Article 7 of the Civil Code of the Philippines: Repealing of laws and the supremacy of the Constitution

Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.

When the court declares a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.

Administrative or executive acts, orders, and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.

This article asserts the supremacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land over an ordinary law or legislation, administrative or executive acts.

There are sources of Law in order of preference in this Article:

•The Constitution

•Laws (Presidential Decrees)

•Administrative or executive acts, orders, and regulations

Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. It is to be presumed that the lawmakers knew the older law and intended to change it. In enacting the older law, the legislators could not have known the newer one and hence, could not have intended to change what they did not know.

Non-observance of the law. The disuse, custom, or practice to the contrary does not repeal a law. Thus, although hardly enforced nowadays, an article of the Revised Penal Code still prohibits betting on the results of a basketball game, or any other sports contest.

[NOTE: Our Supreme Court, in the case of Hilado v. Collector (L-9408), held that the Philippine laws which are not of a Political character continued to be in force during the Japanese Occupation, it is a legal maxim that a law, once established, continues until it will be changed by some competent legislative power. [Therefore, our internal revenue laws, among others, continued to exist during the occupation.]

As for repealing of laws, there 2 kinds of repeal:

1.  Express

A law or statute is expressly repealed if it is contained in the subsequent act or when a new law is enacted containing a provision expressly repealing an existing law.

2. Implied

When the subsequent law is inconsistent with the former, a law can be repealed by implication provided that the requisites exist:

–The laws must cover the same subject matter;

–There is a plain, unavoidable and irreconcilable repugnancy/inconsistency between the two.

Rules for General and Special laws:

A. In case of conflict between a general and a special law, which should prevail?

1. If both of which include and cover the same subject, or that the general law was enacted prior to the special law, the special law must be deemed an exception to the general law. (Lichauco v. Apostol, 44 Phil. 138)

Lichauco v. Apostol,

G.R. No. L-19628 (44 PHIL 138), Dec. 4, 1922

Facts:

The Petitioner, a corporation duly organized under the Philippine laws, has engaged in the business of importing carabao and other draft animals for several years and was desirous of importing, from Phnom-Penh, a shipment of draft cattle and bovine cattle for the manufacture of serum. However, the respondent Director of Agriculture refused to admit said cattle except upon the condition that the draft cattle be immunized from rinderpest. The Petitioner, however, contends that the respondent has no authority over the matter, invoking section 1762 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3052. On the other hand, relying upon section 1770 of the Administrative Code, Administrative Order No. 21 of the Bureau of Agriculture, and Dept. Order No. 6 of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, respondent maintained its decision. Hence, the issue.

Issue: Whether or not section 1770 (and other similar acts) has been repealed by implication by Act 3052 and hence cannot be applied with the case at bar?

Held and Reasoning: No. The Court ruled that the contention of the petitioner is untenable for the reason that the invoked section 1762, as amended, is obviously of a general nature while 1770 is a particular one. Section 1770 is therefore not inconsistent or repugnant with section 1762 and instead be considered as a special qualification of the latter provision. Moreover, the court emphasized that“specific legislation upon a particular subject is not affected by a general law upon the same subject unless it clearly appears that the provision of the two laws are so repugnant..xxx…The special act and the general law must stand together, the one as the law of the particular subject and the other as the general law of the land.” 

Therefore, Section 1770 of the Administrative Code remains in effect and serves as a supplementary provision to section 1762, as amended.

In relation to this subject matter, we should take into account that the Civil Code repeals:

1.    The old Civil Code of 1889.

2.    The Code of Commerce provisions on sales, partnership, agency, loan, deposit, and guaranty.

3.    The provisions of the Civil Procedure on prescription, as far as they are inconsistent with the Civil Code.

4. All the laws, acts, parts of acts, Rules of Court, executive orders, and administrative regulations, inconsistent with the Civil Code.

 2. If the general law was enacted after the special law, the special law remains unless:

a.      There is an express declaration to the contrary;

b.     Or there is a clear, necessary and irreconcilable conflict.

c.      Or unless the subsequent general covers the whole subject and is clearly intended to replace the special law on the matter.

Bocobo vs. Estanislao, L-30458 August 31, 1976

FACTS: A radio operator was accused of libel before the Municipal Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, the municipality being one of the places where the broadcast was heard. It was contended that while RA 1289 vested exclusive jurisdiction over libel cases in Courts of First Instance, still under a later law, RA 3828, municipal courts in provincial capitals were given concurrent jurisdiction over certain crimes (up to certain penalty).

ISSUE: Which court has jurisdiction?

HELD: The court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Bataan has jurisdiction. Repeal of the special enactment (RA1289) by a general but later enactment (RA 3828) is NOT FAVORED, unless the legislative purpose to do so is manifest. This is so even if the provisions of the general but later law are sufficiently comprehensive to include matters apparently set forth in the special law. Incidentally, the suit must filed with RTC is to prevent undue harassment of the accused, in case, for instance, the suit is brought in a very remote municipality, simply because the broadcast was heard there.

[NOTE: An Act passed later but going into effect earlier will prevail over a statute passed earlier but going into effect later. This is because the later enactment expresses the later intent.

Effect if the Repealing Law is itself repealed:

a. When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the first law repealed shall not thereby be revived, unless expressly so provided. (sec. 14, Rev. Administrative Code).

b. When a law which repeals a prior law, not expressly but by implication, is itself repealed, the repeal of the repealing law revives the prior law, unless the language of the repealing statute provides otherwise. (U.S. v. Soliman, 26 Phil. 5).

Repealing acts and their effects:

The repeal of a statute:

1.     It shall not affect or impair any act done, right vested, duty imposed, penalty accrued, or proceeding commenced before the taking effect of the repealing act;

2.            The repealing acts are valid and create a new rule of construction which is binding to the courts. Most repealing statutes are curative.

Sources:

• http://www.chanrobles.com

• The New Civil Code Sixteenth Edition by Paras

• Family Code of the Philippines by Judge Ed Vincent S Albano 2017 Edition