Laws vis-à-vis Laws

 Where two statutes are of contrary tenor or of different dates but are equal theoretical
application to a particular case, the case designed therefor specially should prevail over
the other.
 Pari Materia – every legislative act or statute should not be construed separately from
the rest it should be interpreted and harmonized with reference to the other law covering
the same subject.
 As regard to COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES: Between the common law and a statutory
provision, the latter must prevail in this jurisdiction.
 Principles of common law known as Anglo-American jurisprudence which is no in
force in this country, save only insofar as it is founded on sound principles
applicable to local conditions and is not in conflict with existing law, nevertheless,
many of the principles of the common law have been imported into this
jurisdiction as a result of the enactment of laws and establishment of institutions
similar to those of the US (Statcon, Agpalo).
 AMENDATORY LAWS: An amended act should be given a construction different from the
law prior to its amendment, for it is presumed that the legislature would not have
amended it had not it not wanted to change its meaning.
How amendment is construed, generally:
 Amendment act is ordinarily construed as if the original statute has been
repealed and a new independent act in the amended form had been
adopted.
 Amended act is regarded as if the statute has been originally enacted in it
amended form.
 Read in a connection with other sections as if all had been enacted in the
same statute.
 INTERPRETARE ET CONCORDARE LEGIBUS EST OPTIMUS INTERPRETANDI: which mean
that the best method of interpretation is that which makes laws consistent with other
laws (The court should endeavor to reconcile the conflicting statutes instead of declaring
outright the invalidity of one against the other).
 The fact that a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter as that of an earlier
statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the latter, since the law may
be cumulative or a continuation of the old one. However, if attempts to reconcile these
conflicting provisions fail, then the rule of thumb to follow is to uphold of later date, being
a later expression of legislative will.
 Repeal by Implication (Statcon, Agpalo):
 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.
 There must be a sufficient revelation of the legislative intent to repeal.
  Intention to repeal must be clear and manifest
 General rule: the latter act is to be construed as a continuation not a
substitute for the first act so far as the two acts are the same, from the
time of the first enactment.
 Two categories of repeals by implication
 Where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in
an irreconcilable conflict and the later act to the extent of the
conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier.
 If the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is
clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate similarly as a repeal
of the earlier act.
 LEGES POSTERIORES PRIORES CONTRARIAS ABROGANT: A later law repeals an earlier
one because it is the later legislative will (It is to be presumed that the lawmakers knew
the older law and intended to change it).

CIR vs. Primetown

(The incompatibility exists in the manner of computing legal periods)
In this case the High Court observed that – Both Article 13 of the Civil Code and Section 31,
Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 deal with the same subject matter –
the computation of legal periods. Under the Civil Code, a year is equivalent to 365 days
whether it be regular year or a leap year. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, however,
a year is composed of 12 calendar months. Needless to state, under the Administrative Code
of 1987, the number of days is irrelevant. There obviously exists a manifest incompatibility in
the manner of computing legal periods under the Civil Code and the Administrative Code of
1987. For this reason, we hold that Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code
of 1987, being the more recent law, governs the computation of legal periods. Lex posteriori
derogat priori (A later law repeals an earlier).