In absolute repeal, the crime is obliterated, thus the stigma of
Purpose: conviction is erased whereas the

to carry out the full intent of congress by giving intent to all law expiration of law does not have that effect.
on the same subject matter.
--- laws that expire, liquor and gun ban. They die absolutely.
In pari delicto- the same.
Once jurisdiction acquired, it proceeds unless the repealing act
Limitaion; say otherwise.

it cannot invoked where the language of the law is clear and But if the action was filed after the repealing act divesting
unambiguous. jurisdiction took effect, the court does not acquire jurisdiction
and the decision is null and void.
---because, again, the requisite of construction is, there has to be
ambiguity. In the absence of it you cannot construe.
Repeal, effect on jurisdiction to try criminal cases:

General rule on repeal: same rule applies. But with added exception, express prohibitive
words are used or the criminal law violated is repealed.
General law does not repeal a prior law or special law on the
same subject matter unless intended by the legislature.

---The case about that term of office of barangay officials? The Repeal, effects on actions, pending or otherwise:
Supreme Court said that only the Local Government Code is not
you are entitled to dismissal. Even if you are convicted and you
necessarily a general law because there is nothing general about
were able to file an appeal still entitled to dismissal, of the case.
the provisions specifically shortening the term from 5 years to 3
But what if there's a conviction and now with finality, it cannot
years.
be divested anymore because the finality already divested the courts
---That itself also a special law. jurisdiction.

Important: if the special law is subsequent, it qualifies the general law Repeal, effect on vested right:
but if it is an earlier law it is an exemption of the general law.
Does not impair vested rights accrued prior to the repeal.

General, effects:
Repeal, effect on contracts:
It renders inoperative the prior act from the time repealing law
Does not affect the terms of contract, not impair the rights of the
takes effect.
parties.
Except, operative fact doctrine.
It applies even if the other contracting party is the government.

someone ask about private acts: sorry cant clearly hear the question. I'll
just write the answer of Atty. G. (gwapo) Repeal, effects on tax laws:

Does not preclude collection of taxes assessed prior to repeal,

unless otherwise provided.
it cannot be invoked when the language of the law is clear and
--there must be assessment first, if there was no assessment you
unambiguous. It is a limitation. It does not apply to private acts because
can no longer assess something that is already repealed.
4
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRE-FINALS NOTES NIGEL ANGELICA GONZAGA

But if there was assessment ,later on repealed,the collection excluding some possible ground of misinterpretation of it, as by
can still be done. Because the first step was taken, that is to extending it to cases not intended by the legislature to be
assess. And the reason is, taxes is the lifeblood of the brought within its purview.
government.
Proviso, function:

To create a condition precedent, to exempt, limit, restrict or

Repeal, effects on penal laws: qualify a statute, in whole or part.

If repeal is absolute, it divests jurisdiction because the crime to To limit the application of the law, not to enlarge its operation.
longer exist.
Exception, defined:
Example:
Enumeration of what should not be covered of the general rule.
The absolute repeal of the Anti-Subversion Act entitles the
accused of the dismissal of the case against him as the Exception and proviso, distinguished:
offense no longer exists the court is deprived of jurisdiction. --
Exception exempts while proviso sets conditions.
-our theory before was,for as long as it does not acquired finality yet,
you are entitled of dismi ssal. Here in the example it says,accused Exception, how construed:
is entitled the dismissal of the case against him. In other words
the case is pending. Regardless of the stage for as long as it is not Strictly, specially where the statute promotes public welfare.
yetacquired finality. If there is repeal you are entitled to
dismissal of the case against you. Now you are freeman. It Saving clause, defined:
gives back your status innocence. Again, the law was decriminalized.
A clause which exempts special things out of the general things
Reason: mentioned in the law.

The legislative intent is to legalize what has been decreed illegal.

Except: Saving clause, purpose:

If the repealing acts re-enacts the statute and penalizes the same To preserve something, as existing rights or causes of actions or
act, even the penalty is lower. pending proceedings, from immediate interference by
operation of a statute.
The repealing act contains a saving clause that pending cases are
not affected. Saving clause, limitation:

inoperative if entirely inconsistent with the purview of the law.

Repeal, effect on municipal charter:

Abolishes all offices under the old charter.

Thus, conversion of a municipality into a city abolishes all

positions except unless otherwise provided.

Repeal or nullity of repealing law, effects:

When the repealing law expressly repealing a prior is itself

repealed, the prior law is not revived unless otherwise
provided.

When the repealing law expressly repealing a prior law is

declared unconstitutional, the prior law remains in force. ---
it is still alive since the Supreme Court is the one declaring it
unconstitutional and not an act of Congress.

Proviso, defined:

Condition precedent. Generally introduced by the word provided.

---- remember, provided means it did not enlarge the law, it
actually leave (not sure of the word) the law.

It is a clause on the preceding enactment to restrain of modify the

enacting clause, or of excepting something from its
operation which otherwise would have been without it, or of