Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mecano v. Commission On Audit20210505-12-1kuecpe
Mecano v. Commission On Audit20210505-12-1kuecpe
SYLLABUS
DECISION
CAMPOS, JR., J : p
Opinion No. 73, S. 1991. It is a clause which predicates the intended repeal
under the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and
prior acts. The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable
inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws. 6
This latter situation falls under the category of an implied repeal.
Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that where a statute of
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. 7
Hence, before there can be a repeal, there must be a clear showing on the
part of the lawmaker that the intent in enacting the new law was to abrogate
the old one. The intention to repeal must be clear and manifest; 8 otherwise,
at least, as a general rule, the later act is to be construed as a continuation
of, and not a substitute for, the first act and will continue so far as the two
acts are the same from the time of the first enactment. 9
There are two categories of repeal by implication. The first is where
provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable
conflict, The later 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. 10
Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when the two
statutes cover the same subject matter; they are so clearly inconsistent and
incompatible with each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized;
and both cannot be given effect, that is, that one law cannot he enforced
without nullifying the other. 11 LexLib
Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does not
cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old Code. There
are several matters treated in the old Code which are not found in the new
Code, such as the provisions on notaries public, the leave law, the public
bonding law, military reservations, claims for sickness benefits under Section
699, and still others.
Moreover, the COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the two
Codes on the matter of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. In
fact, there can be no such conflict because the provision on sickness
benefits of the nature being claimed by petitioner has not been restated in
the Administrative Code of 1987. However, the COA would have Us consider
that the fact that Section 699 was not restated in the Administrative Code of
1987 meant that the same section had been repealed. It further maintained
that to allow the particular provisions not restated in the new Code to
continue in force argues against the Code itself. The COA anchored this
argument on the whereas clause of the 1987 Code, which states:
"WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the Government will be
enhanced by a new Administrative Code which incorporates in a
unified document the major structural, functional and procedural
principles and rules of governance; and
xxx xxx xxx"
18. Jaculina vs. National Police Commission, 200 SCRA 489 (1991); Greenhills
Mining Co. vs. Office of the President, 163 SCRA 350 (1988).
19. Philippine Global Communications, Inc. vs. Relova, 145 SCRA 385 (1986).
20. National Power Corporation vs. Hon. Zain B. Angas, G.R. Nos. 60225-26,
May 8, 1992; Maceda vs. Macaraig, 197 SCRA 771 (1991); Maddumba vs.
Government Service Insurance System, 192 SCRA 281 (1990); Larga vs.
Ranada, Jr., 164 SCRA 18 (1988); De Jesus vs. People, 120 SCRA 760 (1983).
21. U.S. vs. Palacio, 33 Phil. 208 (1916).
22. Smith, Bell & Co. vs. Estate of Maronilla, 41 Phil. 557 (1916).