F. Repeal and Nullification of Laws; Operative Fact Doctrine

F. Repeal of Laws (Civil Code, art. 7)

> 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 Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.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 courts declare 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. (5a)

Repeal - It is the abrogation of an existing law by a legislative act. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2009)

Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. (Art. 7, 1st par.)

6. Void Laws

a. Exception posed by the Doctrine of Operative Fact

Ways of repealing laws

• Express - If the law expressly provides for such;
• Implied - If the provisions of the subsequent law are incompatible or inconsistent with those of the previous law, provided, it is impossible to reconcile the two laws.

Requisites of an implied repeal

• The laws cover the same subject matter; and
• The latter is repugnant to the earlier.

NOTE: Implied repeals are NOT to be favored because they rest only on the presumption that because the old and the new laws are incompatible with each other, there is an intention to repeal the old.

Q: Sunrise executed an undertaking to construct a city road at its own expense, subject to reimbursement through tax credits. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin persons from obstructing Sunrise Garden in proceeding with the construction of the city road. The Court of Appeals directed the Division Clerk of Court to issue the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondents, its agents or representatives from implementing the trial court’s amended writ of injunction. Sunrise Garden cited PD No. 1818 which prohibits a court from issuing preliminary injunction in any case involving an infrastructure project. When this case was filed, RA No. 8975 was already effective which provides for an express repeal of PD No. 1818. RA No. 8975 restricts courts other than the Supreme Court from issuing a preliminary injunction against the government or a person acting under its direction to restrain a national government project. Is the allegation of Sunrise acceptable?

A: NO. PD No. 1818 has been repealed by RA No. 8975. The repealing clause of RA No. 8975 provides for an express repeal. The Supreme Court has held that implied repeals are not favored, and "the failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law." The express repeal of Presidential Decree No. 1818 clearly indicates Congress' intent to replace Presidential Decree No. 1818 with Republic Act No. 8975. The new law covers only national government infrastructure projects. This case involves a local government infrastructure project. Hence, Sunrise’s contention is untenable. (Sunrise Garden Corporation v. Court of Appeals And First Alliance Real Estate Development, Inc., G.R. No. 158836, September 30, 2015, as penned by J. Leonen)

Instances of implied repeal

• When the provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are irreconcilably contradictory, in which case, the later act, to the extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of earlier one; and
• When the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute; thus, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. (Carmelita Lledo v. Atty. Cesar V. Lledo, A.M. No. P-95-1167, February 9, 2010)

Revival of repealed law