1
AMENDMENT
- CHANGE or MODIFICATION, by addition, deletion, or alteration, of a statute which
survives in its amended form
EXPRESS IMPLIED
Express amendment is done by providing n There is an implied amendment where a part
the amendatory act that specific sections or of a prior statute embracing the same subject
provisions of a statute are amended as recited as the later act may not be enforced without
therein. nullifying the pertinent provision of the latter, in
which event, the prior act deemed amended or
“to read as follows” modified to the extent of repugnancy
When amendment takes effect
-takes effect after 15 days following its publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper of
general circulation, unless otherwise provided
Construction of Amendment
1. Statute and amendment should be read together as a whole
2. As if the original statute has been repealed and a new and independent act in the
amended form has been adopted in its stead
3. Amendment becomes a part of the original statute as if it had always contained therein
4. Should be read in connection with other sections as if all had been enacted in the same
statute
Amendment operates prospectively
- Will not be construed as having retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided
- An amendment will not be construed retroactively, even though it so provides, if to do so
will impair vested rights or the obligations of contract
On jurisdiction
- Once jurisdiction to try a case is acquired, that jurisdiction remains within the court until
the case is finally decided therein.
- Not be construed to operate to oust jurisdiction that has already attached under the prior
law
REVISION AND CODIFICATION
- Legislature enacts revised or codifies statutes, specially in fields or subjects in which the
legislature has passed various laws
- PURPOSE: To restate the existing laws into one statute
: Simplify complicated provisions
: Make the laws on the subject easily found
CONSTRUCTION
- Different provisions of a revised statute or code should be read and construed together.
- What happens to conflicting provisions?
That which is best in accord with the general plan or, that which is later in
physical position
2
REPEAL
- LEGISLATURE has plenary power to repeal, abrogate, or revoke existing laws.
- Repeal of a statute is either total or partial, express or implied.
PARTIAL TOTAL
A partial repeal leaves the unaffected portions A statute which has been totally repealed is
of the statute in force rendered revoked COMPLETELY
Repeal by Implication-not favored
1. IRRECONCILABLE CONSISTENCY
- When two laws are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other, that they
cannot be reconciled or harmonized
- To bring about an implied repeal, the earlier and later statutes should embrace the dame
subject
- There must be a showing of REPUGNANCY, clear and convincing in character
- What is needed is a manifest indication of legislative purpose to repeal
2. REVISION OR CODIFICATIOM
- The revised statute or code is in effect a legislative declaration that whatever is
embraced in the new statute shall prevail and whatever is excluded therefrom shall be
discharged
- Must be intended to cover the whole subject to be a complete and perfect system in
itself
- Where series of legislative acts on the same subject are revised and consolidated into
one, covering the entire field of subject matter=all parts and provisions of the former act
or acts that are omitted from the revised act are deemed repealed
3. REENACTMENT
- Where a statute is a reenactment of the whole subject in substitution of the previous
laws on the matter, the latter disappears entirely
- What is omitted is deemed repealed
- The reenactment, if complete and comprehensive, is regarded as the expression of the
whole law on the subject, and thereby operates as an implied repeal of the prior law on
the same subject
3
BETWEEN TWO LAWS - As between two laws on the same subject matter, which are irreconcilably
inconsistent, that which is passed LATER PREVAILS, since it is the latest
``expression of legislative will
GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAW A general law on a subject does not operate to repeal a prior special law on the same subject, unless it clearly appears that the legislature has
intended by the later general act to modify or repeal the earlier special law
General law yields to the special law in the specific and particular subject
embraced in the latter.
EFFECTS
JURISDICTION Repeal and the expiration of the law will not deprive the court or administrative
tribunal of the authority to act on the pending action and to finally decide it
On actions General rule: Repeal of a statute defeats all actions and
proceedings, including those which are still pending, which arose out of or are based on said statute
On Vested Rights Rights accrued and vested while a statute is in force ordinarily survive its repeal
On Contracts Where a contract is entered into by the parties on the basis of the law then
obtaining, the repeal or amendment of said law will not affect the terms of the
contract, nor impair the rights of the parties thereunder
TAX LAWS The repeal of a tax law does not preclude the collection of taxes assessed
under the old law before its repeal, unless the repealing statute provides
otherwise.
REPEAL and Does not affect the rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute (applies to
REENACTMENT simultaneous repeal and reenactment)
If not simultaneous, the repeal carried with it the
deprivation of the court of its authority to try, convict and sentence the person charged with violation of
the old law prior to its repeal
REPEAL of PENAL Deprives the court of the jurisdiction to punish
laws persons charged with a violation of the old law prior
to its repeal.
REPEAL of The superseding of the old charter by a new one
MUNICIPAL CHARTER has the effect of abolishing the offices under the old charter.
REPEAL or Where a law which expressly repeals a prior law it
NULLITY itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided
4
THIRD DIVISION to the issue raised in the criminal previously instituted civil
G.R. No. 184861 June 30, 2009 action; and (b) the resolution of action involves an issue
such issue determines whether or similar or intimately related
DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner,
not the criminal action may proceed. to the issue raised in the
vs. subsequent criminal action,
CLEOFE S. JANIOLA and HON. ARTHUR A. FAMINI, and (b) the resolution of such
Respondents. issue determines whether or
DECISION not the criminal action may
VELASCO, JR., J.: proceed.
Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as
FACTS:
that which must precede the criminal action and which requires a
decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal
This case involves a violation of Batas Pambansa bilang 22 whereby action with which said question is closely connected. The civil action
the petitioner filed criminal information against the private must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action.
respondent. After almost two years, private respondent filed a
complaint against petitioner for the rescission of an alleged A statute should be construed not only to be consistent with itself but
construction agreement between the parties as well as for damages. also to harmonize with other laws on the same subject matter, as to
form a complete, coherent and intelligible system."16 This principle
The check which was subject of the criminal case were used as a
is consistent with the maxim, interpretare et concordare leges
consideration for the construction agreement. legibus est optimus interpretandi modus or every statute must be so
construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform
After almost a year, private respondent filed a motion to suspend the system of jurisprudence.
hearing on the criminal case filed by the petitioner, claiming that the
civil case posed a prejudicial question as against the criminal case. In other words, every effort must be made to harmonize seemingly
conflicting laws. It is only when harmonization is impossible that
The Municipal Trial Court granted the motion which subsequently
resort must be made to choosing which law to apply.
affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. Private respondent argues that
the phrase “before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may In the instant case, Art. 36 of the Civil Code and Sec. 7 of Rule 111
proceed” must be interpreted to mean that a prejudicial question of the Rules of Court are susceptible of an interpretation that would
exists when the civil action is filed either before the institution of the harmonize both provisions of law. The phrase "previously instituted
criminal action or during the pendency of the criminal action. Private civil action" in Sec. 7 of Rule 111 is plainly worded and is not
respondent concludes that there is an apparent conflict in the susceptible of alternative interpretations. The clause "before any
criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed" in Art. 36 of
provisions of the Rules of Court and the Civil Code in that the latter
the Civil Code may, however, be interpreted to mean that the motion
considers a civil case to have presented a prejudicial question even if to suspend the criminal action may be filed during the preliminary
the criminal case preceded the filing of the civil case. investigation with the public prosecutor or court conducting the
investigation, or during the trial with the court hearing the case.
ISSUE:
This interpretation would harmonize Art. 36 of the Civil Code with
Whether or not there is a conflict in the provisions of the Rules of Sec. 7 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court but also with Sec. 6 of Rule
111 of the Rules of Court, which provides for the situations when the
Court and Civil Code in that the latter considers a civil case to have
motion to suspend the criminal action during the preliminary
presented a prejudicial question even if the criminal case preceded investigation or during the trial may be filed.
the filing of the case.
SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of
RULING: prejudicial question. — A petition for
suspension of the criminal action
based upon the pendency of a
No. The Court ruled that:
prejudicial question in a civil action
may be filed in the office of the
A "change in phraseology by amendment of a provision of law prosecutor or the court conducting the
indicates a legislative intent to change the meaning of the provision preliminary investigation. When the
from that it originally had." In the instant case, the phrase, criminal action has been filed in court
"previously instituted," was inserted to qualify the nature of the civil for trial, the petition to suspend shall
action involved in a prejudicial question in relation to the criminal be filed in the same criminal action at
action. This interpretation is further buttressed by the insertion of any time before the prosecution rests.
"subsequent" directly before the term criminal action. There is no
other logical explanation for the amendments except to qualify the Thus, under the principles of statutory construction, it is this
relationship of the civil and criminal actions, that the civil action interpretation of Art. 36 of the Civil Code that should govern in order
must precede the criminal action. to give effect to all the relevant provisions of law.
Article 36 of the Civil Code: Pre-judicial questions which must be
decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may EN BANC
proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme G.R. No. 103982 December 11, 1992
Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the ANTONIO A. MECANO, petitioner,
provisions of this Code. vs.
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, On December 1, 2000, the COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
as amended by Supreme Court 2000 Rules on Criminal CAMPOS, JR., J.:
Resolutions dated June 17, 1988 and Procedure, however, became
July 7, 1988, the elements of a effective and the above FACTS:
prejudicial question are contained in provision was amended by
Rule 111, Sec. 5, which states: Sec. 7 of Rule 111, which Petitioner is a Director II of the National Bureau of Investigation
applies here and now (NBI) who was hospitalized for cholecystitis on account of which he
provides: incurred medical and hospitalization expenses, the total amount of
SEC. 5. Elements of prejudicial which he is claiming from the COA. Commission on Audit (COA)
question. — The two (2) essential SEC. 7. Elements of Chairman denied petitioner’s claim on the ground that Section 699 of
elements of a prejudicial question prejudicial question. —The the RAC had been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987
are: (a) the civil action involves an elements of a prejudicial (Exec. Order No. 292), solely for the reason that the same section
issue similar or intimately related question are: (a) the was not restated nor re-enacted in the latter. Petitioner also anchored
5
his claim on Department of Justice Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 by NOTES:
Secretary Drilon stating that “the issuance of the Administrative
Code did not operate to repeal or abrogate in its entirety the Revised There are two categories of repeal by implication.
Administrative Code. 1. Where provisions in the two acts on the same subject
matter are in an irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the
ISSUE: extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the
earlier one.
Whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or 2. If the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one
and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate to
abrogated Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.
repeal the earlier law.
RULING: Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when the
two statutes cover the same subject matter; they are so clearly
No. The Court held that: inconsistent and incompatible with each other that they cannot be
reconciled or harmonized; and both cannot be given effect, that is,
The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent that one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the other.
was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable
inconcistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old The fact that a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter
laws. This latter situation falls under the category of an implied as that of an earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an
repeal. implied repeal of the prior act, since the new statute may merely be
cumulative or a continuation of the old one. What is necessary is a
Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that where a statute of manifest indication of legislative purpose to repeal.
later date clearly reveals an intention on the part of the legislature to
abrogate a prior act on the subject, that intention must be given effect. It is the rule that a subsequent statute is deemed to repeal a prior law
Hence, before there can be a repeal, there must be a clear showing on if the former revises the whole subject matter of the former statute.
the part of the lawmaker that the intent in enacting the new law was When both intent and scope clearly evidence the idea of a repeal,
to abrogate the old one. The intention to repeal must be clear and then all parts and provisions of the prior act that are omitted from the
manifest; otherwise, at least, as a general rule, the later act is to be revised act are deemed repealed. Furthermore, before there can be an
construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the first act implied repeal under the second category, it must be the clear intent
and will continue so far as the two acts are the same from the time of of the legislature that the later act be the substitute to the prior act.
the first enactment.
According to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of Justice,
It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of what appears clear is the intent to cover only those aspects of
statutes by implication are not favored. The presumption is against government that pertain to administration, organization and
inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know procedure, understandably because of the many changes that
the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent transpired in the government structure since the enactment of the
or conflicting statutes. RAC decades of years ago.
As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation with full The COA relied on the rule in administrative law enunciated in the
knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it is but reasonable to case of Sison vs. Pangramuyen that in the absence of palpable error
conclude that in passing a statute it was not intended to interfere with or grave abuse of discretion, the Court would be loath to substitute its
or abrogate any former law relating to some matter, unless the own judgment for that of the administrative agency entrusted with the
repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable, but also clear enforcement and implementation of the law.
and convincing, and flowing necessarily from the language used,
unless the later act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or Administrative decisions may be reviewed by the courts upon a
unless the reason for the earlier act is beyond peradventure renewed. showing that the decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake.
Hence, every effort must be used to make all acts stand and if, by any It has been held that Opinions of the Secretary and Undersecretary of
reasonable construction, they can be reconciled, the later act will not Justice are material in the construction of statutes in pari materia.
operate as a repeal of the earlier.
In the case of the two Administrative Codes in question, the
ascertainment of whether or not it was the intent of the legislature to
supplant the old Code with the new Code partly depends on the
scrutiny of the repealing clause of the new Code. This provision is EN BANC
found in Section 27, Book VII (Final Provisions) of the G.R. No. 14205, September 30, 1919
Administrative Code of 1987 which reads: THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
Sec. 27. Repealing Clause. — All laws, JAMES J. RAFFERTY, as COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or REVENUE, defendant-appellant.
portions thereof, inconsistent with this Attorney-General Paredes for appellant.
Code are hereby repealed or modified Orense and Vera for appellee.
accordingly. JOHNSON, J.:
A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a FACTS:
particular and specific law, identified by its number or title, is
repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied repeals. The Defendant assessed and collected against Manila Railroad
internal revenue taxes upon oil and coal materials imported into the
Philippine by virtue of an act of Congress in 1913. The latter
Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does not contended that the taxes had been illegally assessed and collected
cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old Code. pursuant to a private charter (i.e. Act No. 1510) granted by the
There are several matters treated in the old Code which are not found legislature in 1906. On the other hand, defendant asserts that the 1913
in the new Code, such as the provisions on notaries public, the leave Act of Congress repealed the 1906 private charter of the plaintiff.
law, the public bonding law, military reservations, claims for sickness
benefits under Section 699, and still others. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
Subsection 12 of Section 1 of Subsection C of Section IV of
Moreover, the COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the Act No. 1510 Act of Congress of October 3,
two Codes on the matter of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable 1913
conflict. In fact, there can be no such conflict because the provision 12. In consideration of the That in addition to the customs
on sickness benefits of the nature being claimed by petitioner has not premises, and of the granting of taxes imposed in the Philippine
been restated in the Administrative Code of 1987. this concession or franchise, Islands, there shall be levied,
there shall be paid by the collected, and paid therein upon
6
grantee to the Philippine articles, goods, wares or creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as
Government, annually, for the merchandise imported into the remaining an exception to the general, one as a general law of the
period of thirty (30) years from Philippine Islands from countries land, the other as the law of a particular case. (State vs. Stoll, 17
the date hereof, an amount equal other than the United States, the Wall. [U.S.], 425.)
to one-half ( ½) of one per cent internal-revenue tax imposed by
of the gross earnings of the the Philippine Government on When a charter is granted, it constitutes a certain property right.
grantee in respect of the lines like articles manufactured and Charters or special laws, such as Act No. 1510, stand upon a different
covered hereby for the consumed in the Philippine footing from general laws. Once granted, a charter becomes a private
preceding year; after said period Islands or shipped thereto for contract and cannot be altered nor amended except by consent of all
of thirty (30) years, and for fifty consumption therein, from the concerned, unless that right is expressly reserved. (Dartmouth
(50) years thereafter, the amount United States. College vs. Woodword, 4 Wheat., 578.) The reason for the rule is
so to be paid annually shall be clear. The Legislature, in passing a special charter, have their
an amount equal to one and one- Pursuant to the above provisions, attention directed to the special facts and circumstances which the
half ( 1 ½ ) per cent of such the Philippine Legislature Act or charter is intended to meet. The Legislature consider and make
gross earnings for the preceding enacted Act No. 2432 and provision for all the circumstances of the particular case. The
year; and after such period of subsequent Acts amendatory Legislature having specially considered all of the facts and
eighty (80) years the percentage thereof and supplementary circumstances in the particular case in granting a special charter, it
and amount so to be paid thereto which placed an internal- will not be considered that the Legislature, by adopting a general law
annually by the grantee shall be revenue tax upon coal and oil containing provisions repugnant to the provisions of the charter, and
fixed by the Philippine imported into the Philippine without making any mention of its intention to amend or modify the
Government. Islands special act. (Lewis vs. Cook County, 74 Ill. App., 151; Philippine
Railway Co. vs. Nolting, 34 Phil., 401.)
Such annual payments, when
promptly and fully made by the While the Acts of Congress referred to above contain a provision that
grantee shall be in lieu of all all laws inconsistent with their provisions are repealed, yet they
taxes of every name and nature- expressly provide that they shall not affect any accrued right. The
municipal, provincial, or plaintiff had enjoyed the rights granted under Act No. 1510 for a
central-upon its capital stock, number of years. Such rights were accrued rights. An examination of
franchises, right of way, said Acts of Congress not only fails to disclose any express intention
earnings, and all other property to amend, alter, or repeal Act No. 1510, or any of its provisions, but
owned or operated by the upon the contrary, we find that the said Acts of Congress expressly
grantee under this concession or protect all rights theretofore accrued. From all of the foregoing we
franchise. have reached the following conclusions:
1. That Act No. 1510 has not been amended, altered, or
ISSUE: Whether or not a special law or charter like Act No. 1510 repealed by any Act of Congress;
may be amended, altered or repealed by implication by a general law 2. That the plaintiff was relieved by Act No. 1510 from the
like the Act of Congress of 1913. payment of the internal-revenue tax collected by the
defendant in the present case;
RULING: 3. The amount in question was, therefore, illegally collected;
and
No. The Court held that special law (including private charters) 4. That the taxes in question were paid under protest.
having the character of a private contract, supposes that the
legislators intended to attend to the special facts and circumstances,
the consideration of such being embodied in the special law. A
general law subsequently enacted by the legislature cannot be taken
to have modified or altered the charter, unless the intent to modify or
alter is manifest. Where the general act is later, the special statute will
be construed as remaining an exception to its terms, unless repealed
expressly or by necessary implication.
NOTES:
Repeals of laws by implication are not favored; and the mere
repugnance between two statutes should be very clear in order to
warrant the court in holding that the later in time repeals the other,
when it does not in terms purport to do so.
In the case of McKenna vs. Edmundstone (91 N.Y., 231) the court
said: "It is well settled that a special and local statute, providing for a
particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent
statute, general in its terms, provisions and application, unless the
intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of the general
act are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special
law." That rule is but the application of the larger rule that a statute is
not to be deemed repealed, by implication, by a subsequent Act upon
the same subject unless the two are manifestly inconsistent with, and
repugnant to, each other, or unless a clear intention is disclosed on
the face of the later statute to repeal the former one.
It is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in its
terms and not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will
ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute.
(Steamboat Company vs. Collector, 18 Wall. [U.S.], 478; Cass
County vs. Gillett, 100 U. S., 585; Minnesota vs. Hitchcock, 185
U.S., 373, 396.)
Where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general -
the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided
for in the special - the fact that one is special and the other is general
