Express and Implied Repeals

Express and Implied Repeals The Civil Code of the Philippines provides: “Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and their violation and non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.” [Article 7 (1), Civil Code of the Philippines] Based on the above-mentioned provision of the Code, a law may only be repealed by a succeeding law. But there are instances where a succeeding law does not necessarily state that it repeals an existing law. How then would we know that the subsequent law indeed repealed a former law? There are two kinds of repeal. A repeal may either be express or implied. An express repeal is one where it literally states that it repeals a certain provision or section of a law or the whole statute itself. On the other hand, an implied repeal is one where a subsequent law is irreconcilable with a first law. Implied repeals do not specifically state that they repeal a certain provision or section of a law or a statute itself. In a long line of cases, the Courts have clearly delineated the line on the difference of express and implied repeals. In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Semirara Mining Corporation, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc reiterated the Decision of the CTA Division, the pertinent portion of which reads: “…If the intent to repeal is not clear, the later act should be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the earlier act. The legislature is presumed to know the existing laws; if it intended a repeal of the earlier law, it should have so expressed that intention in the subsequent statute. Thus, a statute will not be deemed to have been impliedly repealed by another enacted subsequent thereto unless there is a showing that a plain, unavoidable and irreconcilable repugnancy exists between the two. Absent an express repeal, as in this case, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior one unless an irreconcilable inconsistency or repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws. 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declares, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed. Absent this specific requirement, an express repeal may not be presumed. Further, well-entrenched is the rule that an implied repeal is disfavored. The apparently conflicting provisions of a law or two laws should be harmonized as much as possible, so that each shall be effective. For a law to operate to repeal another law, the two laws must actually be inconsistent. The former must be so repugnant as to be irreconcilable with the latter act.” [Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Semirara Mining Corporation, CTA EB No. 793 (CTA Case Nos. 7822 & 7849), April 23, 2012] In the case of Antonio A. Mecano v. Commission On Audit, the Honorable Supreme Court differentiated express repeal from implied repeal, thus:

“The question of whether a particular law has been repealed or not by a subsequent law is a matter of legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by incorporating therein a repealing provision which expressly and specifically cites the particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are intended to be repealed. A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied repeals.” [Antonio A. Mecano v. Commission On Audit, G.R. No. 103982, December 11, 1992] In the same manner, the Supreme Court, in Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit, stated: “…repeal of laws should be made clear and express. Repeals by implication are not favored as laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the subject, the congruent application of which the courts must generally presume. For this reason, it has been held that the failure to add a specific repealing clause particularly mentioning the statute to be repealed indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law on the matter, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws.” [Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 183517, June 22, 2010] Meanwhile, in the case of Social Justice Society (SJS), Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao and Bonifacio S. Tumbokon v. Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., the Supreme Court further defined implied repeal as: “Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that where a statute of later date clearly reveals the intention of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject, that intention must be given effect. There are two kinds of implied repeal. The first is: where the provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are irreconcilably contradictory, the latter act, to the extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. The second is: if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. xxx If the intent to repeal is not clear, the later act should be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the earlier act.” [Social Justice Society (SJS), Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao and Bonifacio S. Tumbokon v. Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008] These cases have clearly provided us that repeals are not only specifically stated in a subsequent law. They may also be by implication only. Although repeals by implication are disfavored, they are still considered when the subsequently enacted statute is inconsistent and repugnant as to be irreconcilable with an earlier law. So even if the subsequent law does not mention of any repeal to an already existing law, if it is inconsistent and repugnant that it may not be reconciled with an earlier law, it is deemed and can be considered a repeal of that earlier law.